GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently June 18 19, 7:39 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
PostPosted: December 19 18, 5:07 am 
Offline
GRB's most intelligent & humble poster
User avatar

Joined: April 17 06, 11:25 am
Posts: 26987
We still have Fowler, Bader, and O’Neill locked in to 2020 and beyond. And technically we still have Jose Martinez too. At the beginning of 2017 only one of these guys was on our radar (Fowler) as being in our starting OF in 2019.

OF for the Cardinals has been incredibly fluid over the years, and typically we’ve always been able to find good production. So I’m not buying that argument for committing likely the largest contract in MLB history this offseason to solve that likely non-existant problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: December 19 18, 7:18 am 
Offline
Perennial All-Star
User avatar

Joined: September 8 09, 10:56 pm
Posts: 7034
Location: South County, St. Louis
If it comes down to extending Goldschmidt or Ozuna then it's obvious that you go with Goldy first.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: December 19 18, 7:50 am 
Offline
Next Gen Wart
User avatar

Joined: April 22 06, 6:53 pm
Posts: 8296
Location: St. Louis
Popeye_Card wrote:
We still have Fowler, Bader, and O’Neill locked in to 2020 and beyond. And technically we still have Jose Martinez too. At the beginning of 2017 only one of these guys was on our radar (Fowler) as being in our starting OF in 2019.

OF for the Cardinals has been incredibly fluid over the years, and typically we’ve always been able to find good production. So I’m not buying that argument for committing likely the largest contract in MLB history this offseason to solve that likely non-existant problem.


I think the argument for Harper isn't that we have some giant hole that only he can fill. It's that he is the type of talent that is incredibly hard to acquire, especially at his current age. 2-3 win players are a dime a dozen, but Harper has the potential to put up 5+ win seasons.

Let's pretend that Harper turns into a 26 year old Albert Pujols and puts out that kind of output for the remainder of his career - including Albert's steep aging curve. If you sign Harper to a 10 year deal and he just replicated Pujols' career at the same age he will have averaged 5.1 wins a year over 10 years. That kind of ceiling is incredibly rare regardless of how you acquire it, but especially through the FA market. Having a guy on the roster that the GM knows could blow up and carry his team to the playoffs at any time is a luxury few teams have and something that happens generationally.

You don't worry about Harper blocking other players or how you can replace him because players like him don't become available very often.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: December 19 18, 8:20 am 
Offline
GRB's most intelligent & humble poster
User avatar

Joined: April 17 06, 11:25 am
Posts: 26987
TheoSqua wrote:
Popeye_Card wrote:
We still have Fowler, Bader, and O’Neill locked in to 2020 and beyond. And technically we still have Jose Martinez too. At the beginning of 2017 only one of these guys was on our radar (Fowler) as being in our starting OF in 2019.

OF for the Cardinals has been incredibly fluid over the years, and typically we’ve always been able to find good production. So I’m not buying that argument for committing likely the largest contract in MLB history this offseason to solve that likely non-existant problem.


I think the argument for Harper isn't that we have some giant hole that only he can fill. It's that he is the type of talent that is incredibly hard to acquire, especially at his current age. 2-3 win players are a dime a dozen, but Harper has the potential to put up 5+ win seasons.

Let's pretend that Harper turns into a 26 year old Albert Pujols and puts out that kind of output for the remainder of his career - including Albert's steep aging curve. If you sign Harper to a 10 year deal and he just replicated Pujols' career at the same age he will have averaged 5.1 wins a year over 10 years. That kind of ceiling is incredibly rare regardless of how you acquire it, but especially through the FA market. Having a guy on the roster that the GM knows could blow up and carry his team to the playoffs at any time is a luxury few teams have and something that happens generationally.

You don't worry about Harper blocking other players or how you can replace him because players like him don't become available very often.


Believe me, I know what Harper represents. The problem is that we have to pretend that he turns into a 26 year old Albert Pujols. When in reality he has hovered around a 4-5 fWAR player with one spike 4 seasons ago. Yes, he has potential to be that 5+ WAR guy for several seasons, but it is a really, really big gamble.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: December 19 18, 9:06 am 
Offline
Next Gen Wart
User avatar

Joined: April 22 06, 6:53 pm
Posts: 8296
Location: St. Louis
Popeye_Card wrote:
TheoSqua wrote:
Popeye_Card wrote:
We still have Fowler, Bader, and O’Neill locked in to 2020 and beyond. And technically we still have Jose Martinez too. At the beginning of 2017 only one of these guys was on our radar (Fowler) as being in our starting OF in 2019.

