Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
10.19.2008 8:57 pm

PostCards: Concerning Carpenter

St. Louis Post-Dispatch
  • Email this
  • Print this

SOUTH GRAND — So much of what the Cardinals consider doing and end up doing this offseason to improve their roster will be watched and judged through the Chris Carpenter prism.

When Carpenter is healthy, so are the Cardinals’ chances.

When he is not … Well, that is the question presented to the Cardinals this season as they choose whether they will build a team on the hope that Carpenter won’t be limited by the nettlesome nerves in his shoulder or build a team with the depth to handle his potential absence. That is also the theme of a few questions posed in today’s mailbag. Carpenter has a role in the first two questions asked, and then the latest edition of PostCards spins into talking about Jake Peavy and the payroll, a prospect and a new position, Scott Spiezio and his whereabouts, and Albert Pujols and Cooperstown.

That last subject is one I brought up.

Remember, PostCards aims to be weekly during the offseason. So write PostCards@post-dispatch.com with any of your questions. Or, visit any of the links mentioned below.

No transposition needed. On with PostCards:

***

Q: How does Albert Pujols’ surgery compare to the cleanup procedure that Chris Carpenter had during 2007 before resorting to the replacement surgery (a few) months later? Why does this feel like deja vu?

Frank Fuhrig, Virginia

DG: The Carpenter-Pujols comparisons began this past spring training when the team doctor told three of us that the tear in Pujols’ right elbow is more severe than the one that led to Carpenter’s Tommy John surgery in 2007. Mr. Fuhrig has the chronology right: Carpenter had surgery to clean up bone spurs on his elbow and a few months later at the reconstructive surgery. Like Carpenter, Pujols has bone spurs in his elbow and an accumulation of arthritis in there, all near the torn ligament.

And that is where the comparison ends.

After hearing the details of Pujols’ surgery, I thought the same thing. Could this surgery hasten the need for a second surgery? Could it have made the ligament’s condition more precarious? Didn’t Pujols decline surgery a year ago to avoid a surgery that begets another surgery? So, I asked — asked several people. When team doctor George Paletta went into transpose Pujols’ nerve in the elbow, he did not go near the structure of spurs and arthritis in the elbow. Pujols asked about having the spurs remove, but the decision was made then — as it was discussed during spring training — that there was no need to upset the structure of things in his elbow. It’s probably best to keep together what could be keeping together the elbow, the doctor said.

***

Q: Like every Cardinal fan I pray that Chris Carpenter will be healthy and in Cy Young form next year. But like every Cardinal fan, I have witnessed what happened with Mark Mulder. My question is about Carpenter’s sizable salary ($14M in ‘09, $14.5M in ‘10, $15M in ‘11, club option for ‘12), if God forbid he fails to recover from these nerve issues. Are we on the hook for that money, no matter what? Are there certain circumstances that would negate the contract? Retirement, medical issues, etc.? I would hate to see us handcuffed for the next few years if Carp can’t stay healthy.

Mark G., St. Louis

DG: Yep. On the hook. No matter what. That contract is signed, sealed, delivering. Even if Carpenter is not. The recent chatter about Jake Peavy has brought this into focus.

The Cardinals sure could use a pitcher like Peavy — and who couldn’t? — to strengthen a rotation, but also to provide assurance that Carpenter is a bonus not a necessity to contend. But adding Peavy to the Cardinals payroll would create a thickening of salaries in the rotation. Consider the three pitchers the Cardinals have signed through 2012 (if you include options) and what the salaries of the four pitchers would be come the next presidential election.

PITCHER … 2009 … 2010 … 2011 … 2012

Carpenter … $14m … $14.5m … $15m … $15m

Wainwright … $2.6m … $4.7m … $6.5m … $9m

Lohse … $7.1m … $8.9m … $11.9m … $11.9m

Peavy … $8m … $15m … $16m … $17m

TOTALS … $31.7m … $43.1m … $49.4m … $52.9m

***

Q: Could David Freese play second base or shortstop?

Altoro2

DG: Freese, the St. Louis native acquired from San Diego for Jim Edmonds, blossomed as a power hitter in Triple-A this past summer, adding to a crowded scene at third base. There’s plenty of reasons for Freese to find another position to play — Troy Glaus ahead of him, Brett Wallace behind — but that position isn’t likely to be second or shortstop. A few weeks ago on Bernie Miklasz’s radio show (1380 AM, in St. Louis), Freese said he’s often asked if he can play second base and he joked that it would be tough to fold his 6-foot-2, 217-pound frame into the middle infield. No, it looks like if he’s going to play another position, it’s going to be outfield. But here’s betting he gets a shot at third.

***

Q: Since you like crunching numbers, can you give me what would have been the win totals of the starting staff had the Cards held 80 percent of the leads turned to the bullpen?

