Dexter Fowler

[jwill182]

Josh Reddick has played about 1.5 seasons fewer than Fowler and his career WAR is only 4 less than Fowler. That's roughly 2.5 WAR per year. I get that, trust me. But what you apparently aren't considering is that Fowler has played 90% of his career in 2 of the best offensive parks in baseball, while Reddick has played in 2 neutral-ish parks for his entire career. And while that may not account for all of that difference, I feel like it should apply to at least 2 of that 4 WAR.

I'm almost certain WAR is park-adjusted.

Actually, I think you're right...not sure why I didn't think of that.

Either way, I stand by my point. Fowler is not worth $7M/yr more than Reddick.

Lol

(BTW, I see you're in Michigan, I will be traveling up there to see family Friday through Sunday of next week. Love it up there. Would love to move there, but my wife would never agree to that.)

[heyzeus]

Josh Reddick has played about 1.5 seasons fewer than Fowler and his career WAR is only 4 less than Fowler. That's roughly 2.5 WAR per year. I get that, trust me. But what you apparently aren't considering is that Fowler has played 90% of his career in 2 of the best offensive parks in baseball, while Reddick has played in 2 neutral-ish parks for his entire career. And while that may not account for all of that difference, I feel like it should apply to at least 2 of that 4 WAR.

I'm almost certain WAR is park-adjusted.

It is.

I don't think anyone recommended spending 4/80. Everyone's said 4/64 is a reasonable price, while noting that that may not be enough to get it done. After all, this is a very weak FA crop, and there's a lot of teams with TV contract money to burn.

[vinsanity]

I agree that'll be the IF tho it surprises me a little? It's a ground ball staff and while individually it's not a bad IF it's a bad defensive IF no matter how you stack it, which seems antithetical to the ground ball pitching philosophy.

It's..disconcerting the flaw is recognized but seems to be willfully ignored?

I don't find it disconcerting when you consider where we are positioned in the hierarchy of the NL. With the Cubs 8-15 wins (96-103 wins) ahead of us (88-92 wins) and no real exciting INF players out there, why not take a season to see what you really have in Diaz and Wong? I can understand if that's the logic. We haven't seen it from Wong, but he really could be the kind of 2b you want on a championship contending team. Same with Diaz. So, I understand giving them a year to show us what they'll become.

I probably wasn't entirely clear; I agree with the approach. I agree they aren't going to make up 10 wins and catch the cubs next year or the year after. It's just the philosophy of the team seems to shift annually and there's no clear long term direction. I see the benefit in seeing what you have with Diaz at SS and since they're...not all in for next year, it seems like a good year to try it.

I just have some concern the coaching and talent philosophies always seem a little dissonant.

Personally, my top target this offseason would have been Justin Turner because of what he would do for our infield -- allowing us to flex Gyorko around again and making Peralta irrelevant. We still could go after him, especially if we miss Fowler, but I just find it unlikely based on what the FO has said...we rarely win bidding wars and Fowler should draw a lot of attention. I won't be disappointed if we don't land him unless we don't do anything else of significance.

Yea, Turner would be a very nice acquisition and would have been my top target as well and again agree with reading between lines of what Mo has said, the IF is done.

As for Fowler, I'd only be disappointed if someone else signs him for 4/65 AND do nothing else. I'll be less disappointed if he signs for 4/80 elsewhere and the FO does nothing.

Some of you are WAY over-valuing Fowler...4 years, $80M? That's my point. Fowler isn't $7M/yr better than Reddick.

[/quote]
One fWAR last year was valued at $8M. He'd only have to average $2.5MM over the next 4 years of his career to be worth $80MM. He's averaged just around 2.2 for his career thus far and coming off a near 5 win season. He's an average defender who walks alot.

I think he's a good bet for at least 8 wins over the next 3 years, and by time the fourth year rolls around, he'll probably only need to be worth 1.5-2 wins to earn his contract. He's got the skills that would generally age well and is probably right at his peak.

For the Cardinals, there aren't many places on the roster that this team will improve. The payroll situation is far from dire; in the next 4 years there are no free agents on the roster that the team needs to be saving payroll for. Last year the OD payroll was $145MM. There's $95MM under contract right now for 2017. The pending FA's are Peralta, Lynn, Broxten, Pena, (2018), Wainwright, Rosenthal, Adams, Maness (2019) and Martinez, Siegrest, Wacha in 2020.

So you have a FA who would marginally improve the team with payroll flexibility at a position that is one of the few that the team is looking to improve. Reddick is a marginal right fielder coming off a bad year, Fowler is a marginal CFer coming off a great year. I think Reddick was probably worth 4/64 as well and it looks like a good buy low for the Stros. And I do think Fowler is probably half a win better, if only because he's an average to slightly below average CFer who walks.

[JL21]

Josh Reddick has played about 1.5 seasons fewer than Fowler and his career WAR is only 4 less than Fowler. That's roughly 2.5 WAR per year. I get that, trust me. But what you apparently aren't considering is that Fowler has played 90% of his career in 2 of the best offensive parks in baseball, while Reddick has played in 2 neutral-ish parks for his entire career. And while that may not account for all of that difference, I feel like it should apply to at least 2 of that 4 WAR.

I'm almost certain WAR is park-adjusted.

Actually, I think you're right...not sure why I didn't think of that.

Either way, I stand by my point. Fowler is not worth $7M/yr more than Reddick.

