OT- Cards sign Berkman

[billiken_roy]

Exactly. This is the point I have made before. As Albert has obtained his citizenship from the US, it would just be reasonable that he had to provide (or the US obtained) proper certification of his age.

yep no doubt that one of those above reproach carribean countries or even a bigger longshot some tiny little hospital in the dominican would even think about messing with something like that. i am convinced. thanks for showing us the way.

[slufanskip]

You can't play the GM game looking back, though. Our 2nd baseman just hasn't performed over the years, but the front office was correct in their assessment of how they felt those 3 would do in the future. I'd much rather have an underachieving 2B or SS who is paid a small salary, than a old, over paid one who is putting up similar numbers.

Polanco is probably the only one who has done relatively better than expected since leaving.

The Cards made a mistake by letting Edgar go. He signed with Boston for 4 years 36 mil. Jockety was alienating Edgar and his agent because he felt he had bigger priorities. It seemed he felt he had more time than he had. By the time the Boston offer was made Edgar and his agent were put off by the Cards. Edgar was not overpaid on that contract. He earned 36 mil over 4 years. In '05 and '06 he probably performed at about the value of the contract and in '07 he far outperformed it. The only year I'd say he underperformed was in '08 in Detroit. His ops in 05-08 .721, .797, .860, .699. Even after his worst year he had a team willing to sign him for the same 9 mil per year avg he earned during the previous 4.

Edgar and his agent weren't the only free agents leaving the Cards that ended up put off by Jockety's tactics.

[dlarry]

Who did the following players not get Lalong with? We would have had better teams if they got multi year deals

LUDWIG, GRUDZIELANEk, RENTERIA, POLANCO

I hope this is a joke.

The Cards traded Polanco for Scott Rolen...I think we all know how that deal worked out

Grudzielanek has played 126 games since the end of the 2007 season

Renteria got greedy and left for Boston for 1 million more than the Cards offered him and has not done much since 2007

Ludwick....I didnt like the trade but I would rather have Westbrook and Berkman than Ludwick and some experiment in the 4th rotation spot.

[Bay Area Billiken]

I hope this is a joke.

The Cards traded Polanco for Scott Rolen...I think we all know how that deal worked out

Grudzielanek has played 126 games since the end of the 2007 season

Renteria got greedy and left for Boston for 1 million more than the Cards offered him and has not done much since 2007

Ludwick....I didnt like the trade but I would rather have Westbrook and Berkman than Ludwick and some experiment in the 4th rotation spot.

I'd rather have Berkman and Westbrook over Ludwick and say an injured Brad Penny. But I hated to see them trade Ludwick in-season and sacrifice the 2010 season in the process. Still, moving ahead, I think signing Berkman is a good move. That was my initial impression, and still is.

[hsmith19]

A bizarre move made even more bizarre when you consider that the chief justification for trading Ludwick at the deadline was that they wouldn't be able to afford what Ludwick would get in arbitration this season. Well, there's no way Ludwick's going to get more than $8 million in arb with the Padres this year. And Berkman will likely get on base significantly more than Ludwick would have here, but at a terrible price in terms of durability, defense, and probably even slightly less power than Ludwick would've offered.

And now La Russa's talking about wanting to bat Berkman behind Pujols/Holliday rather than in front of them, blunting the value of his OBP, which is his chief asset at this point in his career. He hasn't played any significant amount of outfield in a season in SIX years, and his UZR and +/- numbers were horrible even back then BEFORE all his leg problems. Just a puzzling move all around. All that "character" and "chemistry" he offers better set that clubhouse absolutely on fire for it to be worth it.

[courtside]

A bizarre move made even more bizarre when you consider that the chief justification for trading Ludwick at the deadline was that they wouldn't be able to afford what Ludwick would get in arbitration this season. Well, there's no way Ludwick's going to get more than $8 million in arb with the Padres this year. And Berkman will likely get on base significantly more than Ludwick would have here, but at a terrible price in terms of durability, defense, and probably even slightly less power than Ludwick would've offered.

