GatewayRedbirds.com

cpebbles wrote:We can't afford depth. Maybe Freese isn't going to be ready to play 150 next year, but with a budget around $100 million you have two ways you can go: You can sign guys like Pujols, Holliday, and Carpenter, or you can let them walk so that you can sign enough reliable 2-win players that a replacement-level performance from an underachieving player doesn't happen now and then.

We have obvious areas for improvement at 2B, 3B, RF, the back of the rotation, and the bullpen. There just isn't any way we are going to fill each of those needs without crippling this team by trading one of our stars. Freese is as good an option as we have at any of those positions. Going into spring training counting on Freese as 3B is far better than counting on Skip as our 2B, and at least no worse than counting on Lohse/Lynn as the back of the rotation, or Jay and/or Craig as our RF.

We can afford depth, if we do it right. Again if payroll is $100M next year, a $6M raise, that's $16M to spend. If it's spend wisely you can end up with some quality bench players who are not insignificant upgrades over what we have.

I agree with you mostly only where we can upgrade. And we can't add significant upgrades without crippling the team.

Where I disagree is Freese being at a better option at 3B than Skip at 2B. While he's replacement level this year (.2 Wins), he was 1.5 Win player last year and has been healthy. Almost 1900 AB's at 96 OPS+.

Freese was a 27 year old rookie, with a whopping 87 games at the Majors and has health concerns. And as Steve loves to point out, one XBH for a month? From May 16 to June 27 he had exactly 2 XBH.

I think it's easier to improve over Skip (Greene, Descalso maybe would easily be upgrades) and likely cheaper. But if we go in to next season without someone you're ready to make 100 starts at 3B besides Freese, I don't wanna hear any [expletive] when we go get Pedro [expletive] Feliz to play third at the deadline. And with a moderate amount of payroll flexibility, getting someone like Kouz, Hairston, Inge; use in-house upgrades at 2B; add a back of the rotation starter and LHRP with relative ease.

Again if payroll is $100M next year, a $6M raise, that's $16M to spend.

Again, that's wrong. The math doesn't work that way at all. You're missing raises, arbitration, all kinds of things.

I just went through and added it up again -- the third time in this thread. Over $88.25 million with the roster filled, arb counted, and raises factored in -- not signing anyone! I've been saying $10.5 million to keep payroll at exactly what it is today, which is roughly $99 million.

So, as I've said numerous times, you have a little bit of wiggle room depending on how you fill in the roster, but we're talking about hundreds of thousands, not millions.

The complaints about Feliz seemed to be almost exclusively based on his truly lousy year-to-date at the time he was acquired. If people had been relatively sure he was still a 1.5+ win player, more people would have accepted the move.

I don't think there is any chance that Skip's defense improves next year, so even if he avoids the awful offensive start we are still looking at a near-replacement level performance, from a guy who could very well be a league-average corner outfielder if we moved him back there.

If TLR comes back, I could see this team re-signing Feliz. I'm not saying I want that, but I could see it happening.

phinstd wrote:If TLR comes back, I could see this team re-signing Feliz. I'm not saying I want that, but I could see it happening.

that would make peter happy

Fat Strat wrote:

Again if payroll is $100M next year, a $6M raise, that's $16M to spend.

Again, that's wrong. The math doesn't work that way at all. You're missing raises, arbitration, all kinds of things.

I just went through and added it up again -- the third time in this thread. Over $88.25 million with the roster filled, arb counted, and raises factored in -- not signing anyone! I've been saying $10.5 million to keep payroll at exactly what it is today, which is roughly $99 million.

I was using you're $10.5 and the number from Cot's...

2010: $ 94,220,500

So at $100M that's $6.8M, or $17.3M in payroll flexibility. Now it's entirely possible that you're $99M is more accurate - but does that include mid-season acquisitions? If so, an opening day payroll of $100M looks like it's about $16M of flexibility.

cpebbles wrote:The complaints about Feliz seemed to be almost exclusively based on his truly lousy year-to-date at the time he was acquired. If people had been relatively sure he was still a 1.5+ win player, more people would have accepted the move.

