GatewayRedbirds.com

Vidor wrote:That is true. McLane might simply decide he'd like to be sixteen million dollars richer. If you're Mozeliak you might be hoping that's precisely the case.

Or the GM might decide that $10 million, or whatever the Cardinals insist on valuing Miller at, would be better spent in the next couple of drafts picking up two blue-chip prospects instead of one. This really is all about marginal value rather than pure talent, and even lowly Brendan Ryan legitimately has as much value as Oswalt due to their contracts.

cpebbles wrote: even lowly Brendan Ryan legitimately has as much value as Oswalt due to their contracts.

No matter how much you say it, it isn't true. Ryan is a replacement-level player.

Actually, he's a tad better than a replacement level player, which is a slight bit more valuable a commodity than a player with a market-value contract.

This has been well hashed-out in the sabermetric world. If anyone is just repeating half-assed analysis over and over as if to make it true, it's the person who is blithely ignoring the entire matter of Oswalt's contract.

cpebbles wrote:Actually, he's a tad better than a replacement level player, which is a slight bit more valuable a commodity than a player with a market-value contract.

VORP: 0.1

Yes, he's the slightest of bits better than a "replacement level player". A replacement level player is defined as someone that the average organization would have readily available to them. If the organization is expected to have someone readily available, then what do they gain by adding someone equivalent?

This has been well hashed-out in the sabermetric world. If anyone is just repeating half-assed analysis over and over as if to make it true, it's the person who is blithely ignoring the entire matter of Oswalt's contract.

You assume a perfectly efficeient market, according to your own standards of "value"; that players of equivalent production are freely available at the current time; that adding additional wins has no monetary value to the franchise (i.e., makes no difference in playoff revenue); and that projections are accurate.

In other words, not one of your assumptions is true.

Popeye_Card wrote:Not sure if I would call it a failure. We have 2 guys currently on the DL who may or may not make it back this season who make a combined $18MM or so. Hard to justify bringing in a 6th starting pitcher who makes a sizable salary just to fill in for a guy who is temporarily out. That is expensive contingency.

Who gave $40 million to a league average pitcher and spent all the non-Holliday offseason money on an injury risk like Penny?

It's strange to see Haren net such a poor return, yet see the Cardinals unable to land a average type starter while trotting out Suppan and Hawksworth for a month. Maybe Mozeliak was hoping to land a big fish, but will get serious about the Westbrooks of the world this week.

Even if they add that type of starter, they have to address the infield defense. Putting Lopez at third and Schumaker at second is not working. A third base stopgap, can Wigginton play third? or Tejada?, while moving Flip to second will improve the team. Or go after Uggla and live with crummy production from the left sde of the infield.

taxman wrote:You assume a perfectly efficeient market, according to your own standards of "value"; that players of equivalent production are freely available at the current time; that adding additional wins has no monetary value to the franchise (i.e., makes no difference in playoff revenue); and that projections are accurate.

In other words, not one of your assumptions is true.

No, I'm assuming that inefficiencies of the market place, expected increased revenues, and positional scarcity (As if there is a team whose only viable upgrade is in the rotation) don't add up to anywhere near $15 or 20 million. I'm making allowances for some very small overpayment, but not the ridiculous 80% overpayment you are suggesting is reasonable.

Sure, the combined numbers are not pretty. But honestly it isn't terrible for stop gaps. If the offense gives a bit more than 3.24 runs/game in support (which is below average), then you are coming in at a slightly below .500 expected record. Again--for stop gaps this isn't awful.

The problem is determining if they are needed the entire remainder of the season. I have pretty good hope that we get at least one effective starter back. Lohse is already throwing, and Penny's issues are something that *shouldn't* have a guy on the shelf for over 4 months, but who knows.

I'm not opposed to a deal. I'm just not going to call it a failure if the Cards don't grab an expensive contingency plan to cover very expensive previous commitments. Jake Westbrook has a 4.74 ERA and a WHIP of 1.43. Is that so much improvement over what we have as stop gaps that we *need* to give up any prospects or money to bring him in?

I think that if one is suggesting that Brendan Ryan and Roy Oswalt are of equal value in any respect whatsoever, from any perspective, one needs to step back and reevaluate.

Popeye_Card wrote:Sure, the combined numbers are not pretty. But honestly it isn't terrible for stop gaps. If the offense gives a bit more than 3.24 runs/game in support (which is below average), then you are coming in at a slightly below .500 expected record. Again--for stop gaps this isn't awful.

The problem is determining if they are needed the entire remainder of the season. I have pretty good hope that we get at least one effective starter back. Lohse is already throwing, and Penny's issues are something that *shouldn't* have a guy on the shelf for over 4 months, but who knows.

I'm not opposed to a deal. I'm just not going to call it a failure if the Cards don't grab an expensive contingency plan to cover very expensive previous commitments. Jake Westbrook has a 4.74 ERA and a WHIP of 1.43. Is that so much improvement over what we have as stop gaps that we *need* to give up any prospects or money to bring him in?

They are also averaging less than 4 2/3 IP per start where Westbrook is averaging 6.

InvincibleCakeEater wrote:

Popeye_Card wrote:Sure, the combined numbers are not pretty. But honestly it isn't terrible for stop gaps. If the offense gives a bit more than 3.24 runs/game in support (which is below average), then you are coming in at a slightly below .500 expected record. Again--for stop gaps this isn't awful.

The problem is determining if they are needed the entire remainder of the season. I have pretty good hope that we get at least one effective starter back. Lohse is already throwing, and Penny's issues are something that *shouldn't* have a guy on the shelf for over 4 months, but who knows.

I'm not opposed to a deal. I'm just not going to call it a failure if the Cards don't grab an expensive contingency plan to cover very expensive previous commitments. Jake Westbrook has a 4.74 ERA and a WHIP of 1.43. Is that so much improvement over what we have as stop gaps that we *need* to give up any prospects or money to bring him in?

They are also averaging less than 4 2/3 IP per start where Westbrook is averaging 6.

Part of this is because Suppan and Hawksworth were ramping up pitch counts from bullpen roles.

My basic point is that you want to avoid throwing good money after bad. We haven't really replenished the prospect cupboard after the DeRosa (stop gap filler) and Holliday (star) trades from last year. So there aren't as many fringe-yet-attractive prospects left to trade. I don't think we want to take on a huge salary just to improve the ERA in those starts to a still sub-average point. So my thoughts are go above average, or go with what you have. If the Astros want too much for Oswalt or we didn't have a match with Arizona, then I'm not going to term it a failure if a trade isn't made.