GatewayRedbirds.com

To me, there's not much to complain about in regards to the Westbroook deal. It was at or slightly below market value for a league average'ish pitcher and the terms were short. Even is there were other guys available later, you don't know that going in, and you have familiarity with Westbrook... that can't be overlooked.

BUT, there's no reason to let Westbrook's presence on the roster dictate how you approach other, special opportunities. Imagine you've recently bought a decent 1500 sq ft house for $150k. A year later someone offers you -- and only you -- the chance to buy a 3000 sq. foot home with a pool for $150k -- normally priced at $250k. Your family's budget would allow you to buy that other house (if only barely).

Anyone with half a brain takes the rare opportunity to buy the other house, knowing that you'll easily be able to move one of them down the road. It doesn't mean it was a mistake to buy the smaller house. Instead, you took advantage of a rare opportunity for investment. Just because you already own a house doesn't mean you shouldn't buy the other, better one, so long as you can afford it.

You take the rare opportunity to buy Oswalt even though you have Westbrook. It doesn't mean it was a mistake to sign Westbrook or that he's now a whipping boy. It's just a rare opportunity that we should take advantage of. And it would be foolish not to just because we already have 5 starters.


And when you know you have the opportunity to buy that 2500 sq ft home on the cheap, you don't blow what extra money you had in your budget on a slightly used Ria Rio when you already have a garage full of Ria Rio's.

Personally, I think DeWitt should buythis island and let anyone who wants use it. I mean, sure, it would only be for our entertainment and wouldn't help the team, but since he has no limit on money he can spend and his only goal is to entertain the fans and not necessarily worry about fielding a competitive team year in and year out he should most definitely do it.

vinsanity wrote:

Jmodene wrote:Besides, if we had non-tendered McClellan, he'd already be an Oriole and we wouldn't have gotten anything for him (assuming that a deal even happens).

Except we would have had more payroll free to sign someone like Oswalt...I'd take that trade.

I also forgot that Guthrie was just traded to Colorado.

You also forgot that Oswalt was asking for a lot more money than anyone - not just us - was willing to pay him. Regardless of whether we had "room" in our budget to sign him, we simply weren't willing to sign Oswalt for $10MM, which is why we offered him $3MM to $5MM. McClellan's salary has little to do with that - if we wanted to pay Oswalt $10MM, we would have done so, even if McClellan's massive salary put us 2% over "budget".

Jmodene wrote:

vinsanity wrote:Except we would have had more payroll free to sign someone like Oswalt...I'd take that trade.
I also forgot that Guthrie was just traded to Colorado.

You also forgot that Oswalt was asking for a lot more money than anyone - not just us - was willing to pay him. Regardless of whether we had "room" in our budget to sign him, we simply weren't willing to sign Oswalt for $10MM, which is why we offered him $3MM to $5MM. McClellan's salary has little to do with that - if we wanted to pay Oswalt $10MM, we would have done so, even if McClellan's massive salary put us 2% over "budget".

No i didn't forget that. Which is why I said "like" Oswalt and not limit myself to him. Edwin Jackson could have been an option as well.

All of these things are hearsay and speculation. If the Cardinals offered $5M, that's about the difference between the current payroll and their stated, self-imposed, limit it would make sense. If they were willing to go to that limit, and that limit was $3M higher they'd be offering $8M, which is on the lower end of what Oswalt was looking for. They are much closer to a deal.

It's not that KMac's salary is massive, which I've never said. It's not that KMac's contract is all that bad. It's that KMac can be replaced for 1/5th the cost and that cost is the rumored difference between our high offer and Oswalt's low-end demands. That was a decision made this year for an easily replaced player. If you had $10 and buy a $5 burger without reading the menu, then see a $10 filet, wouldn't you be kicking yourself for spending that $5?

vinsanity wrote:

Jmodene wrote:

vinsanity wrote:Except we would have had more payroll free to sign someone like Oswalt...I'd take that trade.
I also forgot that Guthrie was just traded to Colorado.

You also forgot that Oswalt was asking for a lot more money than anyone - not just us - was willing to pay him. Regardless of whether we had "room" in our budget to sign him, we simply weren't willing to sign Oswalt for $10MM, which is why we offered him $3MM to $5MM. McClellan's salary has little to do with that - if we wanted to pay Oswalt $10MM, we would have done so, even if McClellan's massive salary put us 2% over "budget".

No i didn't forget that. Which is why I said "like" Oswalt and not limit myself to him. Edwin Jackson could have been an option as well.

All of these things are hearsay and speculation. If the Cardinals offered $5M, that's about the difference between the current payroll and their stated, self-imposed, limit it would make sense. If they were willing to go to that limit, and that limit was $3M higher they'd be offering $8M, which is on the lower end of what Oswalt was looking for. They are much closer to a deal.

It's not that KMac's salary is massive, which I've never said. It's not that KMac's contract is all that bad. It's that KMac can be replaced for 1/5th the cost and that cost is the rumored difference between our high offer and Oswalt's low-end demands. That was a decision made this year for an easily replaced player. If you had $10 and buy a $5 burger without reading the menu, then see a $10 filet, wouldn't you be kicking yourself for spending that $5?

