Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Player/WHIP/BABIP/LOB%/K9/BB9/ERA/FIP/xFIP
Gray: 1.10/.309/64.7%/11.12/2.18/3.79/2.85/2.71
Fedde: 1.14/.265/80.7%/7.99/2.52/3.11/3.76/3.96Better pitcher? No. Better batted ball luck? Yes.
Yes, I said “most,” not all. For just 2025, Goldschmidt is -$26mm and Gray is +$15mm. So for one year, those two net to -$11mm (which is subsequently entirely consumed–and then some–by Gray’s scheduled increase the following year). Then you have the arb increases, which will affect the Y/Y comparison.
I agree they will have some incremental money for 2025, but how much depends on what they do with the options–if they don’t exercise them, they’ll still have to fill the rotation slots from somewhere. If they do exercise them, they won’t have a ton of incremental space if they hold the line on payroll (unless they alter the roster further through additional transactions to create more room).
Player/fWAR/bWAR/Average/(games)
Siani: 1.3/0.8/1.1 (94)
Pages: 0.1/0.5/0.3 (37)
Burleson: 1.2/1.2/1.2 (97)Mike, sounds like the perfect encapsulation of the current “Cardinal Way”: stuck “in the middle,” neither a decisive buyer or seller. It’s the logical tactical extension of their stated strategy: “Compete every year” with a mid-market payroll (and below average farm system).
That treadmill for the 2nd or 3rd wild card never stops . . .
Unfortunately, most of the Goldschmidt savings will be offset by the +$15mm and +$30mm (incl buyout) increases in Sonny Gray’s annual salary over the next two years.
It’s entirely possible the Cardinals will still be able to trade Gallegos now that he is formally DFA’d. In the meantime they free up a 40-man slot. All of that makes sense. It’s the idea that the reason for doing this was to “find” $2mm to put toward a trade deadline acquisition that strikes me as silly. They wanted to get rid of him to free up space (and small money) on the roster, they couldn’t find any takers, so they took the next step. Makes sense. But their pursuit of a trade deadline addition shouldn’t be affected by this one way or another (assuming they’re actually serious about trying to compete this year).
I would leave some latitude for the possibility that Denton’s source is simply wrong. Clearly they tried to trade Gallegos first, but there was no market. So the next step is DFA. All of that checks out. It’s the monetary motivation part of the story that seems hard to believe.
John Denton
@JohnDenton555
When Giovanny Gallegos was DFA’ed — a move the #STLCards decided Sat night — it was done in hopes of saving salary they can put toward a player nabbed via a trade, per a source.Gallegos was making $5.5 M in 2024. If he is claimed, STL plans to put that money toward a trade add.
If a prorated $5.5mm (basically $2mm) makes that much of a difference, this organization needs to take a long look in the mirror and question their basic strategy.
I don’t know that but I do know that he is still owed $65M after this season. Yikes! I never liked how that contract was structured. Completely kicked the can down the road and will not allow us to add as much the next two years.
Yep, $65mm for 2 remaining years. (Plus the 2nd round draft pick and associated slot value, which clearly impacted the overall 2024 draft strategy.)
He has to be a 4-ish WAR/yr pitcher over those final two years to get the contract close to in the black for that period. Currently, he’s pacing toward 4.1 for this season, so the contract probably will be in the red over the final two years. Likely still tradable, but not a ton of value there after this season. If the Cardinals were interested in trading him (doubtful), the time to do it would be now.
Makes sense, especially given where the Rays are. Arozarena is arb eligible and starting to get more expensive ($8.1mm this year). The Rays are always looking to replenish their cost-controlled assets.
Shady wrote:
RBK, gut feeling. Like I had with Burleson when it seemed around 90% of posters weren’t sure about him not that long ago. Burleson has made some past doubters now marvel at what he’s doing. Sometimes, you have to look beyond so-called current “facts” as the be all, end all.
LOL. Exactly. Reply #261210
It’s like the universal signal for when you’re (once again) at a dead end.
Shady wrote:
RBK, maybe Wetherholt is a “once-in-a-decade” pure hitter “type of prospect”. Just maybe.
Maybe he’s the next Joe Morgan. Maybe he’s the next Chase Utley. Maybe he’s the next Robinson Cano. Just maybe . . .
There is always a (very) small chance that any player may achieve outlier results in retrospect, but the key word here is “prospect.” As in: forward looking consensus view, as of today. He is not viewed as that sort of prospect as of *now* (i.e., at the time of the draft). If he were, he never would have fallen to #7. So why would you forecast/speculate about an outlier result as if it were the most likely baseline scenario/outcome?
Keep trying . . .
Such a silly comparison. Skenes was a once-in-a-decade (or more) type of prospect, and was widely viewed as such at the time of the draft. #1.1 picks across the years aren’t all of the same quality.
Siani:
4.1% BB%.
.269 OBP
.235 BA
.209 xBA (!)
.255 wOBA
.239 xwOBA (bottom one-percentile in MLB)
64 wRC+
62 OPS+Even great defenders have to hit at least a little. That kind of offensive output simply won’t cut it.
Even Ozzie Smith had to get his wRC+ into the high-70s-to-low-80s to be a valuable player.
BHC, thanks for the follow-up, much appreciated. So they landed about where they do most years, just under the overage limit.
They were 44-54 at this point last season. So you’re saying Burleson (1.4 WAR) has created 7 additional wins this year?
It would help your credibility if you could stick to actual facts and evidence in your praise, rather than dropping whopper after whopper like “[Burleson] is a good/average/decent fielder,” “[Burleson] has at least average speed,” and “Burleson has been worth 7 additional wins this year,” to cite just a few of your fact-free gems from the last couple days.
If they do, they’ll likely be a lot more valuable than Burleson (esp if Walker can be just an average defender in RF).
Once again:
“Wetherholt has excellent plate discipline, an extremely low chase rate (14%), a double-digit BB rate (18%), is fast (28.7 ft/s), and potentially can play multiple high-value defensive positions. The only thing he and Burleson have in common is they’re both LHHs with high contact rates.”
BHC, are you including the 5% overage in that calculation? With the overage, they should have a tick over $10.7 mm of total pool. FWIW, Davis’s slot value (Rd 5) is $485,700.
Burleson got down the line pretty darn good on that grounder in his first AB. He seems to have at least average speed.
Statcast sprint speed: 25.4 ft/s (10th percentile in MLB).
Wetherholt signs for just slightly over slot.
https://twitter.com/CarlosACollazo/status/1814725426931245523
Extremely unlikely they’re looking to acquire a “productive, consistent starting pitcher” with multiple years of control at the trade deadline.
https://x.com/ballysportsmw/status/1812187784980947346?s=12&t=YhpWwnzNsAvWad4bx3K0hg
