http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20121128&a mp;content_id=40445762&vkey=news_mlb&c_id= mlb&partnerId=aw-5208041362960436866-996

They are still looking for Left Fielders, probably a power guy, wonder if we could trade Allen Craig for some good stuff... Would be good for them wonder what they would give us in return.....

Would unblock first base for Matt Adams or Carpenter.

Why are members of this board so interested in trading one of the Cards proven power bats this off season. Makes absolutely no sense 

Craig finally stayed on the field for as much as 3/4 of a season (119 games) and drove in 92. That works out to abour 125 for a full season. Hit .307. .354 OBP. He only has 850 MLB plate appearances under his belt and he's 28. (For comparison, Jay has over 1300 PAs) He's early in his prime. I'm intrigued to see if he can stay healthy next year and what kind of numbers he puts up. In other words, to see if his trajectory is up or flat. I'm intrigued enough to let Adams pound away in Memphis for a while.

Not really interested in trading Allen Craig, but he doesn't really fit a defensive profile, and has said (I believe) that he isn't real comfortable at first.  Heck of a hitter no doubt, and he may just reel off 3 or 4 years of superb offense.

And this should probably go in another thread but if they offered Alex Wood and Nick Ahmed and/or maybe Luke Sims, wouldn't you at least listen?

DiscDogRob wrote: 
And this should probably go in another thread but if they offered Alex Wood and Nick Ahmed and/or maybe Luke Sims, wouldn't you at least listen?

No. You don't come 1 win away from your 2nd consecutive WS birth to go and trade your cleanup hitter for some guys in Rookie and A ball especially pitchers which is something this team already has plenty off. If for some reason you feel the need to trade Allen Craig you trade him for impact now. Andrelton Simmons? Maybe. Some low minors guys? no. You also don't go and trade one of your best power hitters to open a slot for a Utility guy to play everyday of for a player who might not be able to hack it in the big leagues. 

I have no idea what you're talking about defensive profile? He looks fine at 1B and I've never heard of him saying he was uncomfortable. If he is he certainly doesn't play like it.

If you weren't interested in trading Craig you wouldn't have mentioned it. 

As a board can we please stop suggesting trading our best hitters. Especially for things that don't make the team better. It's going to be a long off season, Mo isn't going to do a whole lot. It's going to be a hell of a lot longer if we have someone suggesting that Mo should trade an impact player for low minors prospects every week.

DiscDogRob wrote: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20121128&a mp;a mp;content_id=40445762&vkey=news_mlb&c_id= mlb&partnerId=aw-5208041362960436866-996

They are still looking for Left Fielders, probably a power guy, wonder if we could trade Allen Craig for some good stuff... Would be good for them wonder what they would give us in return.....

Would unblock first base for Matt Adams or Carpenter.

Are you kidding me?

This has to be a joke right?

Back to upton....i dont think this is a bad deal. The upside is still there...i guussed the aav right but not at five years...thought he would get a 3/45-47 or a 4/60

stlcards5129 wrote: Why are members of this board so interested in trading one of the Cards proven power bats this off season. Makes absolutely no sense 

This board is really not an outlier in this area.  I know people whose entire philosophy is to trade any player over the age of 30, any player who is arb eligible, or any player who has or is threatened to have a contract in excess of 2 years.  The idea is that players over 30 are in their decline phase and the team loses money paying them, arb eligible players are at risk of getting salaries higher than they are worth to the team, and longer than 2 year contracts are risky because of the likelihood of significant injury occurring, especially for pitchers.  I don't agree with this philosophy, it seems to me more intent on keeping the payroll low than it is on winning, but there are not an insignificant number of people who are true believers in this philosophy.

If this were just some schmo troll proposing a trade of Craig to Atlanta for prospects, we all just might lambaste them but good.....but this is The Big Dog(Rob) we have here, so an ear must be at least momentarily lended. Did not the BoSox deal the great Babe Ruth in his prime? The Reds, Frank Robinson? Our Cardinals, Steve Carlton? I don't blame 5129 for questioning Rob though.....those 3 great players I mentioned....terrible trades....all 3 of them!

grayssportsalmanac wrote: Back to upton....i dont think this is a bad deal. The upside is still there...i guussed the aav right but not at five years...thought he would get a 3/45-47 or a 4/60

Before I judge this deal I'd rather wait and see what Bourn gets. There are a fair amount of comparisons between Bourn and Upton age (Bourn is a little older), speed, defensive position. The big difference is that one is an average fielder, with elite CF power and virtually no on base skills and the other is an elite fielder, with solid on base skills and very little power. I'm going to guess Bourn either gets a deal with less AAV or less years. I'd rather have Bourn on a 3 year deal than Upton on a 5, but I guess we'll have to wait and see what Bourn gets.

crdswmn wrote:

stlcards5129 wrote: Why are members of this board so interested in trading one of the Cards proven power bats this off season. Makes absolutely no sense 

This board is really not an outlier in this area.  I know people whose entire philosophy is to trade any player over the age of 30, any player who is arb eligible, or any player who has or is threatened to have a contract in excess of 2 years.  The idea is that players over 30 are in their decline phase and the team loses money paying them, arb eligible players are at risk of getting salaries higher than they are worth to the team, and longer than 2 year contracts are risky because of the likelihood of significant injury occurring, especially for pitchers.  I don't agree with this philosophy, it seems to me more intent on keeping the payroll low than it is on winning, but there are not an insignificant number of people who are true believers in this philosophy.

I know. I agree, awfully terrible strategy. That might work in video games or fantasy baseball (the under 30 part), but it's an incredibly unrealistic and irrational strategy for real life. Any strategy targeted at keeping payroll low just flat out doesn't work. The lone exception to that is '03 Florida and that team was loaded with prospects and young players advanced beyond their years a clear anomaly.

stlcards5129 wrote:

crdswmn wrote:

stlcards5129 wrote: Why are members of this board so interested in trading one of the Cards proven power bats this off season. Makes absolutely no sense 

This board is really not an outlier in this area.  I know people whose entire philosophy is to trade any player over the age of 30, any player who is arb eligible, or any player who has or is threatened to have a contract in excess of 2 years.  The idea is that players over 30 are in their decline phase and the team loses money paying them, arb eligible players are at risk of getting salaries higher than they are worth to the team, and longer than 2 year contracts are risky because of the likelihood of significant injury occurring, especially for pitchers.  I don't agree with this philosophy, it seems to me more intent on keeping the payroll low than it is on winning, but there are not an insignificant number of people who are true believers in this philosophy.

I know. I agree, awfully terrible strategy. That might work in video games or fantasy baseball (the under 30 part), but it's an incredibly unrealistic and irrational strategy for real life. Any strategy targeted at keeping payroll low just flat out doesn't work. The lone exception to that is '03 Florida and that team was loaded with prospects and young players advanced beyond their years a clear anomaly.

The current proposal I've seen is to trade Wainwright, Freese, and Motte for the best deals that can be gotten, and Holliday as well if a top flight shortstop can be obtained in return.  Younger and cheaper is the main goal for the true believers.

crdswmn wrote:

stlcards5129 wrote:

crdswmn wrote:

stlcards5129 wrote: Why are members of this board so interested in trading one of the Cards proven power bats this off season. Makes absolutely no sense 

This board is really not an outlier in this area.  I know people whose entire philosophy is to trade any player over the age of 30, any player who is arb eligible, or any player who has or is threatened to have a contract in excess of 2 years.  The idea is that players over 30 are in their decline phase and the team loses money paying them, arb eligible players are at risk of getting salaries higher than they are worth to the team, and longer than 2 year contracts are risky because of the likelihood of significant injury occurring, especially for pitchers.  I don't agree with this philosophy, it seems to me more intent on keeping the payroll low than it is on winning, but there are not an insignificant number of people who are true believers in this philosophy.

I know. I agree, awfully terrible strategy. That might work in video games or fantasy baseball (the under 30 part), but it's an incredibly unrealistic and irrational strategy for real life. Any strategy targeted at keeping payroll low just flat out doesn't work. The lone exception to that is '03 Florida and that team was loaded with prospects and young players advanced beyond their years a clear anomaly.

The current proposal I've seen is to trade Wainwright, Freese, and Motte for the best deals that can be gotten, and Holliday as well if a top flight shortstop can be obtained in return.  Younger and cheaper is the main goal for the true believers.

You know that i am completely on board with trading Holli and for a starting SS and i appreciate you putting it in the correct context. My only interest is IF we could get salary relief and a upgrade at a position we were terrible at the last few years IMO. I do not get why you would trade Craig instead of Holli though due to the HUGE difference in salary. I also think the strategy you reference here is a bad way to go. The key is to find a mix of veterans you can count on and cost controlled youngsters that will hopefully get better as time goes on. No way i trade Waino unless we are getting "King Felix" or something like that. Motte could be replaced with Rosie or Boggs but i like the depth we have in the pen and you likely would not get nearly what Motte is worth to this team in return. I understand the temptation to pull the plug on guys over 30 especially if they have huge contracts but it has to be on a case to case basis.

cardinalnationhouston wrote:

crdswmn wrote:

stlcards5129 wrote:

crdswmn wrote:

stlcards5129 wrote: Why are members of this board so interested in trading one of the Cards proven power bats this off season. Makes absolutely no sense 

This board is really not an outlier in this area.  I know people whose entire philosophy is to trade any player over the age of 30, any player who is arb eligible, or any player who has or is threatened to have a contract in excess of 2 years.  The idea is that players over 30 are in their decline phase and the team loses money paying them, arb eligible players are at risk of getting salaries higher than they are worth to the team, and longer than 2 year contracts are risky because of the likelihood of significant injury occurring, especially for pitchers.  I don't agree with this philosophy, it seems to me more intent on keeping the payroll low than it is on winning, but there are not an insignificant number of people who are true believers in this philosophy.

I know. I agree, awfully terrible strategy. That might work in video games or fantasy baseball (the under 30 part), but it's an incredibly unrealistic and irrational strategy for real life. Any strategy targeted at keeping payroll low just flat out doesn't work. The lone exception to that is '03 Florida and that team was loaded with prospects and young players advanced beyond their years a clear anomaly.

The current proposal I've seen is to trade Wainwright, Freese, and Motte for the best deals that can be gotten, and Holliday as well if a top flight shortstop can be obtained in return.  Younger and cheaper is the main goal for the true believers.

You know that i am completely on board with trading Holli and for a starting SS and i appreciate you putting it in the correct context. My only interest is IF we could get salary relief and a upgrade at a position we were terrible at the last few years IMO. I do not get why you would trade Craig instead of Holli though due to the HUGE difference in salary. I also think the strategy you reference here is a bad way to go. The key is to find a mix of veterans you can count on and cost controlled youngsters that will hopefully get better as time goes on. No way i trade Waino unless we are getting "King Felix" or something like that. Motte could be replaced with Rosie or Boggs but i like the depth we have in the pen and you likely would not get nearly what Motte is worth to this team in return. I understand the temptation to pull the plug on guys over 30 especially if they have huge contracts but it has to be on a case to case basis.

And I am totally not on board with trading Holliday nor am I on board with trading Wainwright, Freese or Motte when the justification for doing so is ageism or an arrogant belief that I or anyone else is better suited to decide payroll issues than the owner of the club.  You trade to make the team better, not to spend less money or to feed some misbegotten belief that players over the age of 30 are somehow worthless.  Keeping the payroll low is the philosophy of the Kansas City Royals, and where has it gotten them?  

Like I have said before, Bill DeWitt has spent his money just fine up til now and I think those who want to decide how he spends it should mind their own business.

crdswmn wrote:

cardinalnationhouston wrote:

crdswmn wrote:

stlcards5129 wrote:

crdswmn wrote:

stlcards5129 wrote: Why are members of this board so interested in trading one of the Cards proven power bats this off season. Makes absolutely no sense 

This board is really not an outlier in this area.  I know people whose entire philosophy is to trade any player over the age of 30, any player who is arb eligible, or any player who has or is threatened to have a contract in excess of 2 years.  The idea is that players over 30 are in their decline phase and the team loses money paying them, arb eligible players are at risk of getting salaries higher than they are worth to the team, and longer than 2 year contracts are risky because of the likelihood of significant injury occurring, especially for pitchers.  I don't agree with this philosophy, it seems to me more intent on keeping the payroll low than it is on winning, but there are not an insignificant number of people who are true believers in this philosophy.

I know. I agree, awfully terrible strategy. That might work in video games or fantasy baseball (the under 30 part), but it's an incredibly unrealistic and irrational strategy for real life. Any strategy targeted at keeping payroll low just flat out doesn't work. The lone exception to that is '03 Florida and that team was loaded with prospects and young players advanced beyond their years a clear anomaly.

The current proposal I've seen is to trade Wainwright, Freese, and Motte for the best deals that can be gotten, and Holliday as well if a top flight shortstop can be obtained in return.  Younger and cheaper is the main goal for the true believers.

You know that i am completely on board with trading Holli and for a starting SS and i appreciate you putting it in the correct context. My only interest is IF we could get salary relief and a upgrade at a position we were terrible at the last few years IMO. I do not get why you would trade Craig instead of Holli though due to the HUGE difference in salary. I also think the strategy you reference here is a bad way to go. The key is to find a mix of veterans you can count on and cost controlled youngsters that will hopefully get better as time goes on. No way i trade Waino unless we are getting "King Felix" or something like that. Motte could be replaced with Rosie or Boggs but i like the depth we have in the pen and you likely would not get nearly what Motte is worth to this team in return. I understand the temptation to pull the plug on guys over 30 especially if they have huge contracts but it has to be on a case to case basis.

And I am totally not on board with trading Holliday nor am I on board with trading Wainwright, Freese or Motte when the justification for doing so is ageism or an arrogant belief that I or anyone else is better suited to decide payroll issues than the owner of the club.  You trade to make the team better, not to spend less money or to feed some misbegotten belief that players over the age of 30 are somehow worthless.  Keeping the payroll low is the philosophy of the Kansas City Royals, and where has it gotten them?  

Like I have said before, Bill DeWitt has spent his money just fine up til now and I think those who want to decide how he spends it should mind their own business.

Who thinks they are better suited to spend Dewitts money? You are taking this way out of context. There are hundreds of team message boards on the internet for all team sports and they serve the same purpose as this one IMO. This place gives us the chance to say what we would like to do IF we could. It is pure fantasy. You may not agree with the ideas and that is your right and you have the option to ignore these threads or to refute the proposal. One guy actually suggested we stop posting our ideas. Why should we? The fact is that many here post these ideas in order to see what others think. There are some smart baseball minds around here and i for one am interested in what they think. If you have no interest in this then i am curious as to what brings you to these threads?

cardinalnationhouston wrote:

crdswmn wrote:

cardinalnationhouston wrote:

crdswmn wrote:

stlcards5129 wrote:

crdswmn wrote:

stlcards5129 wrote: Why are members of this board so interested in trading one of the Cards proven power bats this off season. Makes absolutely no sense 

This board is really not an outlier in this area.  I know people whose entire philosophy is to trade any player over the age of 30, any player who is arb eligible, or any player who has or is threatened to have a contract in excess of 2 years.  The idea is that players over 30 are in their decline phase and the team loses money paying them, arb eligible players are at risk of getting salaries higher than they are worth to the team, and longer than 2 year contracts are risky because of the likelihood of significant injury occurring, especially for pitchers.  I don't agree with this philosophy, it seems to me more intent on keeping the payroll low than it is on winning, but there are not an insignificant number of people who are true believers in this philosophy.

I know. I agree, awfully terrible strategy. That might work in video games or fantasy baseball (the under 30 part), but it's an incredibly unrealistic and irrational strategy for real life. Any strategy targeted at keeping payroll low just flat out doesn't work. The lone exception to that is '03 Florida and that team was loaded with prospects and young players advanced beyond their years a clear anomaly.

The current proposal I've seen is to trade Wainwright, Freese, and Motte for the best deals that can be gotten, and Holliday as well if a top flight shortstop can be obtained in return.  Younger and cheaper is the main goal for the true believers.

You know that i am completely on board with trading Holli and for a starting SS and i appreciate you putting it in the correct context. My only interest is IF we could get salary relief and a upgrade at a position we were terrible at the last few years IMO. I do not get why you would trade Craig instead of Holli though due to the HUGE difference in salary. I also think the strategy you reference here is a bad way to go. The key is to find a mix of veterans you can count on and cost controlled youngsters that will hopefully get better as time goes on. No way i trade Waino unless we are getting "King Felix" or something like that. Motte could be replaced with Rosie or Boggs but i like the depth we have in the pen and you likely would not get nearly what Motte is worth to this team in return. I understand the temptation to pull the plug on guys over 30 especially if they have huge contracts but it has to be on a case to case basis.

And I am totally not on board with trading Holliday nor am I on board with trading Wainwright, Freese or Motte when the justification for doing so is ageism or an arrogant belief that I or anyone else is better suited to decide payroll issues than the owner of the club.  You trade to make the team better, not to spend less money or to feed some misbegotten belief that players over the age of 30 are somehow worthless.  Keeping the payroll low is the philosophy of the Kansas City Royals, and where has it gotten them?  

Like I have said before, Bill DeWitt has spent his money just fine up til now and I think those who want to decide how he spends it should mind their own business.

Who thinks they are better suited to spend Dewitts money? You are taking this way out of context. There are hundreds of team message boards on the internet for all team sports and they serve the same purpose as this one IMO. This place gives us the chance to say what we would like to do IF we could. It is pure fantasy. You may not agree with the ideas and that is your right and you have the option to ignore these threads or to refute the proposal. One guy actually suggested we stop posting our ideas. Why should we? The fact is that many here post these ideas in order to see what others think. There are some smart baseball minds around here and i for one am interested in what they think. If you have no interest in this then i am curious as to what brings you to these threads?