Harry W. Greene, Florida

DG: “Like” is such a strong word. But I’ll see your challenge and raise you a blog entry. The week after the season ended, I took a look at a variety of what-if scenarios. One of them was related to your question: What if … Games Were 7 Innings Long? It was basically a rumination on how many leads the Cardinals handed to the bullpen, and how the standings would have looked if the game ended right then. And there. The Cardinals led 87 games after the seventh inning — the most in the league.

Your question focuses the research.

You’ll forgive if I don’t crunch something other than numbers by trying to go game-by-game through the regular season and charting the leads handed over. There’s a quicker way to get a snapshot. The Cardinals’ starters combined for 955 innings this season, or 5.9 innings a game, roughly 6. The Cardinals had the lead after the sixth inning in 87 games. Eighty percent of that would be 70 wins. So, the bullpen would go 70-17 in the above question’s scenario.

The Cardinals actually went … drumroll please … 70-17.

***

Q: I have read that Juan Encarnacion has been incommunicado. Has anybody tried to catch up with Scott Spiezio for reflections on his blown second chance with Atlanta, what he is doing to try to improve his personal life and whether he considers his baseball career finished?

Larry Harnly, Springfield, Ill.

DG: Scott Spiezio hit the news again this week with the Red Sox rally in Game 5 of the American League Championship Series. See, it was back in 2002 that Spiezio’s home run fueled the last comeback we’ve seen like that — in the World Series for the Anaheim Angels. Other than that, you’re right Mr. Harnly, there hasn’t been much heard about or from Spiezio. After he failed to take advantage of Atlanta’s offer, Spiezio faded out of the news. Friends and teammates said they hoped he would take a break from baseball and focus getting his life in order before trying to reclaim his career. According to a few, later in the season, that’s what he was doing. All of them thought Spiezio would take another run at playing baseball — and most thought there would be a team willing to give him that shot.

***

And then … there was the Albert Pujols question I posed during the Rushmore discussion last week. There were many people who wrote there and wrote to me about parameters they would like for any future Rushmore debates. Players only, some said. Retired icons only, other said. More Dizzy. Less suits. Etc. Into that tempest of suggestions, I flung the following question:

If Albert Pujols (who has received 4,900 votes at last check, third-most) retired today, would he be a Hall of Famer?

Here are a few of the answers I received about the Cardinals first baseman who has begun his career with eight consecutive seasons of 30 home runs, a .300 average and at least 100 RBIs:

BRIAN SMITH, St. Louis: Absolutely, without question. It would take some type of horrible, unthinkable disaster or tragedy for Albert to be forced to walk away from the game in his prime. Even if this happened, his sustained dominance over the past 8+ years would make him more than eligible for an induction into the HOF. Think Sandy Koufax in this regard.

AARON WILBERS, no town given: I say yes. Though he only has 8 years, for at least half of those years he has been considered the best player in baseball. That is the question IMO for the Hall of Fame. Was this player one of the greats of all time? Was he arguably the best player of this time? Pujols is a solid yes to both questions. His numbers over the 8 years are consistently amazing, and if you can get into the HOF by being just pretty good for a long period of time there is no way you can leave out a true great even if he didn’t pile up the required benchmark numbers by playing a long time. Now if he had only played 4-5 seasons I’d say no, but 7 MVP class seasons are enough. The somewhat sad thing is that the HOF has become the Hall of Pretty Good based on some of the questionable selections and people put more emphasis on benchmark numbers than true greatness. Players like Pujols should be recognized before guys who just logged a huge number of games with good but not great stats. Just my opinion.

KEVIN McMULLAN, no town given: A qualified ‘yes’ to your question about Pujols immediately to the HOF. Qualified because longevity counts in most voter’s minds. But longevity can be a bit misleading. Most great players have a ‘prime’ period during their careers; usually a 6 - 8 yr stretch where they really separate from the pack. … Consider two guys - Koufax and Mickey Mantle. Sandy had 5 great years. He actually played 12 seasons for Brooklyn and then the LA Dodgers. His first few years were pedestrian. He then had a few that were average to good. His last five years were lights out. He was the best pitcher in baseball those years. His worst era during that stretch was 2.54. Best was 1.73 which occurred in his final season - 1966. (Prior to ‘62 his era was mid 3’s and higher, sometimes in the 4s.)

Mantle had great years ‘54 - ‘62 when he did a lot of his damage. He was an all-round star and maybe the best player for a stretch there. The Mick played 18 years. He totaled 536 HRs and 1509 R’sBI in those seasons. The 9 year stretch noted above accounted for 65% of his homers and 60% of his R’sBI. Mantle had one more really good year ‘64 when he collected 35 HRs and 111 RsBI. … So, given Pujols’ consistent output over 8 seasons to date - his peak and coincidentally his only seasons - and comparing those to other HOFers peak years, I would have to argue for voting him in. His BA, OPS and slugging are superior to Mantle’s for total career and even Mickey’s best nine year stretch. … Last thought on this; it depends on how his career might end … If he mysteriously walks away into the ether, kind of like Koufax, he gets voted in 5 yrs from now.

