GatewayRedbirds.com

Sounds good.

Magneto2.0 wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:

Magneto2.0 wrote:

MrCrowesGarden wrote:I know that people say Morosi is a Boras sock puppet (and it's probably true to a degree), but he said on MLB Network Radio that it really does sound like Plan A is Donaldson, Plan B is Hosmer for the Cardinals.

Good. I hope we get one.

We are a better team with either add, I don't see the downside.

The downside (for Donaldson anyway) is that the Blue Jays have specifically said that they don't want to trade him, so it's going to take a ridiculous offer to get them to budge.

Yeah, I should've been more specific. There's no downside unless we give up Reyes. Then we're left without a potential ace. Anyone else, I don't care who we give up for him. As for Hosmer, the money doesn't really concern me. If we can't get Donaldson, get Hosmer. He's projected for another 3 win season. That would probably put us over the top for a playoff birth.

But we wouldn't see a net gain of 3 wins from Hosmer. We'd get the difference between Hosmer's 3 over Gyorko's likely ~2 (and hoping that Marp wouldn't see a huge drop in defensive value by moving to a more demanding position). Given, signing a 1B or 3B gives us some residual benefit of hedging against a poor or injury-plagued season from an IF. But I don't think we can just add 3 WAR to the ledger--our "R" is higher.

Popeye_Card wrote:

Magneto2.0 wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:

Magneto2.0 wrote:

MrCrowesGarden wrote:I know that people say Morosi is a Boras sock puppet (and it's probably true to a degree), but he said on MLB Network Radio that it really does sound like Plan A is Donaldson, Plan B is Hosmer for the Cardinals.

Good. I hope we get one.

We are a better team with either add, I don't see the downside.

The downside (for Donaldson anyway) is that the Blue Jays have specifically said that they don't want to trade him, so it's going to take a ridiculous offer to get them to budge.

Yeah, I should've been more specific. There's no downside unless we give up Reyes. Then we're left without a potential ace. Anyone else, I don't care who we give up for him. As for Hosmer, the money doesn't really concern me. If we can't get Donaldson, get Hosmer. He's projected for another 3 win season. That would probably put us over the top for a playoff birth.

But we wouldn't see a net gain of 3 wins from Hosmer. We'd get the difference between Hosmer's 3 over Gyorko's likely ~2 (and hoping that Marp wouldn't see a huge drop in defensive value by moving to a more demanding position). Given, signing a 1B or 3B gives us some residual benefit of hedging against a poor or injury-plagued season from an IF. But I don't think we can just add 3 WAR to the ledger--our "R" is higher.

I agree with a lot of this, but there'd also be a boost from sliding Gyorko into that super-sub role, likely reducing Martinez's role and pushing Voit in all likelihood off the roster. And as you mentioned, it does add some flexibility, particularly at second base if Wong has another injury. Gyorko isn't my ideal second baseman, but he's a viable option.

MrCrowesGarden wrote:
I agree with a lot of this, but there'd also be a boost from sliding Gyorko into that super-sub role, likely reducing Martinez's role and pushing Voit in all likelihood off the roster. And as you mentioned, it does add some flexibility, particularly at second base if Wong has another injury. Gyorko isn't my ideal second baseman, but he's a viable option.

I mean, this is probably all moot if the Padres do have a 7 year offer out there for Hosmer. I'm in relative agreement if this were a one year type of upgrade. Hosmer would have been a 5 (even 7, if you are keeping up with the Padres' offer) year "fix" at 1B. We still have Marp signed for 3 years with a relatively friendly deal. Unless we moved him, signing Hosmer forces Marp to 3B for those 3 years. Now there's one less position you can upgrade or slide someone else down the defensive ladder.

1B just makes little sense to devote long-term dollars to, unless you are getting an elite bat. I wouldn't put Hosmer in that category. He would have to come at a pretty attractive price for me to have interest, and I don't believe that's the case.

I just really can't believe he's got a 7-year offer, and if he does, Boras is truly incredible. I can't help but think it'd already be signed if it were true. I do understand your reservations about Hosmer. He still isn't my preferred choice, but I suppose I'm not as down as everyone else.

I’m mostly concerned with crappy infield defense if they move Marp to 3 or -please no- 2nd (which is exactly what Baby Dunc was advocating this afternoon).

It's collusion.

I apologise for banging the drum for this over and over, but it's really annoying to see. Teams earn more and more, and they're determined to pay players less and less (in terms of share of revenue, player wages haven't been lower for a long time).

