Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
If they were trying to trade Fowler, they would not expect to not eat any money. I don’t know why you would believe that.
I’ve believed since the contract was signed, they’d have to eat money because they overpaid him by 2 years/$50 million.
Whereas last year I thought they’d have to chip in $6-8 million per year, now I believe they have to chip in at least $13 million per year. I don’t think DeWitt is willing to go that far.
I don’t think DeWitt can be offering that crazy of logic for keeping Fowler.
I do believe DeWitt has told Mozeliak he has to find a way to trade Fowler and recoup the sunk dollars, which even that, I find dissettling.
Cut your losses and move on.
I think there was a Kenny Rogers song about that.
I still don’t really understand with our outfield depth why we are in on Harper and not Machado?
I think most of us here don’t really believe we are really in on either Machado or Harper. Yeah, the Cardinals will probably make an offer to one of them. No, it won’t win the deal.
But the improvement from Fowler to Harper is much greater than the improvement from Gyorko to Machado. And players who say hustling is not their cup of tea aren’t the best clubhouse leaders.
The only way a Goldschmidt trade makes sense is if it also involves swapping Fowler & Greinke.
QUESTION: The fact that the Cards are not trying to trade Fowler is discouraging. Not saying they’d be successful in finding a trade partner, but the fact that they’re not trying seems like it’s destined for him to be starting in right field again next year. … Doesn’t it make sense to see if you can find a trade partner, even if you don’t get a right-field upgrade?
GOOLD: The Cardinals are going to need someone to play right field in 2019. This much we know. Trying to get any return on Fowler now only puts them in a position without any sort of leverage. Teams will know THEY MUST ADD a right fielder at that point. How’s that positioning them better for a deal? Any deal? If the Cardinals go out and add a right fielder there can still be room on the roster for the new right fielder and Fowler. That is not only possible, it actually makes some sense because trading Fowler is difficult and certain to bring little return and a lot of cost at this point.
It makes zero sense to trade Fowler at this point because of his no-trade clause, because of his injury, because of the remainder of his contract, and because it would put the Cardinals in a worse position for negotiations. That’s a rare lose-lose-lose-lose-lose-lose move. Did I count up the “loses” right?
That was from one of Goold’s chats a few weeks ago.
I laugh at his logic, and I truly hope it is not how DeWitt sees it.
If we go big at 1B or 3B then keeping Dexter on the roster would be more palatable, as long as it is a big upgrade (not Moose or Seager).
I don’t see how keeping Fowler on this roster is palatable at all.
Well, there you go. Signing Harper might help retain Mikolas.
Tyler O’Neill had an .803 OPS and Patrick Wisdom had .882 in 2018 (yes, small sample sizes, but you never know what you have unless you give them a shot).
Make a trade for Kluber roll with a starting rotation of Kluber, Carlos Martinez, Flaherty, Mikolas and Weaver/Hudson/Reyes.
Fortify the bullpen with Familia, Herrera, Jennings, Avila, etc. Dump marginal players like Shreve who never should have been tendered.
But reality is, DeWitt’s never going to spend $300 million on Harper if he can’t bring himself to dump Fowler.
Well, from Goold’s chat, we know DeWitt won’t sink $400 million into Harper.
We also saw that once young players formerly of the Cardinals got playing time, they did pretty well (Adams, Voit, Grichuk).
So, how big is the improvement of just going from Dexter Fowler in right field to Tyler O’Neill?
The best answer is probably just to release Dexter Fowler, go with a Wisdom/Gyorko platoon at 3rd, O’Neill in RF, maybe acquire somebody like Joe McCarthy from the Rays to give us left-handed thump in the outfield.
And JMart needs to be traded to a team that needs a DH.
I know how much people have averages even though it is the foundation of statistics, but in the 10 years prior to the introduction of revenue sharing, the Oakland A’s averaged nearly 240,000 more fans per year than the San Francisco Giants.
It wasn’t until the year 2000 (4 years after the introduction of revenue sharing) that San Francisco began to consistently outdraw the A’s.
Moneyball is a con to get money by not playing the best ball.
1. The Phillies trade shows they are willing to be cost neutral (that would imply send Fowler back)
2. In both the Phillies and Mets trades they included decent relievers (might be a stretch for Pazos, but he was decent last year) to get the deal done.Let’s face it, the Cardinals are nowhere near their spending limit, which is basically the luxury tax line.
