- This topic has 19 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
What do you think?
I mean I understand and agree with your points, but if Cecil sucks in Spring the Cardinals would be better off just releasing him then instead of trying to suck anything out of the investment. Right now they decided to keep him because he’s under contract and the money is spent and Leone would have been non-tendered anyways so DFA’ing now made sense.
We don’t know that they don’t have insurance on the contract. For that reason, he might end up back on the IL instead. But it should not matter to us.
I agree with BHC.
I think that Cecil has been gone so long that fans have forgotten the guy. You won’t see his name on anyone’s predictions for the 2020 bullpen. Most folks that remember he is still on the roster just see him as another player that the FO goofed on. Just a thought: what if the bullpen acquisitions all lived up to what the FO paid in salaries instead of being cast-offs? (most recently see Leone).
I get your point about bad contracts but Leones was peanuts comparatively to Holland, Cecil and Gregerson.
I fully expect this clown to make the team out of spring training, lose a few games for the Cardinals, and ultimately get kicked off the team for being terrible. After that he will take his $30M and retire next to his swimming pool. I still think that whoever is responsible for signing Cecil should start paying some of the money back.
Brian, I don’t know what arguments people are making on Twitter regarding Cecil but my guess is it is based on a combination of ignorance and emotion. I am regularly amazed at how many fans have very little knowledge about the Cardinals payroll numbers, which are not hard to find by the way. Now having a lack of knowledge about all of the MLB rules on DFA, waivers, releases, rule 5, etc…. is a little more understandable but again they are obtainable with a little research. Unfortunately many people are very willing to shout their opinions without educating themselves to the situation.
The only good argument one could make in DFAing or releasing Cecil now as opposed to March would be if the Cardinals knew with 100% certainty that Cecil would be ineffective or physically unable to perform. Otherwise, why flush $7.25M down the tubes if there is at least a small chance he could rebound? Like you mentioned they could always do this in March if it is apparent he is not going to rebound.
One interesting thing that did happen today is the Yankees announced that have released Jacoby Ellsbury despite still owing him $26M. Some might say if the Yankees are willing to do that why aren’t the Cardinals willing to eat $7.25M with Cecil? My answer would be that we really don’t know why the Yankees did why they did. They might have information that the rest of us don’t have.
I thought the Cecil signing was brilliant at the time. Mo got ahead of the market and got a guy just below the big two at 35% to 40% of the cost.
My question is:Do I recall Cecil being an avid video gamer? If his injury is due to gaming, I might be upset.
If he regains his curveball, he is a huge asset. Leone would have an impossible time matching that value.2 things come to my mind about this contract.
1) I liked this signing at the time. I thought we had solved our lefty relieving problem. A short time into 2017 when Schwarber hit a grand slam off of him, which was an ominous start.
2) In retrospect, he was apparently a top target of the front office since he signed pretty quickly after free agency opened. But much like Fowler, (which I never was on board with his signing) we paid too much and too many years. Plus a no trade clause to boot. I have always wondered if we had offered 1 less year, and take out the no trade clause, and see if they would have accepted it. I guess we will never know. Heck, even a vesting option for their last years might have saved us.My bottom line is I would be in fvor of releasing him, as I think his career is done. Holding out hope that he shows signs of life in the spring seem nil to me. I would either habe kept the spot open, or protect another prospect. Again it is not my money, and considering insurance vramifications, I still would have cut him.
Also, during Cecil’s tenure here he never had a swing and miss pitch that was a strike. Relying on hitters to chase pitches out of the zone doesn’t seem like a good strategy to me. Very reminiscent of Zach Duke.
I think the Cardinals were very deliberate in their signing of Cecil, also. They swooped right in and signed him kind of like the way Atlanta got right in and signed Will Smith this year. But one of the questions that remains unanswered for me is ‘Was the person that scouted Cecil ever severely punished? banned from ever again working for the Cardinals?’ We would have made the playoffs in 2017 were it not for Cecil. He singlehandedly lost at least four games for us, and he might have kept us out of the playoffs in 2018, also. I hope he doesn’t ruin my yearly pilgrimage to Jupiter next spring.
We don’t know that they don’t have insurance on the contract. For that reason, he might end up back on the IL instead. But it should not matter to us.
Well if he’s injured, okay put him on the IL. But he sucks, just cut him and move on. At this point I’m not sure he’s one of the 8 best options for the bullpen.
gscottar, here is the first tweet from one guy (a former writer on a Cardinals blog). Then when no one agreed with him, and a number of people questioned him, he kept on going…
The Cardinals today DFA’d a reliever w a 25+% K rate in 2019 in order to keep Brett Cecil on the 40 man.
Someone needs to given Cards’ mgmt a basic economics lesson on the concept of sunk costs.
Here is another writer’s opinion about the roster moves. He has 9,200 followers on Twitter.
Yet somehow, against all odds and both strategic and financial sense, Brett Cecil still has a roster spot.
Here is another writer’s opinion about the roster moves. He has 9,200 followers on Twitter.
Yet somehow, against all odds and both strategic and financial sense, Brett Cecil still has a roster spot.
The only strategic argument would be if the Cardinals desperately needed the 40 man spot to protect another player from the rule 5 draft. But who would that player be?
There is no financial argument to make. The money is already spent unless the tweeter thinks that if we release him another team will sign him so we can save a whopping $563k…. That makes no sense.
The way I see it, Brett Cecil at this point is an opportunity cost decision.
He is taking up a roster spot, and the roster is now full, which means that Cardinals cannot add any upgrades without trading somebody away. Historically, the Cardinals front office doesn’t make a lot of trades.
The arguments for keeping Cecil on the roster are:
1. The Cardinals have insurance on him, and will be able to recover roughly $5 million if he doesn’t play in 2020. Since they are (claiming to be) stretched out financially, this appears to be the prime motivation for keeping him.
2. Perhaps he can return to form, and it’s like buying a lottery ticket without paying any additional moneyThe arguments against are:
1. You could have protected one more guy from the Rule 5 draft, and his expected value over six years of team control is greater than $5 million
2. If you have an open roster spot, you can claim someone in the Rule 5 draft, and his expected value is greater than $5 million over six years of team control
3. With the extra roster spot, you can sign a free agent that might help you win more games than Cecil will. What are the prices going to be on Alex Wood and Arodys Vizcaino? What if Dallas Keuchel will sign for $10 million? What is the probability a free agent signing in the Cardinals price range will outperform Brett Cecil?I will add that his career 4.29 ERA and 1.357 WHIP do not excite me, and his performance in the first year of his contract was vastly overstated, because he allowed more than 44% of inherited runners to score.
My reaction to “Arguments against”:
1) Who should have been protected who was not? I don’t see anyone that I am overly concerned about. Please be specific.
2) The Cards have not bothered with the MLB phase of the draft for three years. The only guy who was worth much in the last 20 years they got this way was Matt Bowman.
3) No one says they cannot sign a free agent. They would just have to make another move. Who is to say they are not going to trade away some OF redundancy, or as discussed in another thread, non-tender Gant?
The point is that they could still clear a roster spot for anything if they choose. The only semi-permanent decision made was with Leone. They could even still release Cecil if they choose.
P.S. Good discussion.
I think having an open roster spot is more valuable than keeping Cecil. I would either sign a free agent starter for a reasonable price (Alex Wood), use the Rule 5 pick on Yankees AA lefty James Reeves (last 33 innings pitched, 1 earned run), or look into an interesting non tender players.
C27, if I could make decisions and have other people pay for them, I would agree with you. Release Cecil. Heck, I would include the other bad contracts, too. But reality is not that.
Putting Cecil aside, none of those prospective moves you favor are blocked. The Cardinals can free up more roster spots at any time if they so choose.
Here is how I look at it. The decision this week appeared to be among Seijas, Leone and Cecil. Only two could stay, and Leone drew the short straw. Next time a roster move is considered, there will be different decisions on the table, but the team always has choices.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.