Future
- Thread starter vbsideout
- Start date
That was a huge bonehead move. It also reduces the trade value of Kelly.
Surely you know I hated that contract at the time and still dislike it now.
Although, if you're going to go this route, you probably have to trade Kelly for a stud somewhere else.
The Cards were 7 games out of the second wildcard on July 27th. No, you really don't have to chase that, especially when a wildcard spot is effectively worth only 50% of a divisional title due to the play-in game.Cesar Cedeno not Roger.
With the second wild card now if you are close to .500 in July you are still in it.
Like I said with hand over fist profits there is no sense of urgency. We will be content having Maddons boys totally outclass us.
The more interesting reason to trade would have been to chase the Cubs, who were only 4.5 games ahead of us. Even that was probably too big a hole to dig out of when the Cubs are a really good team and not a mirage. And they'd already traded to fill their biggest hole.
Not a lot, but declined still. It's a very confusing move. You know, I get it..... hard to let someone like Molina walk
But holy hell, this same organization let Pujols walk!!!!!!!
When Pujols was years younger, closer to his peak, and not playing the most physically taxing position in baseball, no less.
One decision was made with the brain and the other with the heart.
Like I said in my response to duck....I get it from a appealing to a fanbase perspective of you want to keep the long term big names. But come on...
Kelly is now wasted space. You have to move him and then find a decent backup that can potentially play long term if/when Molina goes down.
Bingo
One move took brass balls to talk everyone into buying into.....and it ended up being a choice that likely saved your franchise from years of mediocrity and debt to a guy who can't play
The other just wasted the service time of a very solid prospect
Especially if Molina wants to play 130 games next year anyway, go sign a warm veteran body for the ML minimum and trade Kelly.
You are surely not comparing Molina money to the what Pujols wanted, or even what the Cards offered him.
It's not quite the same amount but it's the same principle. $20 M a year is still ~12% of our payroll. That's an awful lot to put out on a contract that looked bad on the day it was signed.
The Cards held their line with a 31 year old slugger, not giving him a super long deal for too much money. He projected to be bad by the end of the deal even though he probably would have added value for the first 1/3rd of the contract.
The Cards rightly decided not to pay Pujols for past performance. It's difficult to consider the Yadi deal much more than a golden handshake for the age 35-37 seasons of a catcher.
The deal is simply too long - the third year especially is a killer. Catchers are the single worst aging position. The physical demands of the position are high. Lots of guys are done around his age. Yadi has already caught the 18th most games in history, and some of the guys above him probably took roids. And we are signing him for 3 years? To get any decent value out of this deal, he will have to be #4 all time in games played by a catcher at the end of the contract, (#3 ex-roided out Pudge.) I hope I'm wrong, but yeesh, that strikes me as an extremely optimistic plan.
There's other criticisms one could levy - why sign it so early in the year? Why not wait until the year was over and he was still healthy? Effectively, we gave him a 4 year deal. We gave a 34 year old catcher a four year contract. Just nuts.
What is the plan with Kelly now?
Would the Cards have been better off putting this money somewhere else? Etc.