Who thinks they are better suited?  Just about anyone who insists that a player be traded solely because they think that player makes or is about to make too much money.  "Too much money" being subjectively what that person thinks is too much money.  If you want to trade a player because you think it will make the team better and you have a proposal to make, that is fine to state and for people to debate. Problem is, the only proposals I have seen to trade Holliday do not make the team better and are riddled with comments about his "big contract" or he makes "big money" which tends to make me believe that it is not really about making the team better, it is about getting rid of the "big money" that the player makes because it is offensive to them.  I have seen these comments repeatedly outside of this forum, especially on the PD forums.  

People can say what they want on any internet forum they want, and I can say that what they say is offensive to me, which is what I just did.  God Bless America.

crdswmn wrote:

cardinalnationhouston wrote:

crdswmn wrote:

cardinalnationhouston wrote:

crdswmn wrote:

stlcards5129 wrote:

crdswmn wrote:

stlcards5129 wrote: Why are members of this board so interested in trading one of the Cards proven power bats this off season. Makes absolutely no sense 

This board is really not an outlier in this area.  I know people whose entire philosophy is to trade any player over the age of 30, any player who is arb eligible, or any player who has or is threatened to have a contract in excess of 2 years.  The idea is that players over 30 are in their decline phase and the team loses money paying them, arb eligible players are at risk of getting salaries higher than they are worth to the team, and longer than 2 year contracts are risky because of the likelihood of significant injury occurring, especially for pitchers.  I don't agree with this philosophy, it seems to me more intent on keeping the payroll low than it is on winning, but there are not an insignificant number of people who are true believers in this philosophy.

I know. I agree, awfully terrible strategy. That might work in video games or fantasy baseball (the under 30 part), but it's an incredibly unrealistic and irrational strategy for real life. Any strategy targeted at keeping payroll low just flat out doesn't work. The lone exception to that is '03 Florida and that team was loaded with prospects and young players advanced beyond their years a clear anomaly.

The current proposal I've seen is to trade Wainwright, Freese, and Motte for the best deals that can be gotten, and Holliday as well if a top flight shortstop can be obtained in return.  Younger and cheaper is the main goal for the true believers.

You know that i am completely on board with trading Holli and for a starting SS and i appreciate you putting it in the correct context. My only interest is IF we could get salary relief and a upgrade at a position we were terrible at the last few years IMO. I do not get why you would trade Craig instead of Holli though due to the HUGE difference in salary. I also think the strategy you reference here is a bad way to go. The key is to find a mix of veterans you can count on and cost controlled youngsters that will hopefully get better as time goes on. No way i trade Waino unless we are getting "King Felix" or something like that. Motte could be replaced with Rosie or Boggs but i like the depth we have in the pen and you likely would not get nearly what Motte is worth to this team in return. I understand the temptation to pull the plug on guys over 30 especially if they have huge contracts but it has to be on a case to case basis.

And I am totally not on board with trading Holliday nor am I on board with trading Wainwright, Freese or Motte when the justification for doing so is ageism or an arrogant belief that I or anyone else is better suited to decide payroll issues than the owner of the club.  You trade to make the team better, not to spend less money or to feed some misbegotten belief that players over the age of 30 are somehow worthless.  Keeping the payroll low is the philosophy of the Kansas City Royals, and where has it gotten them?  

Like I have said before, Bill DeWitt has spent his money just fine up til now and I think those who want to decide how he spends it should mind their own business.

Who thinks they are better suited to spend Dewitts money? You are taking this way out of context. There are hundreds of team message boards on the internet for all team sports and they serve the same purpose as this one IMO. This place gives us the chance to say what we would like to do IF we could. It is pure fantasy. You may not agree with the ideas and that is your right and you have the option to ignore these threads or to refute the proposal. One guy actually suggested we stop posting our ideas. Why should we? The fact is that many here post these ideas in order to see what others think. There are some smart baseball minds around here and i for one am interested in what they think. If you have no interest in this then i am curious as to what brings you to these threads?

Who thinks they are better suited?  Just about anyone who insists that a player be traded solely because they think that player makes or is about to make too much money.  "Too much money" being subjectively what that person thinks is too much money.  If you want to trade a player because you think it will make the team better and you have a proposal to make, that is fine to state and for people to debate. Problem is, the only proposals I have seen to trade Holliday do not make the team better and are riddled with comments about his "big contract" or he makes "big money" which tends to make me believe that it is not really about making the team better, it is about getting rid of the "big money" that the player makes because it is offensive to them.  I have seen these comments repeatedly outside of this forum, especially on the PD forums.  

People can say what they want on any internet forum they want, and I can say that what they say is offensive to me, which is what I just did.  God Bless America.

Hey this is good stuff here. Honestly my only issue with Holliday's contract is i think the money could be used to make this club more balanced. He is the only trade able player on the roster that would provide "big money" to spend elsewhere. They can trade Skip or Boggs but that will not give us enough dry powder to bring in an elite level SS. I am scared to death about their SS situation b/c Furcal just looks like he is at the end of the line and that was before his injury. His body is breaking down as witnessed by his multiple different injuries the last 3 years. To me Kozma is not a starter and a Kozma- Descalso middle would not be a good thing long term. Also i think the offense needs to diversify a little. I am not suggesting "Whitey ball" but i would like to see a guy at the top that can both get on base and put pressure on the other teams defense with their legs. I thought as a team St.Louis was brutal on the bases and with the moving guys over situations. One reaso this teams offense was sooooo feast or famine last year is b/c we have a lot of similar type hitters in the middle and no offense from the other spots. A guy like Andrus would also help the pitching staff a lot with his glove. My idea is that you trade from surplus to plug an obvious hole. Craig is not an option for trade to me b/c his salary is not going to get us what we need IMO. Trading Holli is risky and i admit that but it could make the team better overall. A trade of Craig only improves the club if we can get a top notch SS for him and the money would need to be similar since Cards don't have much wiggle room right now in respect to budget.

cardinalnationhouston wrote:

crdswmn wrote:

cardinalnationhouston wrote:

crdswmn wrote:

cardinalnationhouston wrote:

crdswmn wrote:

stlcards5129 wrote:

crdswmn wrote:

stlcards5129 wrote: Why are members of this board so interested in trading one of the Cards proven power bats this off season. Makes absolutely no sense 

This board is really not an outlier in this area.  I know people whose entire philosophy is to trade any player over the age of 30, any player who is arb eligible, or any player who has or is threatened to have a contract in excess of 2 years.  The idea is that players over 30 are in their decline phase and the team loses money paying them, arb eligible players are at risk of getting salaries higher than they are worth to the team, and longer than 2 year contracts are risky because of the likelihood of significant injury occurring, especially for pitchers.  I don't agree with this philosophy, it seems to me more intent on keeping the payroll low than it is on winning, but there are not an insignificant number of people who are true believers in this philosophy.

I know. I agree, awfully terrible strategy. That might work in video games or fantasy baseball (the under 30 part), but it's an incredibly unrealistic and irrational strategy for real life. Any strategy targeted at keeping payroll low just flat out doesn't work. The lone exception to that is '03 Florida and that team was loaded with prospects and young players advanced beyond their years a clear anomaly.

The current proposal I've seen is to trade Wainwright, Freese, and Motte for the best deals that can be gotten, and Holliday as well if a top flight shortstop can be obtained in return.  Younger and cheaper is the main goal for the true believers.

You know that i am completely on board with trading Holli and for a starting SS and i appreciate you putting it in the correct context. My only interest is IF we could get salary relief and a upgrade at a position we were terrible at the last few years IMO. I do not get why you would trade Craig instead of Holli though due to the HUGE difference in salary. I also think the strategy you reference here is a bad way to go. The key is to find a mix of veterans you can count on and cost controlled youngsters that will hopefully get better as time goes on. No way i trade Waino unless we are getting "King Felix" or something like that. Motte could be replaced with Rosie or Boggs but i like the depth we have in the pen and you likely would not get nearly what Motte is worth to this team in return. I understand the temptation to pull the plug on guys over 30 especially if they have huge contracts but it has to be on a case to case basis.

And I am totally not on board with trading Holliday nor am I on board with trading Wainwright, Freese or Motte when the justification for doing so is ageism or an arrogant belief that I or anyone else is better suited to decide payroll issues than the owner of the club.  You trade to make the team better, not to spend less money or to feed some misbegotten belief that players over the age of 30 are somehow worthless.  Keeping the payroll low is the philosophy of the Kansas City Royals, and where has it gotten them?  

Like I have said before, Bill DeWitt has spent his money just fine up til now and I think those who want to decide how he spends it should mind their own business.

Who thinks they are better suited to spend Dewitts money? You are taking this way out of context. There are hundreds of team message boards on the internet for all team sports and they serve the same purpose as this one IMO. This place gives us the chance to say what we would like to do IF we could. It is pure fantasy. You may not agree with the ideas and that is your right and you have the option to ignore these threads or to refute the proposal. One guy actually suggested we stop posting our ideas. Why should we? The fact is that many here post these ideas in order to see what others think. There are some smart baseball minds around here and i for one am interested in what they think. If you have no interest in this then i am curious as to what brings you to these threads?