There were a handful of others like the ones above, and with the time clearly put into some of the emails, I feel awful to point out the plot twist: It’s a trick question.

Mr. McMullan brings up the key component here: longevity. The Hall of Fame ballot — which is delivered to members in good standings of the BBWAA who have at least 10 years with the organization — expressly says that a player, to be eligible, must have “played in each of ten (10) … seasons” in the major leagues. If he were to walk away from the game today — cue soothing yet haunting walkaway melody, David Banner-style — Pujols would be two years shy of eligibility. Thought I would use the discussion to bring up a forgotten rule when it comes to the HOF or HOF-not debates.

His numbers are worthy. His trophy trove is worthy. His reputation is worthy.

Pujols just needs to log two more years.

***

Powered by questions, every week during postseason, Post-Dispatch baseball writer Derrick Goold will answer fans’ emails in a mailbag blog called PostCards, a spin-off of Bird Land. To comment and discuss the mailbag visit the PostCards blog on StlToday.com. To submit questions write PostCards@post-dispatch.com or file them as a comment on this blog. With all questions please include your name and hometown.

Questions can also be asked at Bird Land @ Facebook, or over at my bird feed” on Twitter.

PostCards will run online exclusively at StlToday.com.

-30-

12 comments

Comments are closed.

Lorne Michaels and Saturday night live have a bit with Amy Pohler and Seth Meyers on weekend update called: really? If you haven’t seen it…nevermind.

But this is my version of Cardinals baseball: really?

Jake Peavy. Really? Really!? I thought DeWitt and Co. didn’t like the taste of Mulder in their mouth so they decided to make some organizational changes, like player development. So now what? We’ve amassed a small pile of prospects and we’re going to trade them all away and take on another huge contract. Obviously, the player development guise is BS. If this trade happens, don’t be surprised if it works the same as the Mulder deal…and 5 more years of a crippled organization because history repeated itself.

Also, regarding Carpenters contract…is there not an insurance policy the team can pursue to recoop his salary if he is unable to take the field?

— Ben H
7:17 am October 20th, 2008

$30 - $50 million dollars sounds pretty reasonable for that starting rotation. Starting pitching wins championships, it should have a large portion of the payroll. 3 Aces and Lohse as the #4 starter? Sounds like a World Series rotation to me. Since the front office seems to believe in the kids for the bullpin (Motte, Perez, etc.), might as well pay for the starters. As far as I’m concerned, San Diego can have Rasmus, Wallace, Garcia and whatever other prospect they want for Peavy.

— Chris
9:11 am October 20th, 2008

Firstly DG,

I had thought there was a 10 year rule, and I was actually thinking on a personal note that a guy should have to put in 10 years to become HOF eligible(sp?).

Ben H,

I hope your not another one of those that complains during the offseason and trade deadline time that Dewitt & Co. aren’t even trying to improve this team by going out and getting someone to help. Here they are, testing the waters on what it might take for them to land a Quality pitcher like Peavy to lighten the load on the possibility of Carp not being able to perform, and you liken it to Mulder? Pete’s sake we haven’t even seen what we have offered them yet. I’m sure you’re referring to the Rasmus talk, and I’m sure the Friars are too, but that’s just speculation. It could be something along the lines of Ankiel, Boggs, & one of Mortenson/Walters/Todd. Considering after 09 we will have Garcia back and the other two from the tri-option above ready to step up…..Our rotation would like quite nice.

If your hanging your hat on an OF of Ludwick, Rasmus, & Ankiel…….you better find some SERIOUS insurance for when these guys go down. It’s a scary thing whenever Ludwick is considered the most likely to stay healthy all season. Plus with Rasmus coming up that puts a bit of a log-jam of lefty bats in the OF….Rasmus, Ankiel, Schumaker, (GOD FORBID) Duncan. With Mather, Ludwick, & Barton coming from the right side of the plate. Likely Ludwick is the only realistic option of making the team out of ST.

Rest assured if the price for Peavy is too much, we’ll turn to the FA market and keep our prospects….MO won’t through too much away in his dealings, I think he’s shown that by staying put as much as he has.

— Jon
9:48 am October 20th, 2008

Albert Pujols is a perfect example of why the 10-year rule is unreasonable for HOF consideration. I would consider eight or even six years to be reasonable. Anyway, you could probably trust the voters not to vote guys in with unreasonably short careers. But let’s say a rookie debuts with every tool and in his first four years wins three MVPs and four gold gloves at shortstop, with a .350 average and 200 career HRs and 200 career steals. Then he gets hit by a truck or cancer or an aneurysm. Is that guy not one of the greatest legends of all time? Wouldn’t he be JFK, James Dean, Gehrig and Clemente rolled into one?