And now La Russa's talking about wanting to bat Berkman behind Pujols/Holliday rather than in front of them, blunting the value of his OBP, which is his chief asset at this point in his career. He hasn't played any significant amount of outfield in a season in SIX years, and his UZR and +/- numbers were horrible even back then BEFORE all his leg problems. Just a puzzling move all around. All that "character" and "chemistry" he offers better set that clubhouse absolutely on fire for it to be worth it.

It's Ludwick vs Westbrook and Berkman. Who would you rather have? Ludwick? Or Westbrook and Berkman? It's not Luwick or Berkman.

You are also aware that career -39.7 uzr Pat Burrell has won 2 World Series Titles on two different teams the past three years in left field?

Bill James for one example projects .275, .393, 22 for Berkman.

Pat Gillick, recent HOF selection said this week that 60 percent of the game was character and 40 percent talent...now...I'm not going to agree or disagree with that...but the fact is he said it this week to illustrate its importance, at least to him. And, the lengthy, diverse, success of his career is extremely impressive.

We'll see with Berkman...but if he approaches those projected numbers, with his other intangibles, I think most would be very pleased. Ludwick is a likeable dude but he's walked more than 50 times in a season once in his career. He's hit more than 20 dingers twice in his career...etc...He's also a very streaky hitter. He's never hit .300 in a season. Solid player, etc...but I believe some are overvaluing his game.

[slufanskip]

It's Ludwick vs Westbrook and Berkman. Who would you rather have? Ludwick? Or Westbrook and Berkman? It's not Luwick or Berkman.

You are also aware that career -39.7 uzr Pat Burrell has won 2 World Series Titles on two different teams the past three years in left field?

Bill James for one example projects .275, .393, 22 for Berkman.

Pat Gillick, recent HOF selection said this week that 60 percent of the game was character and 40 percent talent...now...I'm not going to agree or disagree with that...but the fact is he said it this week to illustrate its importance, at least to him. And, the lengthy, diverse, success of his career is extremely impressive.

We'll see with Berkman...but if he approaches those projected numbers, with his other intangibles, I think most would be very pleased. Ludwick is a likeable dude but he's walked more than 50 times in a season once in his career. He's hit more than 20 dingers twice in his career...etc...He's also a very streaky hitter. He's never hit .300 in a season. Solid player, etc...but I believe some are overvaluing his game.

I just don't see how anyone can not be happy with this move. The risk is so minimal. We were looking at going into the season with Craig and Jay. If Berkman stinks it up, they are still there. There is no commitment past this year, so at worst it's an 8 mil gamble. In todays baseball world, that is chump change ... and even at the worst case he's a valuable bat off the bench.

Like courtside just stated Pat Burrell plays in the outfied, as does Adam Dunn. The list of poor fielding outfielders with big bats is huge over the years. Hell, the Cards employed Lonnie Smith. Berkman also has something to prove, and I wouldn't discount that. He signed this contract without incentives, because he knows if he can play the field and hit like he's done in the past, next years deal will be much better. He probably could have had a longer American league deal, or a deal with a team to play 1st base for longer and more guaranteed money, so he has quite a bit of risk himself.

I'd bet on 500 ab's, .280/20-25/80-90 and I wouldn't be shocked to see .300/30/100.

[kevinfootes]

I just don't see how anyone can not be happy with this move. The risk is so minimal. We were looking at going into the season with Craig and Jay. If Berkman stinks it up, they are still there. There is no commitment past this year, so at worst it's an 8 mil gamble. In todays baseball world, that is chump change ... and even at the worst case he's a valuable bat off the bench.

Like courtside just stated Pat Burrell plays in the outfied, as does Adam Dunn. The list of poor fielding outfielders with big bats is huge over the years. Hell, the Cards employed Lonnie Smith. Berkman also has something to prove, and I wouldn't discount that. He signed this contract without incentives, because he knows if he can play the field and hit like he's done in the past, next years deal will be much better. He probably could have had a longer American league deal, or a deal with a team to play 1st base for longer and more guaranteed money, so he has quite a bit of risk himself.