Who thinks they are better suited?  Just about anyone who insists that a player be traded solely because they think that player makes or is about to make too much money.  "Too much money" being subjectively what that person thinks is too much money.  If you want to trade a player because you think it will make the team better and you have a proposal to make, that is fine to state and for people to debate. Problem is, the only proposals I have seen to trade Holliday do not make the team better and are riddled with comments about his "big contract" or he makes "big money" which tends to make me believe that it is not really about making the team better, it is about getting rid of the "big money" that the player makes because it is offensive to them.  I have seen these comments repeatedly outside of this forum, especially on the PD forums.  

People can say what they want on any internet forum they want, and I can say that what they say is offensive to me, which is what I just did.  God Bless America.

Hey this is good stuff here. Honestly my only issue with Holliday's contract is i think the money could be used to make this club more balanced. He is the only trade able player on the roster that would provide "big money" to spend elsewhere. They can trade Skip or Boggs but that will not give us enough dry powder to bring in an elite level SS. I am scared to death about their SS situation b/c Furcal just looks like he is at the end of the line and that was before his injury. His body is breaking down as witnessed by his multiple different injuries the last 3 years. To me Kozma is not a starter and a Kozma- Descalso middle would not be a good thing long term. Also i think the offense needs to diversify a little. I am not suggesting "Whitey ball" but i would like to see a guy at the top that can both get on base and put pressure on the other teams defense with their legs. I thought as a team St.Louis was brutal on the bases and with the moving guys over situations. One reaso this teams offense was sooooo feast or famine last year is b/c we have a lot of similar type hitters in the middle and no offense from the other spots. A guy like Andrus would also help the pitching staff a lot with his glove. My idea is that you trade from surplus to plug an obvious hole. Craig is not an option for trade to me b/c his salary is not going to get us what we need IMO. Trading Holli is risky and i admit that but it could make the team better overall. A trade of Craig only improves the club if we can get a top notch SS for him and the money would need to be similar since Cards don't have much wiggle room right now in respect to budget.

You don't trade your best asset just to "find money" to do something else.  You find the money elsewhere or you increase payroll.  Or you don't so the something else.  I think Bill DeWitt knows what he is doing, which is my point.  If he wants to fill that hole, he will fill it in the way he thinks best.  I may not like it, but if I don't, it won't be because I think he spent too much money it will be because I don't like his choice.  Whether he spends $50M or $200M on the team is not my concern, my concern is the quality of the players he puts on the field.  It's not my money.

crdswmn wrote:

cardinalnationhouston wrote:

crdswmn wrote:

cardinalnationhouston wrote:

crdswmn wrote:

cardinalnationhouston wrote:

crdswmn wrote:

stlcards5129 wrote:

crdswmn wrote:

stlcards5129 wrote: Why are members of this board so interested in trading one of the Cards proven power bats this off season. Makes absolutely no sense 

This board is really not an outlier in this area.  I know people whose entire philosophy is to trade any player over the age of 30, any player who is arb eligible, or any player who has or is threatened to have a contract in excess of 2 years.  The idea is that players over 30 are in their decline phase and the team loses money paying them, arb eligible players are at risk of getting salaries higher than they are worth to the team, and longer than 2 year contracts are risky because of the likelihood of significant injury occurring, especially for pitchers.  I don't agree with this philosophy, it seems to me more intent on keeping the payroll low than it is on winning, but there are not an insignificant number of people who are true believers in this philosophy.

I know. I agree, awfully terrible strategy. That might work in video games or fantasy baseball (the under 30 part), but it's an incredibly unrealistic and irrational strategy for real life. Any strategy targeted at keeping payroll low just flat out doesn't work. The lone exception to that is '03 Florida and that team was loaded with prospects and young players advanced beyond their years a clear anomaly.

The current proposal I've seen is to trade Wainwright, Freese, and Motte for the best deals that can be gotten, and Holliday as well if a top flight shortstop can be obtained in return.  Younger and cheaper is the main goal for the true believers.

You know that i am completely on board with trading Holli and for a starting SS and i appreciate you putting it in the correct context. My only interest is IF we could get salary relief and a upgrade at a position we were terrible at the last few years IMO. I do not get why you would trade Craig instead of Holli though due to the HUGE difference in salary. I also think the strategy you reference here is a bad way to go. The key is to find a mix of veterans you can count on and cost controlled youngsters that will hopefully get better as time goes on. No way i trade Waino unless we are getting "King Felix" or something like that. Motte could be replaced with Rosie or Boggs but i like the depth we have in the pen and you likely would not get nearly what Motte is worth to this team in return. I understand the temptation to pull the plug on guys over 30 especially if they have huge contracts but it has to be on a case to case basis.