Not really - I'm a dollar menu kind of guy.

vinsanity wrote:If you had $10 and buy a $5 burger without reading the menu, then see a $10 filet, wouldn't you be kicking yourself for spending that $5?

This and all speculation like this assumes that $10 is all we have available to spend. Setting a budget for oneself is not the same as expending all of one's resources.

I suspect that if we'd nontendered McClellan this discussion would be exactly the same except for replacing every McClellan with "Schumaker". And if we'd nontendered both of them this thread would be all about how the Westbrook contract is keeping us from signing Oswalt.

Vidor wrote:

vinsanity wrote:If you had $10 and buy a $5 burger without reading the menu, then see a $10 filet, wouldn't you be kicking yourself for spending that $5?

This and all speculation like this assumes that $10 is all we have available to spend. Setting a budget for oneself is not the same as expending all of one's resources.

vinsanity wrote:All of these things are hearsay and speculation. If the Cardinals offered $5M, that's about the difference between the current payroll and their stated, self-imposed, limit it would make sense.

It is speculative. No where did I say it was all of the resources. Setting a budget isn't the same as expending all of the resources. But just as I don't know what resources they have, neither do you.

Vidor wrote:I suspect that if we'd nontendered McClellan this discussion would be exactly the same except for replacing every McClellan with "Schumaker". And if we'd nontendered both of them this thread would be all about how the Westbrook contract is keeping us from signing Oswalt.

Vidor wrote:This and all speculation like this assumes that $10 is all we have available to spend. Setting a budget for oneself is not the same as expending all of one's resources.

For one, you're now speculating on how the rest of us would react. There are a few main differences in these three contracts.
1. Skip v KMac - Both happened this year. The initial Oswalt rumors were for $8M. The presumed budget space was $5M. That space minus KMac is nearly $8M. That space minus Skip is $6.5M or still too little. Skip is making $1.5M without an obvious replacement, with proven ML contributions at 2B, CF, RF who will miss the opening day roster because of his presence. KMac could be replaced by Sanchez who is likely going to start the season at AAA and is arguable a better option as a reliever.

2. Westbrook v. KMac. When Westbrook signed his extension he was a fairly good bet to earn the contract. He signed his extension last year, before anyone had dreamed of signing Oswalt and coming up $3M short. I'm not whipping Furcal or Beltran or Berkman am I?

The issue is that after Beltran and Furcal and Berkman had signed, the team knew about how much was left to spend on improvements. They knew Oswalt hadn't signed and would improve the team. The knew about how much he would demand. They knew that amount was close to the amount they had left to spend. Then went and voluntarily paid KMac $2.5M when they could have had a better player for league minimum. Non-tender him and go hard after Oswalt. If you miss, you have more money to take on salary at the deadline and likely a better player on the 25 man in Sanchez.

jagtrader wrote:I think the Cardinals should have non-tendered McClellan. I think they offered him arbitration for reasons beyond his pitching talent. It didn't have anyting to do with WAR per win or whatever other contrived [expletive] stat tells us exactly what a player is worth. I don't believe McClellan's presence on the roster is handicapping the team in a significant way, whether signing Oswalt or keeping Sanchez or whatever. It's just a tiny part of the picture.

I agree 100%.

vinsanity wrote:For one, you're now speculating on how the rest of us would react.

True, and it would have been better if I had spoken of the Internet rather than implying that this board is somehow different. But I still think that would be the reaction. If Skip and KMac were employed elsewhere and they'd been replaced on the roster by two dudes making the minimum, thus saving the full three million, we would still be reading about how the Cardinal budget doesn't "allow" for the acquisition of Oswalt.

They knew that amount was close to the amount they had left to spend.

Here it is again, the notion that they really only had five million left in some 2012 piggy bank. As with speculation about alternate histories, no one will ever know if that is true or not, but I strongly suspect that it is not. We will never know who is right, but I think that if the Cardinals really wanted Roy Oswalt they would hand him a check for eight million. They don't want him that bad, so they haven't.

Actually I think there might be one way to tell. It will be interesting to see, if the Cardinals find themselves in contention in 2012 as we all think/hope they will be, whether or not they add any payroll via in-season deals. Certainly if they wound up adding a net eight million (a pro-rata Roy Oswalt and a rental second baseman, maybe?) within the season it would cast these discussions in a different light.

My thoughts on McClellan.

1. He should not make the team over pitcher like Sanchez, Salas, Boggs, Lynn. Send him to AAA if you have to. Depth is a good thing, and he's proven that he can perform in any bullpen role minus closer, which he would be like 8th in line for anyways.
2. Don't trade him just to trade him. Only trade him if getting rid of him is necessary to sign someone, like Oswalt.
3. He will be the whipping boy, because the way the media portrayed the Cardinals having to get rid of him before they can sign Oswalt, and also because he is likely the highest paid reliever, but also amongst the worst on our club.