I don't think there is any chance that Skip's defense improves next year, so even if he avoids the awful offensive start we are still looking at a near-replacement level performance, from a guy who could very well be a league-average corner outfielder if we moved him back there.

I guess that's fair - and I didn't mind the pickup, given the options. I just mean if we're gonna pay Skip $2M, he's probably going to be the 2B - or at least the one that plays the most. But at least he's healthy, and for him to be a 1-1.5 Win player, I think all he has to do is hit about his career averages for the season. I'm ok with that - because he'll like be healthy all year. But if you're banking on Freese being healthy and productive for 120 starts next season, I think we're in trouble. Because we will likely end up with another Miles/Flip/Feliz situation at third.

So at $100M that's $6.8M, or $17.3M in payroll flexibility. Now it's entirely possible that you're $99M is more accurate - but does that include mid-season acquisitions? If so, an opening day payroll of $100M looks like it's about $16M of flexibility.

Things aren't static between '10 and '11. Several players are getting raises. There are arbitration considerations. Options have kicked in. You have to start from the Cot's listing for '11 -- about $68M and then add in everything that has to happen to fill out the roster.

So this is where we end up: Over $88.25 million with the roster filled, arb counted, and raises factored in -- not signing anyone! I've been saying $10.5 million to keep opening day payroll in 2011 at exactly what it is today, which is roughly $99 million.

Fat Strat wrote:

So at $100M that's $6.8M, or $17.3M in payroll flexibility. Now it's entirely possible that you're $99M is more accurate - but does that include mid-season acquisitions? If so, an opening day payroll of $100M looks like it's about $16M of flexibility.

Things aren't static between '10 and '11. Several players are getting raises. There are arbitration considerations. Options have kicked in. You have to start from the Cot's listing for '11 -- about $68M and then add in everything that has to happen to fill out the roster.

So this is where we end up: Over $88.25 million with the roster filled, arb counted, and raises factored in -- not signing anyone! I've been saying $10.5 million to keep opening day payroll in 2011 at exactly what it is today, which is roughly $99 million.

I know, I just read it again and I was explaining how I came to the number -using the 10.5 you said we had if we didn't raise salary, but I looked at Cot's and it said our payroll was $94M. I see what you're saying, I know it's $88M without signing anyone - I worded it poorly, but I get it. See I understand how you come to the numbers, I understand that you are taking the $68M we have committed adding some arbitration and other raises and come to $88M. But the number you kept repeating was $10.5M of money to spend. Then I looked at the # on Cot's and it said $94M. So I thought "Hey, Fat's a pretty smart guy and he said we have $10.5M of payroll without adding anything. that must mean we only have 83.5M committed for next year and we get an extra $6M to get around $100M, that's $16.5M to spend".

But clearly there were some discrepancies with numbers.

Regardless, I can't see ownership [expletive] about $5-6M if it's justified on upgrades.

I did the same thing last week until jag caught me up on it.

Regardless, I can't see ownership [expletive] about $5-6M if it's justified on upgrades.

I agree, except I'm praying that the $5-6 they don't [expletive] about is the jump that gets from opening day of $94 million in 2010 to 2011 opening day of $100 million.

Part of me is afraid they'll say "we're raising payroll this year" and raise it to $97, which would be extending Westbrook in November and then heading to Hawaii for the rest of the offseason.

vinsanity wrote:Why is everyone so keen on trading away cheap, quality production to upgrade at 2B or 3B?

Trading Lohse, Ryan and Rasmus for Hanley just moves the offensive problem from SS to CF, and Ryan is a better defender (I believe) than Hanley. And add's another starter we need to fill a spot.

Nobody knows much about Lohse's physical condition, but there's a decent chance that all he'll do in 2011 is suck for two months before the Cardinals have to fill the spot anyway.

I like Jon Jay's shot at being an average CF a lot better than Brendan Ryan's shot at being an average SS.

Schumaker has no use on the roster as long as Rasmus and Jay are around.