If you look at their last three-year WAR, Fowler's at 9.5, while Reddick is at 6.8 (and that ignores the fact that Reddick is trending down while Fowler is trending up). That's just under 3.2 per year for Fowler, and just over 2.2 per year for Reddick. Basically a WAR of 1.0 per year. Aaaaaand the cost of a win on the open market is $8M/WAR.

Or in other words, if you think their last three years are a reasonable approximation of their overall production, Fowler isn't worth $7M/yr more than Reddick. He's worth $8M/yr. more than Reddick.

One way you see Fowler's speed manifest itself (and gives him a value edge over Reddick) is his batting average on balls in play, which is routinely high (career, it's .342 compared to .280 for Reddick). There are the walks, which is not insignificant (Fowler's walked 4% more for his career than Reddick). The last two years for Reddick, defensively (at least using Fangraphs' DEF stat) have been really, really ugly. He has a reputation for good defense, but his last two years have probably deflated whatever good will he established in that regard the last few years. As a matter of fact, he's been quite a bit worse than Fowler, which is no small feat. And Reddick has an extreme split vs. lefties. You might as well use Adam Wainwright instead of Reddick vs. lefties. Fowler, on the other hand, is split-proof.

Don't get me wrong. I thought Reddick was a good buy-low candidate for whoever picked him up. And I'm not wildly enamored with Fowler, who I know has some flaws, at least in particular as a fit for the next iteration of the Cardinals. But there's a reason Fowler will get more money than Reddick. He's been a better player.

[MinorLeagueGuy]

I would hate to look at our team salary going forward and see that a large part of our payroll is Waino(washed up), Leake( just gross), and Fowler( a cog, a luxury for a team who can spend $20m and not miss a beat). That'd be in the neighborhood of $60m dedicated to mediocre. Add Yadi, who seemed to have one of his worst defensive seasons, making $15~m and you've gotten less Bang for your buck.

There's no easy fix. That is, unless we're going to bump payroll an extra $20m, and that still doesn't guarentee that we'll ACTUALLY SPEND IT. Since that's not going to happen, I'd rather we sit in our hands and hope our prospects don't have [expletive] for brains and kill themselves.

[jack76]

Josh Reddick has played about 1.5 seasons fewer than Fowler and his career WAR is only 4 less than Fowler. That's roughly 2.5 WAR per year. I get that, trust me. But what you apparently aren't considering is that Fowler has played 90% of his career in 2 of the best offensive parks in baseball, while Reddick has played in 2 neutral-ish parks for his entire career. And while that may not account for all of that difference, I feel like it should apply to at least 2 of that 4 WAR.

I'm almost certain WAR is park-adjusted.

It is.

I don't think anyone recommended spending 4/80. Everyone's said 4/64 is a reasonable price, while noting that that may not be enough to get it done. After all, this is a very weak FA crop, and there's a lot of teams with TV contract money to burn.

I'm fascinated by the feeling that we should constrain spending to what a player is worth. 4/80 might be an overpay, but in my mind, that isn't really the issue. Adding Fowler would make this team better in the coming year and paying him 20 M or 25 M wouldn't constrain us from improving the team further in 2017. As a fan, that's really the only measure of whether it is worth signing any particular player. The overpay that should worry us is one where we are constrained from extending Martinez or Piscotty or whoever we deem necessary, the jackpot of free agents coming after the 2017 season, and not the team's profit margin.

Ownership is going to make money -- that's their right. But, given the overall increase in the organization's value on top of its net cash profits, I find it hard to believe the Cardinals couldn't increase their payroll to whatever they want and still make money. I wonder what a reasonable profit should be for them versus improving the team, even if it overpays individual players to make discrete improvements.

[go birds]

fowler to me is a supplementary piece to a great offense. case in point: the cubs last year.

i cant get behind giving him a bunch money/years to be a part of our offense, which probably wont be very good next year.

[pioneer98]

fowler to me is a supplementary piece to a great offense. case in point: the cubs last year.

i cant get behind giving him a bunch money/years to be a part of our offense, which probably wont be very good next year.

I totally agree with this. Fowler is a marginal improvement at best. I would bet he's never going to have an offensive season like he did last year again. He was hitting in front of Bryant all season, he's only going to be older, etc.

[MinorLeagueGuy]

The rub is, of course any billionaire CAN increase payroll for what is essentially a hobby. But not all of them will, actually very few. Owners like Jerry Jones, Mark Cuban, and Al Davis inflate their payroll when they see a guy who excites them as a sports fan. Sometimes to the detriment of their personal pocketbook. Sometimes they add a few expensive pieces when there isn't one particular piece. It's almost as if they want to see their favorite team be successful, and throw caution to the wind regarding what their players take home. I've never gotten the impression that the DeWitts have a hard-on for baseball, pardon my french. They're buisness people that chose to do buisness in one of the top baseball cities in the world, and owning a baseball team isn't cheap. Their model allows for a "competitive" team, not a juggernaut. It's just that these days with a lot of money in the sport, it doesn't take much for a team to be considered competitive, so there's more teams fighting for a pie. Therefore, rather than field an expensive dream team, they play the odds that with a little luck we'll be in the conversation come fall.

[JL21]

DeWitt has been involved in baseball his whole life. His Master's thesis was about baseball and he spent his youth learning everything he could from all of the people he encountered in the game. His father was an owner, he's an owner, and now he's mentoring his son. He's also one of the most actively involved owners in baseball decisions in the whole game (which I used to think was a bad thing, but I was wrong, because he's been the biggest constant of the run of franchise success from 1996-present).

Whatever you think of the dude, and I understand that there are fair criticisms, he is absolutely 100% a baseball person.