I'd bet on 500 ab's, .280/20-25/80-90 and I wouldn't be shocked to see .300/30/100.

The risk, IMO, is having no money avaiable at midseason. However, I think it's a risk worth taking.

[Tonka]

I just don't see how anyone can not be happy with this move. The risk is so minimal. We were looking at going into the season with Craig and Jay. If Berkman stinks it up, they are still there. There is no commitment past this year, so at worst it's an 8 mil gamble. In todays baseball world, that is chump change ... and even at the worst case he's a valuable bat off the bench.

Like courtside just stated Pat Burrell plays in the outfied, as does Adam Dunn. The list of poor fielding outfielders with big bats is huge over the years. Hell, the Cards employed Lonnie Smith. Berkman also has something to prove, and I wouldn't discount that. He signed this contract without incentives, because he knows if he can play the field and hit like he's done in the past, next years deal will be much better. He probably could have had a longer American league deal, or a deal with a team to play 1st base for longer and more guaranteed money, so he has quite a bit of risk himself.

I'd bet on 500 ab's, .280/20-25/80-90 and I wouldn't be shocked to see .300/30/100.

great post

[BACKHANDtheRICAN]

I just don't see how anyone can not be happy with this move. The risk is so minimal. We were looking at going into the season with Craig and Jay. If Berkman stinks it up, they are still there. There is no commitment past this year, so at worst it's an 8 mil gamble. In todays baseball world, that is chump change ... and even at the worst case he's a valuable bat off the bench.

Like courtside just stated Pat Burrell plays in the outfied, as does Adam Dunn. The list of poor fielding outfielders with big bats is huge over the years. Hell, the Cards employed Lonnie Smith. Berkman also has something to prove, and I wouldn't discount that. He signed this contract without incentives, because he knows if he can play the field and hit like he's done in the past, next years deal will be much better. He probably could have had a longer American league deal, or a deal with a team to play 1st base for longer and more guaranteed money, so he has quite a bit of risk himself.

I'd bet on 500 ab's, .280/20-25/80-90 and I wouldn't be shocked to see .300/30/100.

Skip-

I'll take the bet on 500 ABs.

[BillikenROAR]

Westbrook will win 15+ games for this team. He was an Ace and now comes off a solid year after an injury. Add his ability with a full off-season with Dave Duncan and you will see the best number 4 pitcher in the league (maybe 3 depending on Jaime's soph campaign)..Only thing I am worried about is the middle infield behind him. Freese will be solid. mark that down. and pujols is pujols..I know b-ryan is onthe trading block but I believe he is a solid big league SS. And with Westbrook and every other pitcher being ground ball pitchers..we need his solid d..i dont buy what he did last year..I think he will be back to his 2009 version this year.

Berkman. I only hope this is not like the Suppan experiment...

[slufanskip]

Skip-

I'll take the bet on 500 ABs.

I should have written plate appearances as if he walks alot it'll keep his ab's down some. I'll make it with plate appearances.

[courtside]

Skip-

I'll take the bet on 500 ABs.

For what it's worth...Bill James also projects 546 "plate appearances" for Berkman...which of course is technically different than "at bats" because it includes walks, sacrifices, etc...

And...for what it's worth James also predicts a better season from Berkman than from Colby Rasmus. ....

Next season questions for Rasmus...

Will Rasmus walk more? Will Rasmus start driving outside pitches to left field? Will Rasmus be a better bad count hitter? Will Rasmus be a better average hitter?

[Bay Area Billiken]

I just don't see how anyone can not be happy with this move. The risk is so minimal. We were looking at going into the season with Craig and Jay. If Berkman stinks it up, they are still there. There is no commitment past this year, so at worst it's an 8 mil gamble. In todays baseball world, that is chump change ... and even at the worst case he's a valuable bat off the bench.

