Home

Forums

Sports

Cards Talk

Not a Dunn deal

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Not a Dunn deal

Previous Topic

Next Topic

author

message

ace-king

Forum User

Joined: 26 May 2009

Posts: 2450

Post subject: Re: Not a Dunn deal

Posted: 07 Nov 2009 10:52 am

espritdesstlouis wrote

PacNWCardsFan wrote

If they manage to get Holliday I thought of this. Keep in mind these number are guesses but realistic.

Sign Holliday($19M per), Polanco($5M per), Gonzalez($4M per), Smoltz($6.5M) all are max for 2010. Give a lineup something like this:

Ryan-SS-.279/.333/.373/.706
Polanco-2B-.303/.348/.414/.761
AP-1B-.334/.427/.628/1.055
Holliday-LF-.318/.387/.545/.933
Ludwick-RF-.271/.340/.493/.833
Rasmus-CF-.251/.307/.407/.714
Molina-C-.269/.327/.365/.692
Freese-3B.280/.345/.485/.800* best guess
Pitcher
Rotation: Carp, Waino, Lohse, Smoltz, Garcia
Bullpen: Franklin, Miller, Reyes, Gonzalez, KMac, Motte, Hawks
Bench: Lugo, Skip,Mather/Jay, Craig, Pagnozzi/C
Total Salaries for 25 man roster: $101M

If the Cardinals can sign Holliday, IMO, I don't think they would pony up for Polanco when they have a much cheaper Schu at 2B ( who is also younger ).

As much as a like Gonzalez, I don't see the Cardinals carrying 3 lefties out of the pen, unless maybe Royce Ring.

Mo said that the bullpen is set, anyway.

If the Cardinals sign Holliday, the only other money I see them spending is for a #4 starter.

Esprit, I highlighted YOUR comment - to ellicit your view on something. Let's say that we're so fortunate as to re-sign Holliday (I would not bet on it, but it could happen). If so, we would have same line-up as the 2nd half of last year, only with Freese replacing Derosa. However bad the injured Derosa was, he still produced 10 HRs, 28 RBIS in half a year. Let's be optimistic and assume Freese does somewhat better - so let's say 20 HRs 70 RBIs over full season (guess most would be pretty happy with such a 1st year performance!)

Now, finally my question: with Holliday unlikely to repeat his 2nd half with the Cards (.353 nearly 1 RBI per game), why should we believe the Cards offense - unquestionably our weak point during last half - will be improved? Why should last year's 2nd half offense, with Holliday a bit less productive and 3rd base a bit more productive, make up the 80-90 run deficit, separating us from teams like Phils and Rockies?
_________________
one inexpert opinion

futuregm

Forum User

Joined: 08 Oct 2007

Posts: 5979

Post subject: Re: Not a Dunn deal

Posted: 07 Nov 2009 12:26 pm

ace-king wrote

futuregm wrote

BirdsBacker wrote

I agree with alot of your argument. I just think that you need to keep Ludwick and ADD another instead of Addition by Subtraction. I liked the "stretched" lineup when DeRo and Holliday joined the lineup instead of giving away innings once you got past the #4 hitter.

That's essentially what you could be trying to do though if you traded Ludwick.

Figure that Ludwick will make 4-5 million this year and that's conservative IMO, and you'd figure that Holliday will cost minimum 18 million a year, probably $20 million a year. So, you could have these options.

Sign Holliday to that, and go with Freese at third base, which really isn't a bad option.

Or trade Ludwick and Boggs for Dunn
Sign Figgins to a 3 year/$27-30 million deal
Sign Nady (1 year/$6 million incentives based) or DeRo (2 years/$12 million).

Option A:
1. Schumaker
2. Rasmus
3. Pujols
4. Holliday
5. Ludwick
6. Freese
7. Molina
8. Ryan
9. Pitcher

Option B:
1. Figgins
2. Schumaker
3. Pujols
4. Dunn
5. Nady/DeRosa
6. Rasmus
7. Molina
8. Ryan
9. Pitcher

I don't mind either lineup, but I do prefer option B.

