****Official 2014 STL Cardinals thread ****

[BigRedChief]

2011 WS Championship
2012 one win from another WS
2013 two wins from another WS title
2014?

• This is a franchise that has made the postseason 10 times in the last 14 seasons.
• Reached three World Series in the last decade, and won as many championships (two) the past eight seasons as it did from 1965 to 2005.
• Our new Manager has more post season experience than any other manager in baseball, except the Giants manager.
• Three million attendance? Take it to the bank.
• 60 post season wins since 2004. 20+ wins more than any other team.
• Only one of the last 14 seasons has been a losing one.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

Even if you assume Trout would have gotten something like $45M in arbitration instead of $60M (which I and others don't think would have been the case at all based on his unprecedented track record), the huge bargain they are getting on his FA years is enough of a reason to make the deal here. He's that good a player.

And if he runs into a wall and Grady Sizemore's himself you're on the hook for $140 million. Regardless of what you want to do with Mike Trout, you have him on the hook for the next four years. It was simply foolish to discuss an extension with him for such a large number more than two years before he's hitting FA, and it has nothing to do with whether or not he'll earn the money--he absolutely will. What they have right now is an incredibly undervalued asset. He's paid substantially far less than what he's worth.

If you are paying 1/3 what you should on your car insurance but receive the same coverage, you're a dumb sonofabitch to go sign up and pay the full price, even if the coverage is worth it. Save the money and invest it elsewhere. If Trout asks for $15 million in arb, then give it to him, but don't spend the extra ten just to do it. Besides, signing him from 25/26-32 will also likely have provided them far more value, as they won't be on the hook for the decline years if they decide to re-up him at 28.

Moreno thinks he was thinking ahead, but he's really just playing checkers. Trout was smart to take the deal because it maximizes his earning potential.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

You continue to make the same mistakes over and over, regardless of debate or sport. You look at the numbers, but you are completely unable to contextualize them. Like a freshman writer who can only formulate an argument from aping a single source, you look at one data set and assume that it's infallible.

You're the one who cited ARod's age 20 WAR. I'm just using the same source you were for that. You can look at any number of other metrics (whether it be another version of WAR, offensive stats like wRC+/wOBA/OPS/EqA, defensive standards like DRS/UZR, etc.) and come to the same conclusion about Mike Trout's ridiculous age 20 and age 21 seasons. We're looking at history here.

The difference between Trout at 10.0 and Rodriguez at 9.2 isn't all that statistically significant, especially when you factor in the 20 year difference in the two computed years.

I don't disagree on that. But if Trout isn't definitively having the greatest start to a career in MLB, he's clearly right at the top of a very, very short list of players.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

You're the one who cited ARod's age 20 WAR. I'm just using the same source you were for that. You can look at any number of other metrics (whether it be another version of WAR, offensive stats like wRC+/wOBA/OPS/EqA, defensive standards like DRS/UZR, etc.) and come to the same conclusion about Mike Trout's ridiculous age 20 and age 21 seasons. We're looking at history here.


I don't disagree on that. But if Trout isn't definitively having the greatest start to a career in MLB, he's clearly right at the top of a very, very short list of players.

I never said that he wasn't. Again, as I said, he's in rare air, but you are making a mistake of assuming that arbitrators are even looking at those stats. Maybe they've become significantly more sophisticated in the years since, but their settlements don't seem to suggest that relative to the inherent value of the players, as the comparative decisions on Pujols, Morneau, and Howard will attest to.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

And if he runs into a wall and Grady Sizemore's himself you're on the hook for $140 million. Regardless of what you want to do with Mike Trout, you have him on the hook for the next four years. It was simply foolish to discuss an extension with him for such a large number more than two years before he's hitting FA, and it has nothing to do with whether or not he'll earn the money--he absolutely will. What they have right now is an incredibly undervalued asset. He's paid substantially far less than what he's worth.

Such is the risk you take to get a player worth 40-50M a season to knock out his FA years and sign with you for a below market deal for the next 6 seasons. Barring some kind of injury, it's very difficult to see Trout not outperforming this contract significantly.

Moreno thinks he was thinking ahead, but he's really just playing checkers. Trout was smart to take the deal because it maximizes his earning potential.

I'm not sure that it does. Trout could have left for free agency in a few years and made triple this contract (if not more as Cameron suggests). He does get the certainty and the ability to become a FA relatively near his prime, though, so I can't exactly bemoan Trout taking this deal. I probably would have done the same thing.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

Such is the risk you take to get a player worth 40-50M a season to knock out his FA years and sign with you for a below market deal for the next 6 seasons. Barring some kind of injury, it's very difficult to see Trout not outperforming this contract significantly.


I'm not sure that it does. Trout could have left for free agency in a few years and made triple this contract (if not more as Cameron suggests). He does get the certainty and the ability to become a FA relatively near his prime, though, so I can't exactly bemoan Trout taking this deal. I probably would have done the same thing.

It's not about Trout outperforming the contract, but the loss in surplus value stemming from giving Trout a contract that pays him more than you have to.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

I never said that he wasn't. Again, as I said, he's in rare air, but you are making a mistake of assuming that arbitrators are even looking at those stats. Maybe they've become significantly more sophisticated in the years since, but their settlements don't seem to suggest that relative to the inherent value of the players, as the comparative decisions on Pujols, Morneau, and Howard will attest to.

It's evolving all the time, though. They're not looking at all the particular stats I cited to my understanding, but it's not the way it was before (they look at stuff like OPS now for example).

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

It's not about Trout outperforming the contract, but the loss in surplus value stemming from giving Trout a contract that pays him more than you have to.

If you want to get the best player in baseball to stick around longer than those 3 more seasons and knock off those very valuable FA years, though, perhaps that's a price that you have to be willing to pay.

[Pepe Silvia]

Nice game by Waino and Yady. I'll take the W even though the offense sucked, its game 1 after all.

[allen_kcCard]

There is a create new thread button to talk about former Cardinals and game fish.

[seclark]

wtf is dj's left nut?
always enjoy his takes...
sec

[oldandslow]

Originally Posted by seclark

wtf is dj's left nut?
always enjoy his takes...
sec

Think he, like me, gets tired of the Chiefs continual F-ups. The loss to Indy was just too much. I suspect he is expecting Zach Martin on May 8 as well...At some point the camel's back breaks...

Anyway we post quite often on another Cardinal Board where I think he gives some very good insight...

His post on that board yesterday concerning Matheny's handling of pitchers in the 8th....

__________________
When you're talking about relievers, you can't just review outcomes, you have to review process and execution. Neshek, like it or not, executed fairly well. Seigrist executed extremely well.

And yes, on a lot of days you'd just as soon see Martinez get that call and get the 8th clean but here you had a righty and back to back lefties - why not give the ball to a guy that's hell on righties (Neshek) and a lefty that throws 98?

I don't think this is the norm for Matheny, but I love the fact that he actually made the call according to the circumstances and not just according to script. He handled the 8th absolutely perfectly today, IMO.
__________________

[O.city]

What Cardinal site is that? I've been looking for one.

[O.city]

Would you guys ever think of hitting Craig in the 2 hole?

[bdj23]

Originally Posted by O.city

What Cardinal site is that? I've been looking for one.

Me too.

One that isn't STLToday.com. 90% of their posters are thin skinned babies.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by O.city

Would you guys ever think of hitting Craig in the 2 hole?

Nah, way too damn good hitting with RISP.