Like courtside just stated Pat Burrell plays in the outfied, as does Adam Dunn. The list of poor fielding outfielders with big bats is huge over the years. Hell, the Cards employed Lonnie Smith. Berkman also has something to prove, and I wouldn't discount that. He signed this contract without incentives, because he knows if he can play the field and hit like he's done in the past, next years deal will be much better. He probably could have had a longer American league deal, or a deal with a team to play 1st base for longer and more guaranteed money, so he has quite a bit of risk himself.

I'd bet on 500 ab's, .280/20-25/80-90 and I wouldn't be shocked to see .300/30/100.

Oakland and Colorado had interest in Lance Berkman, and there is belief that Oakland would have given him 2 years. That Berkman has something to prove cannot be discounted IMO. He has fabulous career statistics, OBP, OPS, Avg, and HR's, and he has been a big time Cardinal Killer.

Getting Berkman reminds me of the acquisition of Larry Walker late in the 2004 season, and going back further, to the trade for Roger Maris for the 1967 and 1968 El Birdos.

TLR still gets criticized by some elements of the fanbase, but he knows what he is doing.

[Bay Area Billiken]

For what it's worth...Bill James also projects 546 "plate appearances" for Berkman...which of course is technically different than "at bats" because it includes walks, sacrifices, etc...

And...for what it's worth James also predicts a better season from Berkman than from Colby Rasmus. ....

Next season questions for Rasmus...

Will Rasmus walk more? Will Rasmus start driving outside pitches to left field? Will Rasmus be a better bad count hitter? Will Rasmus be a better average hitter?

I also think that getting Berkman will benefit Rasmus, providing another veteran presence in the clubhouse, and taking some pressure off him.

[hsmith19]

It's Ludwick vs Westbrook and Berkman. Who would you rather have? Ludwick? Or Westbrook and Berkman? It's not Luwick or Berkman.

You are also aware that career -39.7 uzr Pat Burrell has won 2 World Series Titles on two different teams the past three years in left field?

Bill James for one example projects .275, .393, 22 for Berkman.

Pat Gillick, recent HOF selection said this week that 60 percent of the game was character and 40 percent talent...now...I'm not going to agree or disagree with that...but the fact is he said it this week to illustrate its importance, at least to him. And, the lengthy, diverse, success of his career is extremely impressive.

We'll see with Berkman...but if he approaches those projected numbers, with his other intangibles, I think most would be very pleased. Ludwick is a likeable dude but he's walked more than 50 times in a season once in his career. He's hit more than 20 dingers twice in his career...etc...He's also a very streaky hitter. He's never hit .300 in a season. Solid player, etc...but I believe some are overvaluing his game.

No, Westbrook for next season is not part of the equation. That's what some people here seem to be missing. They traded Ludwick, who was under control for 2011, for only two months of Westbrook. It was a rental. All they got out of Ludwick was Westbrook's performance down the stretch last season, which was good, but unfortunately the team minus Ludwick wasn't good enough to take any kind of advantage out of that performance. The only reason they have Westbrook for next season is that they signed him to an extension. Westbrook's 2011 was not part of the Ludwick deal.

And you can overcome ANY poor personnel move if the surrounding team is good enough. The Cardinals gave 270 PA to Marlon Anderson in 2004 and won 105 games. That doesn't mean plugging a guy with a .269 OBP into the lineup on a regular basis is a wise move. Nobody's saying putting Berkman in the outfield means the Cardinals cannot win the division. But putting a first baseman with bad legs in the outfield is a highly dubious move that will have to be overcome elsewhere. And this was already a team defensively suspect at other spots. Maybe Berkman returns to his 2009 offensive form and actually provides enough offensive value to overcome the defensive drag he will likely create in whichever outfield spot he takes, but again, that's something that will have to be overcome. Listing a bunch of individual players whose teams won in spite of their flaws does nothing to change the fact that this move made little sense.

The "intangibles" argument is one I won't get into with a bunch of college basketball fans, but I will say that an $8 million one year deal for Berkman wouldn't be a bad move for a team that actually needed a first baseman. It's expecting him to relearn a more demanding position while simultaneously expecting an offensive rebound and more durability following injuries that makes the move a puzzling one. And for those saying $8 million is chump change in baseball terms, that's just not so, at least not for a team like the Cardinals. $8 million makes Berkman the fifth highest paid player on the roster this season and represents about 1/13 of their projected payroll.

[NH]

I just don't see how anyone can not be happy with this move. The risk is so minimal. We were looking at going into the season with Craig and Jay. If Berkman stinks it up, they are still there. There is no commitment past this year, so at worst it's an 8 mil gamble. In todays baseball world, that is chump change ... and even at the worst case he's a valuable bat off the bench.

Like courtside just stated Pat Burrell plays in the outfied, as does Adam Dunn. The list of poor fielding outfielders with big bats is huge over the years. Hell, the Cards employed Lonnie Smith. Berkman also has something to prove, and I wouldn't discount that. He signed this contract without incentives, because he knows if he can play the field and hit like he's done in the past, next years deal will be much better. He probably could have had a longer American league deal, or a deal with a team to play 1st base for longer and more guaranteed money, so he has quite a bit of risk himself.

I'd bet on 500 ab's, .280/20-25/80-90 and I wouldn't be shocked to see .300/30/100.

I like it for a lot of reasons. But anytime you get worse defensively at 3 positions (ss, rf, lf) from a team that was not good defensively already it has to be worrisome.

Also, why not spend that money on a guy like Orlando Hudson? I just feel like while it is a nice move, it does nothing to address a lot of our holes (except for our lack of pop in the lineup, which it does help.

[hsmith19]

Getting Berkman reminds me of the acquisition of Larry Walker late in the 2004 season, and going back further, to the trade for Roger Maris for the 1967 and 1968 El Birdos.

Those were two veteran right fielders, but also ones who had been the premier defensive right fielders of their respective generations in their primes. Berkman was a poor defensive outfielder six years ago, back when he actually played the position and before injuries left him hobbled last season. Now, it remains a very open question whether his offense can rebound enough to provide significant value above what will surely be negative defense.

[courtside]

No, Westbrook for next season is not part of the equation. That's what some people here seem to be missing. They traded Ludwick, who was under control for 2011, for only two months of Westbrook. It was a rental. All they got out of Ludwick was Westbrook's performance down the stretch last season, which was good, but unfortunately the team minus Ludwick wasn't good enough to take any kind of advantage out of that performance. The only reason they have Westbrook for next season is that they signed him to an extension. Westbrook's 2011 was not part of the Ludwick deal.

And you can overcome ANY poor personnel move if the surrounding team is good enough. The Cardinals gave 270 PA to Marlon Anderson in 2004 and won 105 games. That doesn't mean plugging a guy with a .269 OBP into the lineup on a regular basis is a wise move. Nobody's saying putting Berkman in the outfield means the Cardinals cannot win the division. But putting a first baseman with bad legs in the outfield is a highly dubious move that will have to be overcome elsewhere. And this was already a team defensively suspect at other spots. Maybe Berkman returns to his 2009 offensive form and actually provides enough offensive value to overcome the defensive drag he will likely create in whichever outfield spot he takes, but again, that's something that will have to be overcome. Listing a bunch of individual players whose teams won in spite of their flaws does nothing to change the fact that this move made little sense.

The "intangibles" argument is one I won't get into with a bunch of college basketball fans, but I will say that an $8 million one year deal for Berkman wouldn't be a bad move for a team that actually needed a first baseman. It's expecting him to relearn a more demanding position while simultaneously expecting an offensive rebound and more durability following injuries that makes the move a puzzling one. And for those saying $8 million is chump change in baseball terms, that's just not so, at least not for a team like the Cardinals. $8 million makes Berkman the fifth highest paid player on the roster this season and represents about 1/13 of their projected payroll.

It's only a rental when a team doesn't re-sign the pending free agent. In this case, the team re-signed Westbrook. The team has also now signed Berkman. Therefore, It's both and not one. They have both players for fair market value.

"Not for a team like the Cardinals." You mean the team with ticket prices and concessions amongst the highest in the league? You mean the team that finished 4th in MLB in attendance with a non-playoff team? Gotcha.

[kevinfootes]

It's only a rental when a team doesn't re-sign the pending free agent. In this case, the team re-signed Westbrook. The team has also now signed Berkman. Therefore, It's both and not one. They have both players for fair market value.

+1

The Cards got exclusive negotiationg time with Westbrook as he was a member of the organization. They were able to make an offer before anyone from the outside got to compete.

[MB73]

Could the Cards bow out on Pujols?

ESPN

Could the Cardinals be laying the groundwork for life without Albert Pujols?

The three-time National League MVP will be a free agent after next season and he undoubtedly will command astronomical numbers in upcoming contract talks.

That process took at least a small step forward when, according to Joe Strauss of the Post Dispatch, Cardinals general manager John Mozeliak met Monday with Dan Lozano, the agent for Pujols as a precursor to negotiations for a contract extension.

Bryan Burwell of the Post-Dispatch hints Wednesday that the Cardinals could bow out if Pujols is demanding $28 million to $30 million.

"The longer you listen to Cardinals officials who carefully broach the subject, the more it sounds like they are either trying to get you to start getting comfortable with the possible reality of life without Pujols in the not-so-distant future, or at the very least take the concept out for a little public stroll for their own prospective negotiating benefit," Burwell writes.

[slufanskip]

No, Westbrook for next season is not part of the equation. That's what some people here seem to be missing. They traded Ludwick, who was under control for 2011, for only two months of Westbrook. It was a rental. All they got out of Ludwick was Westbrook's performance down the stretch last season, which was good, but unfortunately the team minus Ludwick wasn't good enough to take any kind of advantage out of that performance. The only reason they have Westbrook for next season is that they signed him to an extension. Westbrook's 2011 was not part of the Ludwick deal.

And you can overcome ANY poor personnel move if the surrounding team is good enough. The Cardinals gave 270 PA to Marlon Anderson in 2004 and won 105 games. That doesn't mean plugging a guy with a .269 OBP into the lineup on a regular basis is a wise move. Nobody's saying putting Berkman in the outfield means the Cardinals cannot win the division. But putting a first baseman with bad legs in the outfield is a highly dubious move that will have to be overcome elsewhere. And this was already a team defensively suspect at other spots. Maybe Berkman returns to his 2009 offensive form and actually provides enough offensive value to overcome the defensive drag he will likely create in whichever outfield spot he takes, but again, that's something that will have to be overcome. Listing a bunch of individual players whose teams won in spite of their flaws does nothing to change the fact that this move made little sense.

The "intangibles" argument is one I won't get into with a bunch of college basketball fans, but I will say that an $8 million one year deal for Berkman wouldn't be a bad move for a team that actually needed a first baseman. It's expecting him to relearn a more demanding position while simultaneously expecting an offensive rebound and more durability following injuries that makes the move a puzzling one. And for those saying $8 million is chump change in baseball terms, that's just not so, at least not for a team like the Cardinals. $8 million makes Berkman the fifth highest paid player on the roster this season and represents about 1/13 of their projected payroll.

A bunch of college basketball fans? I guess you are the exception here? I'd bet you aren't nearly as knowledgeable as you think you are regarding baseball as many of the posters here.

We get there is some risk with signing Lance.

I'm not a LaRussa guy, but he is the manager and he wanted him badly, Mo went out and got him. Is there a chance he flops? Of course, is there also a chance that his knee operation has helped his knee get in better condition than it's been in a few years? Will he be a gg defensive outfielder, no, but if he can return to form with the bat ... that bat can negate some bad defense. It's 1 year, and for what else you get for 8 mil today he represents a lot of upside, with of course significant risk. If the risk wasn't there, he'd of cost you 15 mil a year for 3 or 4 minnimum.

You got 8 mil this year, how would you have spent it?