Line-up A - I don't understand at all. It's this year's stagnant lineup, with Freese instead of Derosa. As bad ad Derosa was with his wrist injury, he still got 10 HRs and 28 RBIs in half a season - you SURE that a Rookie is going to up those numbers that much? I mean we lagged the Phils by 90 runs and even the Dodgers by 50. The good Cards teams - 2004-5, like the Phils and Rockies this year, score 800+ - and I don't see your line-up A come even close. Your line-up A, with Ryan leading off, Derosa playing 2ndB and hitting 6th or 7th - now that line-up has a chance to score some runs.
Lineup B is interesting. You basically replace Holliday by Dunn (slight, but acceptable down-grade), Ludwick by Nady/Derosa (doubt that will produce more RBIs than Luddy's 97), and Derosa at 3rd by Figgins (big upgrade in speed and OBP, but at a loss in power and RBIs). Do these three trade-ffs produce an increment in runs scored? Personally, I don't think so. Now, if you put Figgins or Derosa at 2nd B (Figgins played 2nd b earlier in his career), now you've got an improved line-up (still assumes Nady, backed up by Craig, in RF).

Your obsession with the longball is cute, but DeRosa was pretty awful in the regular season as a Cardinal. 7 of his 10 homeruns came in a two week period. He hit .228/.291/.405/.696. I think Freese would be able to outproduce those numbers.

Figgins is a very good defensive third baseman, so I have no idea why you'd want to move him off there. Well, I do, but I don't want to start that up again.
_________________

My Blog: unparalleledbaseball.blogspot.com

davdaddy

Forum User

Joined: 22 Nov 2008

Posts: 777

Post subject: Re: Not a Dunn deal

Posted: 07 Nov 2009 12:33 pm

At this point, IMHO, discussion of Holliday is nearly a waste of time. He has shown no real interest in St. Louis and looked somewhat bored when he was here. I look for him in NY (either one).
Polanco, as I have said before, would be a big uplift for the team. Not because of any one segment of the game (offense, defense), but because he is a winning type player. I know it is easy to challenge that comment as there is no stat to back it. But I know this from watching him play over the past decade; he is one of the best #2 hole hitters in the game, and with a runner in scoring position and 2 outs there are not many other players I want to see up there. I can't help but remember the number of times the past 3 seasons that the 3rd out is made leaving Albert standing in the on-deck circle. We need another big bat, no doubt about that. I would rather see a big bat (maybe Nady) plus Polanco to bat 2nd in the order.

ace-king

Forum User

Joined: 26 May 2009

Posts: 2450

Post subject: Re: Not a Dunn deal

Posted: 07 Nov 2009 16:01 pm

davdaddy wrote

Dave - one single comment to you (also reflecting your views above). You should not be so modest about expressing your opinions - they're among the soundest - more data driven and less emotion driven - that I personally see on CT.
_________________
one inexpert opinion

espritdesstlouis

Forum User

Joined: 23 Jan 2009

Posts: 4952
Location: The dregs of the diseased mind.

Post subject: Re: Not a Dunn deal

Posted: 07 Nov 2009 16:21 pm

ace-king wrote

espritdesstlouis wrote

PacNWCardsFan wrote

First of all, I don't think Dunn instead of Holliday would yield an improvement.

More importantly, baseball players have good years and not so good years.

It isn't practical to think that because last year's lineup struggled down the stretch, that they can't succeed next year. Look at Pineiro in '08 and '09.

2008 saw Albert go through more than 1 extended slump, Ludwick was inconsistent, Rasmus was a rookie, and DeRosa was injured.

Ryan seemed to turn the corner, but Yadi hit into an innordinate number of DPs, and 3B was a mess all year.

This team was good enough to win the WS, but it just didn't happen. That doesn't mean that they can't do it next year.

We will never match the Phils in offense, they have two potential HOFers in the MI, but we had better pitching.