They could acquire Seager and keep Fowler and Gyorko and be fine financially (if that meant getting Haniger back). But the only way this front office will trade for Seager is if they get rid of Fowler. Personally, I’d like to keep Gyorko as backup for Seager, but I can see them sending out Gyorko to make the revenues match.
No way the Cardinals pay the freight as if Seager is going to for sure bounce back. It really depends on how much value they see in getting rid of Fowler.
You are correct, but keep the frame of relevance constant (either subtract Harper from Goldschmidt or subtract Goldschmidt from Harper).
You can then express the Impact of Difference as a percentage. And yes, from a hitting perspective, Goldschmidt would be better than Harper.
Reasons for Fowler to approve a trade to Seattle:
1. No state income tax
2. Jay Bruce is less competition for playing time than Tyler O’Neill
3. Seattle is not St. LouisYeah, sure, Fowler will return to his best year as far as hitting HR’s and second best year as far as OPS rather than closer to his mean.
They were in the playoffs 3 straight years from 2012-2014 and attendence never was higher than 2 million.
Actually, there attendance increased EACH of those years, and totaled 2,003,628 in 2014. How is that not above 2 million?
If you want to blame moneyball for not producing winning teams (and thus fans) than I think there is a strong argument that you are wrong.
You were just proven wrong by being too lazy to actually follow a link.
Look at what happened to Cubs attendance when they were tanking. Look at the correlation between winning and fan attendance for Oakland and Kansas City.
Teams win, more fans go to the ballpark.
Look at 1990 – they drew 2.9 million fans during a period of winning.
Then, they adopted “Moneyball.” Why? Because it’s much easier to accept welfare than build a winning team.
Why did you include Tampa with the others?
1. Is Tampa bigger than St. Louis? Also, you have to look at the TV market size as well (where they are much bigger than STL)…
2. Because Tampa is one of those teams that claims they can’t afford good players every year and trades away anybody making a decent salary, claiming poverty while receiving $40+ million per year in competitive revenue sharing. They should be weened off the welfare just like Oakland should.Oakland, obviously, is at a disadvantage too since the San Francisco area has 2 teams and only has 4.7M people and the majority of them are Giants’ fans.
1. Oakland invented this philosophy of welfare for baseball teams with their Moneyball philosophy
2. When I was growing up, it was the A’s, not the Giants that were relevant
3. The Bay area had no problem supporting the Raiders or the Warriors when they were putting winning teams on the field/court
4. The Bay area is perhaps the wealthiest in the country, and it’s just as easy if not easier for people in Silicon Valley to get to Oakland than it is to get to San Francisco
5. The Chicago White Sox are much more disadvantaged in Chicago than than the Oakland A’s are in the Bay area in terms of allegiances, area around the ballpark, etcToronto (5.9M), Montreal (4.1M), and Vancouver (2.5M) are bigger than Milwaukee as well.
1. Not sure of the relevance of Montreal or Vancouver, as they don’t have baseball teams
2. Does Toronto receive revenue sharing? That would be absurd as well.If you followed Grichuk this past year, he was doing terrible the first few months of the year. The Blue Jays kept playing him, because they had no one else, and he put it together. The Cardinals would have sent him down to Single A ball never to be heard from again.
Adams was always seen as nothing more than a platoon player in STL. He had to face all pitchers in Atlanta and Washington.
Voit never really had a chance in STL because of JMart.
Those decisions aren’t the hitting coach.
Speaking of hoarding, DiPoto is hoarding all the bad contracts we can swap Fowler for…(Seager, Bruce, Santana)
If he acquires Greinke + Goldschmidt, I’ll think he is putting the squeeze on Mozeliak…
I think I had only seen it as speculation as what the Cardinals could do…
It’s fun watching the ebb and flow on the Mariners message boards as details trickle out about the trade…At first, it sounded like they were getting Haseley for taking on Santana’s contract, which would be quite a good move, now it sounds like there might be another Seattle player going to Philadelphia in the deal, which has everybody up in arms…
Actually, it looks like the Mariners are acquiring Santana.
So, after all the trades:
– they have an OF of Haniger, Mallex Smith & Jay Bruce
– they have an IF of Carlos Santana (DH), Healy/Vogelbach (1B), Dee Gordon (2b), JP Crawford (SS) and Kyle Seager (3B)If DiPoto stops trading and transitions to acquiring free agent pitchers, he’s an absolute genius.
I think this thread should be renamed DiPoto – as we still have two possible ways of trading Dexter Fowler to Seattle (Seager or Bruce)…
Plus, we may move JMart there for somebody, as they still don’t have a DH…
Well, maybe not:
