Winter Meetings shopping list
As the news swirls about the Cardinals’ activities in Nashville this week — will Scott Rolen be traded?! — we have our own ideas about what the team should do during the annual Winter Meetings. Here are four items for John Mozeliak’s shopping list.
Leadoff man with at least a .350 OBP
After reading some of the names being bandied about for leadoff man, like Rick Ankiel (.285 projected OBP), Adam Kennedy (.310) and Cesar Izturis (.296), we feel like we’ve just woken up from a nightmare. Worse, it’s one of those dreams that is utterly crazy, and yet it seems entirely normal to everyone in the dream. We can’t believe that any one of those players can be mentioned with a straight face. Sure, batting order is overrated, but suggesting the three players most likely to have the worst OBP on the team next year get the most plate appearances is a sure way to doom the offense in 2008. Here’s where Mozeliak needs to get a little creative: In the absence of good in-house options — only Albert Pujols figures to surpass the .350 mark next year — a trade could net a shortstop, second baseman or rightfielder who could fit the bill. Heck, Mark Loretta and Jack Wilson each had an OBP of .350 last year. These guys can’t be that hard to find.
Righthanded platoon partner for Adam Kennedy
Adam Kennedy may be healthy next season, but even a healthy Kennedy isn’t going to magically learn how to hit lefties at age 32. His Gross Production Average against southpaws has been steadily declining since his peak at age 26 in 2002:
If the team isn’t planning to use someone already on the roster (Brendan Ryan, for instance, had a .407 OBP and a .297 GPA vs. lefties in 2007) as a platoon partner, the team needs to get one. Going into next season relying on Kennedy as a fulltime second baseman — let’s be honest, he had a hard time getting on base vs. righties, too — is a recipe for a long summer.
Young pitching
As we’ve written before, we’re not altogether impressed by free-agent pitchers, especially this year’s “class.” Rather than probably wasting their money on an overpriced, over-the-hill pitcher, the Cardinals should stock up on younger arms that haven’t reached their potential or upon whom teams have given up (think: the Mets’ John Maine and Oliver Perez). It’s well-known that La Runcan prefers to work with the veteran sort, but the key to the future is not in rehabbing thirty-somethings but in grooming a stable full of young, cheap pitchers that the team can use for more than one year at a time. If Walt Jocketty lost his job because he didn’t/couldn’t adapt to change, La Runcan needs to be held to the same standard (along with Mozeliak).
Nothing stupid
Of course, it would be better to do nothing than to do something stupid this week. That means two things: Not trading away players with more value than what they bring (e.g., Anthony Reyes), and not acquiring players who won’t live up to their contract (e.g., Carlos Silva). Our impression of Mozeliak is that he is patient and unlikely to be moved by irrationality in the market, so he probably won’t force anything that’s not there. Yet it’s concerning that Anthony Reyes is rumored to be on the block, for reasons we’ve written about previously. Some examples of bad moves would be four- or five-year deals to any free-agent pitcher, including Silva and Kyle Lohse, and trading away Reyes for spare parts.
It’ll be interesting to see how Mozeliak maneuvers this week, espcially on the Rolen issue as well as Colby Rasmus. While several readers disagree, we’re of the mind that divesting of Scott Rolen is a smart move, even if it means “selling low.” As for Rasmus, while the guy had a 8.28 RC27 in the minors last year and has been hyped as the centerfielder of the future, the guy hasn’t even played a game at Triple A, let alone the majors (is he the next Gregg Jefferies or the next Jim Lindeman?). If Mozeliak plays his cards right, and builds up Rasmus’s value with an “untouchable” label, he could parlay that into a clever deal for young major-league talent. The Brer Rabbit tactic just might create an unexpected blockbuster.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:53 am
i’ll nibble. I do not believe in selling Rolen or Reyes low. and it saddens me to see Rolen go as well. i believe both can and rolen will thrive elsewhere, which makes me wonder if the problem is elsewhere. This talk about acquiring Haren stings too. maybe we can get Barton back as well. i loved the Bud Smith deal bc it was the definition of selling hi (Bottenfield as well).
I just haven’t seen many realistic proposals that make the cards better with a trade of rolen or reyes (i’ve seen one, in actuality, and is more risk than we take by keeping them and to a division rival who’s better suited to win).
December 4th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
To be clear, I’m only advocating trading guys whose upside is dubious. Therefore, even selling low on Rolen could be wise, if his performance continues to plummet (the guy is going to be 33 next season — not getting any younger). It’s far from a foregone conclusion that Reyes has peaked; pretty certainly he hasn’t. So selling low on him wouldn’t make sense.
Yeah, the Haren talk stings. But you can’t go back and make it better — just don’t make the same mistake. For what it’s worth, I’m skeptical that Haren’s going anywhere. It’s probably simply Beane prepping the market for a Haren trade after the ‘08 or ‘09 season. The A’s will then have maximized his value and in turn, the “buying” team will be stuck with high-dollar decline years. Kinda like Mulder all over again.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Gee, Pip…wonder where you got the Loretta idea? ::wink::
December 4th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
I’ve always liked Rolen and if all we get for him is Capuano and we still have to pay a large chunk of his salary, I’d say that’s a big mistake. If the Dodgers are interested and want to put together a deal that includes LaRoche, I’d be happier.
The other thing I keep reading is that the Cardinals are shopping Edmonds, with San Diego being the likliest destination. I haven’t seen, though, who the Padres are offering that might interest us. Any thoughts?
December 4th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Edmonds is “only” making $8 mil this coming season, so he’s much more likely to be worth his pay. Bill James is bullish on JEd, projecting a .372 OBP and .291 GPA, though ZiPS is less so (.344/.265). Even taking the ZiPS numbers, the Cardinals would be hard-pressed to find anyone to play centerfield, both on offense and defense, as well, especially for the money. And with only one year left on his contract, Edmonds seems like the absolute wrong guy to deal.
December 4th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Not encouraging — this report from ESPN’s Winter Meetings blog today:
Yeah, they’re getting a lot of play because he’s a young/cheap pitcher with significant upside. Hold the line, Mo!
December 4th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Pip:
I agree with you on Edmonds, which is why I was curious as to who the Padres would offer for him. I suppose they could play Ankiel in CF for a year until Rasmus is ready, but I think I’d rather see Edmonds earn his contract in St. Louis unless we are getting a pretty good young arm or a pretty good young righthanded RF back for him.
Like you, I am worried about the Cards dumping Reyes – the only acceptable trade with him is for another young pitcher with upside, maybe one of those “he needed a change of scenary” type of trades for both sides.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Hey gang, for whatever it’s worth, I’m in San Diego, and have been doing a good deal of listening to their “all sports radio” station The discussion came up with the Padres’ GM Kevin Towers, who, when asked about Jim Edmonds, basically said, “It’s not a priority right now that would indicate any need to make a move.” I’d say they’re not even lukewarm to the idea at present.