As for DeRosa, if we can get him at a reasonable price, I'd love to have him back, but assuming we re-sign Matt, our next priority is a #4 starter. The Cardinals have the luxury of a free Lugo, so I believe that Freese will get a real shot at 3B.
_________________

Lotta poor man got the Cumberland Blues He can't win for losin'
Lotta poor man got to walk the line Just to pay his union dues.

Memphis25

Forum User

Joined: 26 Jul 2007

Posts: 3362
Location: Poplar Bluff, MO/Memphis, TN

Post subject: Re: Not a Dunn deal

Posted: 07 Nov 2009 16:43 pm

ace-king wrote

I like PacN's line-up a lot! Lots more running, hit-and-run, simply lots more pressure on the pitchers. Figgins patience at the plate at the top of the line-up could translate to lots of good things - hopefully leading to same patience by other hitters. I have no "formulas" to judge whether his +47 runs (compared to this year) is correct - but 47 more runs - this PAST year - would have given us home field advantage for the entire playoffs - and who knows?

They aren't going to hit and run and steal too many bags in front of Albert, especially will Ludwick hitting 4th.

ace-king

Forum User

Joined: 26 May 2009

Posts: 2450

Post subject: Re: Not a Dunn deal

Posted: 07 Nov 2009 16:43 pm

espritdesstlouis wrote

ace-king wrote

espritdesstlouis wrote

PacNWCardsFan wrote

Esprit - a lot of words - from someone who's "words" I appreciate (sincerely, not facetious remark). But ultimately, final results are driven by performance. Don't know whether you accept the 80-90 run differential (Cards to Phils/Rockies in 2009) as being the barometer - but if that is what we have to do - I don't see how your suggestions (Schu younger, #4 starter, free Lugo, etc) respond to that very explicit question.
_________________
one inexpert opinion

espritdesstlouis

Forum User

Joined: 23 Jan 2009

Posts: 4952
Location: The dregs of the diseased mind.

Post subject: Re: Not a Dunn deal

Posted: 07 Nov 2009 17:01 pm

ace-king wrote

espritdesstlouis wrote

ace-king wrote

espritdesstlouis wrote

PacNWCardsFan wrote

I'm not saying that we can make up the run differential, no matter what we do. The 2B / SS combo for Philly are potentially both HOFers. That production, from those positions, is extremely rare, and usually only achieved through drafting.

My point about Schu was that if the Cardinals re-sign Holliday, and plug their #4 starter dilemma, IMO, they will not spend $5 to sign a 2B.

Certainly the Cardinals ( or any team ) can improve with the same roster as the previous year. Look at the Tigers last year and this year. No major changes, but a big difference in the standings.

This is baseball, players have good years and bad. Almost no team is in a position to turn over their roster just because they fall short the previous year.
_________________

Lotta poor man got the Cumberland Blues He can't win for losin'
Lotta poor man got to walk the line Just to pay his union dues.

ace-king

Forum User

Joined: 26 May 2009

Posts: 2450

Post subject: Re: Not a Dunn deal

Posted: 07 Nov 2009 17:15 pm

espritdesstlouis wrote

ace-king wrote

espritdesstlouis wrote

ace-king wrote

espritdesstlouis wrote

PacNWCardsFan wrote

I confess that I understand your wonderful "Jukebox" better than your baseball arguments. Fault is probably mine. Yet, my question was simple - we get lucky enough to retain last year's 2nd-half (with Holliday/Lugo/Derosa) line-up, which scrounged for runs. Don't we need to do something more drastic than wait for "year-to-year" improvements (Rasmus, Derosa) to make up the deficit?
_________________
one inexpert opinion

espritdesstlouis

Forum User

Joined: 23 Jan 2009

Posts: 4952
Location: The dregs of the diseased mind.

Post subject: Re: Not a Dunn deal

Posted: 07 Nov 2009 17:37 pm

ace-king wrote

espritdesstlouis wrote

ace-king wrote

espritdesstlouis wrote

ace-king wrote

espritdesstlouis wrote

PacNWCardsFan wrote

I honestly don't think so, and because St.Louis is a mid market team, I doubt it is possible.