OF for the Cardinals has been incredibly fluid over the years, and typically we’ve always been able to find good production. So I’m not buying that argument for committing likely the largest contract in MLB history this offseason to solve that likely non-existant problem.


I think the argument for Harper isn't that we have some giant hole that only he can fill. It's that he is the type of talent that is incredibly hard to acquire, especially at his current age. 2-3 win players are a dime a dozen, but Harper has the potential to put up 5+ win seasons.

Let's pretend that Harper turns into a 26 year old Albert Pujols and puts out that kind of output for the remainder of his career - including Albert's steep aging curve. If you sign Harper to a 10 year deal and he just replicated Pujols' career at the same age he will have averaged 5.1 wins a year over 10 years. That kind of ceiling is incredibly rare regardless of how you acquire it, but especially through the FA market. Having a guy on the roster that the GM knows could blow up and carry his team to the playoffs at any time is a luxury few teams have and something that happens generationally.

You don't worry about Harper blocking other players or how you can replace him because players like him don't become available very often.


Believe me, I know what Harper represents. The problem is that we have to pretend that he turns into a 26 year old Albert Pujols. When in reality he has hovered around a 4-5 fWAR player with one spike 4 seasons ago. Yes, he has potential to be that 5+ WAR guy for several seasons, but it is a really, really big gamble.


I think Albert Pujols is a fair example of that risk/reward. The Angels have been pretty mediocre since they signed Pujols to that ginormous deal. Over the last 3 seasons, Pujols has been worth 15%ish of the Angels payroll and have given them roughly -.5 wins a season, which is about worst case scenario for a contract like this. So take that 25m and buy wins at the FA level - we'll say the team got lucky and had someone outperform their FA contract at 5mil a win. So instead of -.5 that money is used to get someone who gives them 5 wins a game.

2018: The Angels were 23 games behind the division leader. 5 wins gets them over .500, but that's about it.
2017: The Angels were 21 games behind the division leader. 5 wins gets them over .500 and a a game or two behind the wildcard, but that's about it.
2016: The Angels were 21 games behind the division leader. 5 wins gets them a game under .500 and that's about it.

So even though Pujols didn't help them much. It's not like the 5 win difference you'd want from his money or his lack of production would have changed those rosters. They were fundamentally flawed and Pujols didn't change that. You could argue that his presence was an opportunity cost as the GM didn't figure he needed another core addition as Pujols was going to get them over the hump, but I disagree with that as well. The Angles have continued to be aggressive in the FA market, signing guys like Upton and Ohtani, and they were easily able to afford resigning Trout.

So while Pujols didn't work out like they had hoped, it didn't cause the team to miss the playoffs, and it didn't prevent the team from making other aggressive moves with their payroll.

The Cardinals are in a position where every win counts. The value of additional wins to this team is much higher than to teams like Boston, LA, and NY that are already playoff teams, or to teams like the White Sox who need more than just Harper. The risk is high, but the Cardinals can command a big enough payroll to work around a Harper that isn't a 8 win player, and at his age and production the odds of him completely bottoming out and providing no value is pretty slim.

You only have 25 roster spots, so I'm a firm believer in using those spots to acquire as high-of-ceiling players as possible. If they hit their ceiling that is value you can't find elsewhere, and if they miss - there are tons of players with replacement value production. So if I were DeWitt i'd open DeWallet and put out an offer that would be hard to refuse. I think the team could put 20% of its payroll to Harper and still be successful.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: December 19 18, 9:35 am 
Offline
Fringe Major League Player

Joined: December 12 18, 9:43 pm
Posts: 106
The problem with the Harper signing or any signing similar is the last four years, we have to remember The Cards are a top third revenue team, but not one of the richest no matter what Boras says. I would think with all the examples of players breaking down after their prime (post steroid era) people would understand why an organization would have pause before making a deal like this, especially if you're an organization that's had great success without ever doing anything like that...It's just too big a risk! I wouldn't make a deal at this point over six years for a 26 year old player. Then reevaluate the player again at the end of the deal. You can say the market has changed and someone will give him close to what he wants, and that's great, probably true. But it still doesn't mean it's a good deal.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dmarx114, Google [Bot] and 23 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group