- This topic has 44 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
With seemingly so many interesting players non-tendered, it could really clog up the market for all of the other free agents in the lower tiers. (Not suggesting it would affect guys like Harper.) I do suspect this dynamic could have been a factor in Shreve taking a quick deal at a lower price than projected. When the music stops, there could be more players standing than there are chairs.
I really didn’t want Shreve back. He reminds me too much of Cecil, he has a chase pitch, not a swing and miss pitch. But it would have been a curious move given the 40 man roster moves prior.
As I wrote in the article, other than tying up a 40-man spot in the interim, keeping Shreve until the regular season is not that limiting. He could still be dumped cheaply this spring if he doesn’t look good – and/or if they get better lefties in the interim. It looks to me like a hedge the bet kind of move.
It looks to me like a hedge the bet kind of move.
It looks to me like another case where they refuse to admit they made a mistake. He was the centerpiece of the Voit deal, correct?
C2016, please explain why it would hurt to keep Shreve through spring?
By the way, they let Greene go, who was a key part of the Grichuk trade. They also let Woodman go, who was the take for Aledmys Diaz. They exposed Schrock in Rule 5, who was a big part of the Piscotty trade, etc…
I do not see it as refusal to admit a mistake. It can be argued giving Shreve an off-season to get ready and seeing what he has in the spring is making sure about what they have before making a final decision.
On the other hand, if they do not get other LHP help this winter and/or keep him next season ahead of better pitchers, then yes, it would be a mistake. That is the future, not the present.
(P.S. Those who read my earlier article know that I had expected Shreve to be non-tendered, too. But I can at least understand the logic in keeping him a while longer.)
I say they should get Avilan and Strickland. Both had down years, are around 30 and in their prime, and their career numbers are very good. Just because you get stuck with a Cecil, and the Holland catrastrophy doesn’t mean you stop trying to sign quality free agents. I am very surprised Strickland was jettisoned. We could have traded Mayers for him.
Yeah, I’m hoping the front office doesn’t sit on their hands like they normally do when they should be making moves right now…
Make some trades, clear some roster spaces, get the LHP’s we all know they are going to sign…
Right now, there are enough players out there that will fit their “affordable control” mantra for relievers they should be acting. But they can’t do so without doing some trades, because the roster is full.
Can anyone find the number to Jerry DiPoto?
The non tenders make an amazing addition to the free agent reliever market. Blake Parker would be a great get also. Although he is 33. But surely the contract length would be MAYBE 2 years with 3rd option year.
BHC asked why the Cubs would non-tender Torreyes, two days after trading for him.
Here is my guess. In the two days they had to negotiate, they did not immediately see eye-to-eye on a contract amount for 2019. If they had tendered him, they would be forced into arbitration if the two sides could not agree. Instead, by non-tendering him, they can try to work out a cheaper deal and if not, so what? He isn’t a star or anything.
Net: It was likely about saving a few hundred thousand dollars.
Interesting non tenders indeed.
I would love to see Blake Parker in our system even if on a minor league deal. I saw him pitch in high school and in college. Good kid.
The Ronald Torreyes situation is strange but one scenario could be that they signed him before making a final decision on Russell. Once they decided to tender Russell then Torreyes became expendable. Of course that doesn’t explain why they traded away La Stella who was a very good player for them last year.
Shelby Miller might be a good pickup for someone if he is healthy. He might be a good fit for a lower budget team desperate for starters. I’m thinking maybe the Rangers would be a good fit since he is from Texas.
Net: It was likely about saving a few hundred thousand dollars.
But its not a net gain. They either sent cash or a PTBNL for him and then non-tendered him.
C2016, please explain why it would hurt to keep Shreve through spring?
I missed this earlier… I would rather have the space open to sign higher impact players as they come open. Avilan, Jennings, Strickland, Parker all would have been a higher priority for me than Schreve.
Of course, I also would have tried to wrest Colome from Seattle, but oh well.
Because at the time they were signing Shreve, Jennings and Avilan were being non-tendered. To me, they are fairly sizable upgrades over Shreve.
Not all those 40-man roster spots are equal. You have some players that are valuable and you won’t give up a roster spot (Carpenter, Molina), some that are negative who we really should move or cut bait (Fowler, Cecil) and some that are fringe guys that it’s best to use in a trade (A. Garcia, Shreve)…
OK, but no one knew for sure who was being non-tendered ahead of time and there was no way for a team to get upcoming non-tender candidates other than trying to trade for them. After being non-tendered, the guys you like are now free agents and if the Cards consider them a priority, they will try to sign them and make necessary roster space by making trades or getting rid of “fringe guys”. It is a decision independent of and downstream of whether to tender or non-tender Shreve.
Correct. Though we read early in the day Dan Jennings was non-tendered, I am pretty sure it was before the Cardinals announced Shreve had been tendered.
Regardless, the Cardinals have clearly stated they were going after LH relief pitchers, because the left-handed relief pitchers they had last year were not good enough.
So, why take up a roster space with someone you’ve acknowledged you are seeking upgrades for when you have the entire market to negotiate with?
The Cardinals will probably move at their typically glacial pace, and by then, their top five choices will be off the market, and they will “make do” with whatever is available.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.