As I've made abundantly clear, if it were my quarter, I'd try to acquire Escobar to add more punch to our MI.

Sure, I would be thrilled to keep Matt, Mark, and Joel, and I also believe that if we achieved that, we would be among the favorites to make the postseason.

But to do the above, the Cardinal budget, IMHO, would be at it's limit ( as far as the offseason is concerned )

I've always maintained that the Cardinals need to strengthen their core, and Holliday represents a move in that direction.

I love Schu's heart, but I agree that he doesn't provide the skill set for the Cardinals to improve. We made him a 2B because he was our only option to bat lead off.

However, to work the payroll, tha Cardinals need to have some players that are cost effective, and Schu is one of those players.

If the players that I mentioned before improve on portions of their 2009 season, I can see the Cardinals making a serious run in 2010.

Honestly, I don't see much more that the Cardinals can do.

P.S. As for the " jukebox ", that is nothing more than sharing the gift of music with others, and being exposed to music that one is not familiar with.
_________________

Lotta poor man got the Cumberland Blues He can't win for losin'
Lotta poor man got to walk the line Just to pay his union dues.

B_Ruby

Forum User

Joined: 08 Aug 2008

Posts: 4555

Post subject: Re: Not a Dunn deal

Posted: 07 Nov 2009 19:10 pm

espritdesstlouis wrote

All excellent points. All too often in 2009 the Cards looked to Pujols to carry them, and did the same with Holliday after he arrived. DeRosa contributed a number of solo home runs, while he left too many runners on base.

esprit is absolutely correct, that Schu was moved to 2B largely because he could be a lead off hitter, more so than anyone else on the roster.

I'd like to see Yunel Escobar at 2B, as he could be a leadoff hitter or drive in runs if asked to hit 6th. But the Braves have maintained a high price for anyone inquiring about trading for Escobar.

If the team gets improvement out of CF (and they should, as Rasmus will graduate to play every day, without a 4-outfield rotation) and just some consistent hitting out of 3B and LF, as long as the pitching is as good as last year they'll be better.

B_Ruby

Forum User

Joined: 08 Aug 2008

Posts: 4555

Post subject: Re: Not a Dunn deal

Posted: 07 Nov 2009 19:42 pm

Look at how the Cards' hit in 2009, by position (does not include what some position players did as pinch-hitters):

1B: .320/.434/.631/1.064 (45 HR/133 RBI)
2B: .288/.355/.392/.746 (6 HR/43 RBI by platoon)
SS: .279/.336/.400/.736 (7 HR/60 RBI)
3B: .229/.292/.369/.661 (16 HR/65 RBI)
LF: .262/.339/.436/.775 (21 HR/102 RBI)
CF: .248/.301/.401/.701 (20 HR/70 RBI)
RF: .265/.323/.431/.754 (24 HR/110 RBI)
.C: .286/.354/.375/.729 (8 HR/60 RBI)

Shortstop was more solid, both offensively and defensively, when Brendan Ryan pretty much seized the job in late May.

Holliday certainly isn't likely to hit .353 for a full season. It should be noted, though, that Holliday is more likely to average what he did in his last 43 games (.290/.374/.497/.871) than his first 20 games, when he hit .469.

That said, if the Cards got the end results out of LF in 2010 as they did in 2008, but without the roller coaster of feast for one month (remember, Chris Duncan drove in 23 runs in the team's first 32 games), famine for 2 1/2 months, feast for a month (with Holliday's arrival), and plateau for 1 1/2 months, they'd be served well.

They just have to get more out of their hitters who play 3B and CF, especially from the standpoint of on-base percentage, most notably if Rasmus hits 2nd. He has to get on base more often than 30.7% of the time.

Forums

Sports

Cards Talk

Topic

All times are CST (CST6CDT)

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Previous Topic

Next Topic

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum