Cardinals don't deal with pitching void

[ironman]

Some teams have budgets. The St. Louis Cardinals apparently have a salary cap. Once among the most aggressive franchises, the Cardinals failed for the second straight offseason to rectify the pitching void the death of Darryl Kile and the regression of Rick Ankiel caused. They blew it in a big way in allowing the Cubs to sign Greg Maddux.

[joe_w]

The C*bs significantly overpaid for Maddux. Anyone suggesting that we should have guaranteed him 9 million a year for three years is irresponsible.

[Dr.Gonzo]

Originally posted by joe_w@Feb 22 2004, 04:49 PM
The C*bs significantly overpaid for Maddux. Anyone suggesting that we should have guaranteed him 9 million a year for three years is irresponsible.

When you back yourself into a hole, sometimes you have to bite the bullet.

[ironman]

Originally posted by joe_w@Feb 22 2004, 04:49 PM
The C*bs significantly overpaid for Maddux. Anyone suggesting that we should have guaranteed him 9 million a year for three years is irresponsible.

If they make it into the playoffs, I'd consider it a good trade off.

[CD]

The Maddux contract is a good one IF they win the pennant. If not, it's a bad contract because Maddux was a luxury and that money could've been better used to re-sign Derrek Lee and/or Kerry Wood or to strengthen their bullpen, especially if Borowski was a one-year wonder. The Cubs starting pitching was probably the NL's best without Maddux.

If the Cubs don't win the pennant this year or next, then the Maddux signing is bad because they're going to have a $9 million 41-year-old pitcher on the roster if he reaches certain incentives. Maybe he won't reach those incentives but if he doesn't, then the $7.5 million they are paying this year and next was a waste. But if the Cubs win the pennant, then it's worth having to grossly overpay him for a year as a trade-off.

It would've made more sense for the Cardinals to overpay him than for the Cubs to because the Cardinals actually probably needed him, unlike the Cubs.

[dv6y]

So what's Ankiel doing these days (besides coke)?

[Razzy]

If Maddux doesnt pitch 400 innings the next two years combined, then he isnt getting paid any more than Woody is getting on his 2-year deal. Now if he does pitch 400 innings, then the third year is added in and the deal might not be so great. Depends on how he pitches.

I was sort of surprised that he didnt get more than he got. He made $15 million last year, if I am not mistaken.

[joe_w]

Originally posted by devaskar@Feb 22 2004, 06:08 PM
The Maddux contract is a good one IF they win the pennant. If not, it's a bad contract because Maddux was a luxury and that money could've been better used to re-sign Derrek Lee and/or Kerry Wood or to strengthen their bullpen, especially if Borowski was a one-year wonder. The Cubs starting pitching was probably the NL's best without Maddux.

If the Cubs don't win the pennant this year or next, then the Maddux signing is bad because they're going to have a $9 million 41-year-old pitcher on the roster if he reaches certain incentives. Maybe he won't reach those incentives but if he doesn't, then the $7.5 million they are paying this year and next was a waste. But if the Cubs win the pennant, then it's worth having to grossly overpay him for a year as a trade-off.

It would've made more sense for the Cardinals to overpay him than for the Cubs to because the Cardinals actually probably needed him, unlike the Cubs.

The issue I take with this is that signing Maddux wouldn't have meant "the difference" to the Cards. He is not the "final piece" of the puzzle.

He would - probably - have bolstered a weak spot (the rotation). But the addition of Maddux would not have made us the favorites in the division or put us in a position win the pennant.

And because we are not as close to winning a pennant as the Cubs are thought to be, I'm guessing that any deal he would sign here would have to be more guaranteed at lower incentives. In short, the equivalent of another Tino contract.

If overpaying for fading veterans is how we got into this mess, how will overpaying for another fading veteran make it any better?

[big_dawg160]

Maddux at a one year deal would have been an AMAZING addition to the Cardinals, everyone knows that our pitching cannot compete in the Central. But at 3 years he would not have fit with what the Cardinals are trying to do long term. That would have added another contract that would have held the Cardinals down for years.
Lets just hope that this is La Russa's last year and we can begin rebuilding with around Pujols, Renteria, and my man, Rolen. I would trade Morris, Williams, Edmonds, and/or Isringhausen, for young pitching and try to rebuild for the future when the new Stadium is built. Morris since I dont believe he deserves to be paid like a #1 pitcher. Williams would be a good addition to a team looking to make the playoffs. Izzy is an amazing closer, but if we arent going to be able to compete then a high priced closer really isnt a necessity. And while I like Jimmy Edmonds, he is high priced and getting older. He is one player that could be traded later in the season for some younger players.

And finally, wouldnt it be amazing if La Russa and Torre both quit this year, and the Cardinals re-hired Torre. I believe it could happen. A lot less stress managing in St. Louis..............and a lot less money to spend.

[Indu WangZi]

Originally posted by dvyyyyyy@Feb 22 2004, 06:17 PM
So what's Ankiel doing these days (besides coke)?

hanging out with Grant Wistrom...

[TTB]

Originally posted by devaskar@Feb 22 2004, 06:08 PM
It would've made more sense for the Cardinals to overpay him than for the Cubs to because the Cardinals actually probably needed him, unlike the Cubs.

Exactly.

But even the Cards were right not to give him a 3 year contract.

[bigJOE]

please, guys. maddux will have an awful year this year. way overpaid for what he's going to do this year. him getting an additional two years was just insane.

after you see what he does this year, you'll be glad we didn't sign him. just because we didn't sign good starting pitchers, doesn't mean we have to make a stupider move and sign an old, washed up guy to an enormous contract.

[TTB]

Originally posted by bigJOE@Feb 22 2004, 10:50 PM
please, guys. maddux will have an awful year this year. way overpaid for what he's going to do this year. him getting an additional two years was just insane.

after you see what he does this year, you'll be glad we didn't sign him. just because we didn't sign good starting pitchers, doesn't mean we have to make a stupider move and sign an old, washed up guy to an enormous contract.

Sure ...talk him down and then you will SNATCH him in the draft.'

Very sneaky Joe...

[BringBackZezel]

If maddux can teach the Cubs young pitching staff what he knows, $9 million per year is WELL worth it, even if he only pitches 150 innings per season

[joe_w]

Originally posted by BringBackZezel@Feb 22 2004, 11:05 PM
If maddux can teach the Cubs young pitching staff what he knows, $9 million per year is WELL worth it, even if he only pitches 150 innings per season

Are these the same magic secrets he taught to Jason Marquis?