And the enormous majority of baseball journalism, and comments on baseball forums, is doing the owners' jobs for them. Everything is phrased in how good it is for the ownership of the teams, rather than how good it is for the players (or for the fans). Baseball teams don't lose money (look at the insane profit Loria made from selling a loser team like the Marlins) but the narrative is players with expensive contracts are bad - as if fans would get cheaper tickets if only it weren't for those pesky players wanting a slice of the massive pie.

Anyway, more of the same from me. Having Eric Hosmer would be good because he's good at baseball and would improve the team. How much he's paid will barely move the needle on the profit made by the Cardinals.

Famous Mortimer wrote:It's collusion.

I apologise for banging the drum for this over and over, but it's really annoying to see. Teams earn more and more, and they're determined to pay players less and less (in terms of share of revenue, player wages haven't been lower for a long time).

Let's revisit this collusion idea after Machado, Harper and Kershaw bank $1 billion between them next December. Yes, teams are holding on to a larger share of the revenues, and I'm loathe to side with the owners, but what pushback did the union have against the luxury tax? IIRC, the players completely botched the compensation system, which did more to suppress free agents more than the Bob Nuttings of the world.

And the enormous majority of baseball journalism, and comments on baseball forums, is doing the owners' jobs for them. Everything is phrased in how good it is for the ownership of the teams, rather than how good it is for the players (or for the fans). Baseball teams don't lose money (look at the insane profit Loria made from selling a loser team like the Marlins) but the narrative is players with expensive contracts are bad - as if fans would get cheaper tickets if only it weren't for those pesky players wanting a slice of the massive pie.

You're overselling how many fans read Fangraphs and keep up with players' salaries. It's not as if 26,000 people will sit out a game because Dave Cameron pointed out how an owner will save money by accurately valuing JD Martinez.

Anyway, more of the same from me. Having Eric Hosmer would be good because he's good at baseball and would improve the team. How much he's paid will barely move the needle on the profit made by the Cardinals.

Eric Hosmer isn't better than Matt Carpenter, who is worse at third base than Gyorko. So no, he wouldn't improve the team. I don't know when Hosmer became Keith Hernandez in the field and Lou Brock on the bases, but he has a career OPS+ of 111. Even in a year where Carpenter was playing with one shoulder he still managed a higher ISO than Hosmer. Pass.

Owners care about making money. If they believe that signing player XYZ to a contract will help their bottom line, then they're not going to let other owners convince them not to do it. It's not collusion. Greed, maybe. Frugal business decision, maybe. I don't think it's collusion, though.

The Rockies just signed Wade Davis to the highest per-year contract ever for a relief pitcher.

Famous Mortimer wrote:It's collusion.

I apologise for banging the drum for this over and over, but it's really annoying to see. Teams earn more and more, and they're determined to pay players less and less (in terms of share of revenue, player wages haven't been lower for a long time).

And the enormous majority of baseball journalism, and comments on baseball forums, is doing the owners' jobs for them. Everything is phrased in how good it is for the ownership of the teams, rather than how good it is for the players (or for the fans). Baseball teams don't lose money (look at the insane profit Loria made from selling a loser team like the Marlins) but the narrative is players with expensive contracts are bad - as if fans would get cheaper tickets if only it weren't for those pesky players wanting a slice of the massive pie.

Anyway, more of the same from me. Having Eric Hosmer would be good because he's good at baseball and would improve the team. How much he's paid will barely move the needle on the profit made by the Cardinals.

To be 110% clear, I do not balk at the price tag for Hosmer. The Cardinals could have afforded it.

I balk at a long-term deal for Hosmer being the right move for the Cardinals at this time. He’s good, but not elite. His absolute ceiling may only improve the Cardinals by a win or two over their other 1B and 3B options. It is a huge committment to not move the needle by much, while hampering your roster flexibility for years.

Further on the collusion topic, we wouldn’t be seeing such slow movement on free agents if the current crop didn’t have so many warts. Teams are smarter now. They don’t want to constrict their payroll and roster flexibility with flawed players. Call it collusion if you’d like, but the guys making the signings are looking out for their own jobs. If I made poor decisions with my employer’s money when I have tons of data at my disposal, I’d expect to be canned.

That said, I do find it curious that expected good value-adds like Lance Lynn are still lingering out there. Maybe their asking price is too high. Maybe teams are waiting to see if they miss out on the top guys first. Maybe teams are saving up their dry powder for the next couple of years when elite guys will be available.

As for the percentage of revenue being spent on payroll, I don’t think that’s a valid argument for free agents to be paid more. It would be better for the game if the disparity between what entry-level players and veterans make wasn’t so drastic. Let’s raise the MLB minimum. Or even more preferred, quit charging me a $10 convenience fee on top of my already expensive tickets for the convenience of handing me the ticket.