It’s popular to argue that the Hall of Fame has become the Hall of Pretty Good. In some ways, it’s become the Hall of Longevity as illustrated by two words: Paul Molitor. (Recent exception: Kirby Puckett, 12 seasons. Wouldn’t it have been a shame if he had only played nine years when his eyesight went bad?) But I’ve read a stat someplace about how the number of active HOFers per team was much higher in the 1920s and ’30s than now. My memory might be off, but it used to be something like two per team, but with many more franchises and therefore more players, the average of active HOFers (probably as measured in the ’80s or early ’90s) has fallen to about one per team. Hardly sounds like dilution.

It’s just that we didn’t grow up hearing our grandfathers and elderly neighbors waxing poetic about Dennis Eckersly, Dave Winfield, Bruce Sutter and Eddie Murray. Ken Burns hasn’t done a documentary with old-time music and archival interviews with Wade Boggs’ mistress or Ryne Sandberg’s faithless ex-wife. Nor did modern sportswriters make up stories about Barry Bonds’ head becoming enlarged from eating too many hot dogs (like they did for Babe Ruth’s VD). But there might be several good blog topics on the Hall of Fame for endless argument during the long winter, Derrick.

— Fuhrig
10:06 am October 20th, 2008

Derrick,

By the way, in a worst case scenario with Carpenter’s injuries, he has to continue rehabbing and trying to come back, right? If sometime in 2010 he’s clearly not going to make it back and decides to quit, that constitutes retirement and the forfeit of whatever remains on the contract at that time, right? Of course, he could continue to show up at the training complex in Florida at 9 a.m. every day to get paid. But in that event, his agent and the club would probably come to some sort of injury settlement, right? Let’s hope this is only theoretical.

— Fuhrig
10:14 am October 20th, 2008

Right. Retirement is an out. Way too premature to bring that up.

— Derrick Goold
10:17 am October 20th, 2008

DG: you mention in your post that Cardinal starters logged 5.9 innings per start. In 50 of these games, they totaled 5.0 innings or less (sometimes way less– almost a third of the total starts. I contend that this is way too many and that this placed undue stress (exposed?) the bullpen. My take is that part of the 2009 retool should include another starter who can consistently pitch into the sixth. Whether this happens from within or via trade (FA is not really a viable option, in my opinion as only Lowe and Sabathia meet this criteria and they’ll cost too much) A full year of Wainwright will help. What’s your take?

— bullera
11:46 am October 20th, 2008

Ben H

In regard to obtaining Peavy; he would be that ace if Carpenter cannot go. If Carp is good to go, we have another ace on our pitching staff that should allow us to hang with anyone in baseball. Peavy could be counted on to eat up innings, which will save the bullpen, which might just cut down on injuries and burnout. It seems to me if you have quality assets that have to remain on the shelf because they are blocked from the big club, you should try to move them to get a peice that fits the big clubs needs and opens up opportunity for them. Player development should be viewed as a tactic to put a winner on the field no matter how you get it done. For this reason, and with all due respect to you, a trade for Peavy makes since to me…IMO.

— dave cobler
12:45 pm October 20th, 2008

I, agree. You can’t trust Ank and Luddy to stay healthy over the course of a 162 games season. They both have track records of missing significant portions of the season due to injuries. I still think the Cards would be wise to try and trade Ank. He is 29 years old, and will turn 30 in July. He played only 120 games this season and K’ed 100 times. If he were to play 162 games what would his strike out total look like for a full season. He’s a .270 hitter, and a guy that will give you 25-30 HRs. It is all or nothing with Ank. Either a HR or a K. His value will never be higher than what it is right now.

There will be other pitchers of Peavy’s caliber be on the trading block in the future. But, the Cards need to see what they have in Raz. He had a great spring training, and killed the ball in AA ball. Lets see what he can do at the major league level. This guy has a shot at becoming a great player.

DG, you seem to think there is no shot at Freese trying to move to a middle infield position. I’d like to see him given a shot, though. His path as the Cards everyday 3B, seems to be blocked by Brett Wallace. Eventually Freese would be a great trade piece. A good defensive 3B with a bat that has a lot of pop.

— emc2013
2:55 pm October 20th, 2008

Great discussion with some very good insight and comparrisons. Albert Pujlos will be in the Hall Of Fame and if he stays his whole career he will be thought of in the same vain as Stan Musial, Bob Gibson and Dizzy Dean.

Mike
Statesville, NC

— Mike Grant
2:59 pm October 20th, 2008

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All