And I am totally not on board with trading Holliday nor am I on board with trading Wainwright, Freese or Motte when the justification for doing so is ageism or an arrogant belief that I or anyone else is better suited to decide payroll issues than the owner of the club.  You trade to make the team better, not to spend less money or to feed some misbegotten belief that players over the age of 30 are somehow worthless.  Keeping the payroll low is the philosophy of the Kansas City Royals, and where has it gotten them?  

Like I have said before, Bill DeWitt has spent his money just fine up til now and I think those who want to decide how he spends it should mind their own business.

Who thinks they are better suited to spend Dewitts money? You are taking this way out of context. There are hundreds of team message boards on the internet for all team sports and they serve the same purpose as this one IMO. This place gives us the chance to say what we would like to do IF we could. It is pure fantasy. You may not agree with the ideas and that is your right and you have the option to ignore these threads or to refute the proposal. One guy actually suggested we stop posting our ideas. Why should we? The fact is that many here post these ideas in order to see what others think. There are some smart baseball minds around here and i for one am interested in what they think. If you have no interest in this then i am curious as to what brings you to these threads?

Who thinks they are better suited?  Just about anyone who insists that a player be traded solely because they think that player makes or is about to make too much money.  "Too much money" being subjectively what that person thinks is too much money.  If you want to trade a player because you think it will make the team better and you have a proposal to make, that is fine to state and for people to debate. Problem is, the only proposals I have seen to trade Holliday do not make the team better and are riddled with comments about his "big contract" or he makes "big money" which tends to make me believe that it is not really about making the team better, it is about getting rid of the "big money" that the player makes because it is offensive to them.  I have seen these comments repeatedly outside of this forum, especially on the PD forums.  

People can say what they want on any internet forum they want, and I can say that what they say is offensive to me, which is what I just did.  God Bless America.

Hey this is good stuff here. Honestly my only issue with Holliday's contract is i think the money could be used to make this club more balanced. He is the only trade able player on the roster that would provide "big money" to spend elsewhere. They can trade Skip or Boggs but that will not give us enough dry powder to bring in an elite level SS. I am scared to death about their SS situation b/c Furcal just looks like he is at the end of the line and that was before his injury. His body is breaking down as witnessed by his multiple different injuries the last 3 years. To me Kozma is not a starter and a Kozma- Descalso middle would not be a good thing long term. Also i think the offense needs to diversify a little. I am not suggesting "Whitey ball" but i would like to see a guy at the top that can both get on base and put pressure on the other teams defense with their legs. I thought as a team St.Louis was brutal on the bases and with the moving guys over situations. One reaso this teams offense was sooooo feast or famine last year is b/c we have a lot of similar type hitters in the middle and no offense from the other spots. A guy like Andrus would also help the pitching staff a lot with his glove. My idea is that you trade from surplus to plug an obvious hole. Craig is not an option for trade to me b/c his salary is not going to get us what we need IMO. Trading Holli is risky and i admit that but it could make the team better overall. A trade of Craig only improves the club if we can get a top notch SS for him and the money would need to be similar since Cards don't have much wiggle room right now in respect to budget.

You don't trade your best asset just to "find money" to do something else.  You find the money elsewhere or you increase payroll.  Or you don't so the something else.  I think Bill DeWitt knows what he is doing, which is my point.  If he wants to fill that hole, he will fill it in the way he thinks best.  I may not like it, but if I don't, it won't be because I think he spent too much money it will be because I don't like his choice.  Whether he spends $50M or $200M on the team is not my concern, my concern is the quality of the players he puts on the field.  It's not my money.

From what i have read though he will not be spending more money. The budget looks like it will be around 110 from what i read. last year it was 116. If these parameters are correct then Moz will do next to nothing this off season b/c the $$$ is just not there. Trading Holliday provides a LOT of money for upgrades and i just don't think this club is good enough with that big hole in the middle. In a perfect world i would love t keep Matt and that is what probably will happen but in no way is Holli irreplaceble or the teams "best asset" IMO. Your best asset is your best player.

I don't know why people keep bringing up Andrus. Texas seems pretty intent on keeping him and Profar, I haven't seen a single thing this off-season where Texas mentions any interest in moving him. I love how you keep saying a SS that will improve the team, but you have failed to mention any SS that could be had this off-season that will offset the loss of Holliday. You seem so intent on moving the guy but cannot even supply a reasonable plan of action to acquire significant value in the absence of Holliday.