Critique the GM! Walt Jocketty

Overall I think he is average but.....

The panic move of trading Haren, Calero and Barton for Mulder is an all time bad move.

Haren for Mulder was a bad move in and of its self.

Clearly his thought process was that he needed pitching but trading pitching was not the awnser.

Hope he has learned he lesson and holds on to Reyes but.. we will see. I can see a panic move if/when the starting pitching strugles.

by novaoakland on Dec 18, 2005 1:04 PM EST reply actions

Tough crowd.

11 seasons. 8 winning seasons. 6 division titles. 5 seasons with 90+ wins. A couple of NLCS and 1 WS appearance. Success is defined by the bottom line, not by some trade you didn't like last year. How quick some forget about the Mac and Edmonds deals as well as the foresight to dump Tatis to make way for Poo-holes. Only the Braves and Yanks have enjoyed the same success during the same time-frame, and the Cards sure don't operate on the Yanks budget.

Calling the Mulder deal one of the all-time worst doesn't bode well for you, I think you need to re-think that a bit... Ok, you need to re-think that A LOT. This is not in the same neighborhood as Sammy Sosa for George Bell, Stocker for Abreu, the Bagwell deal and tons of others. Top of the rotation starters don't come cheap.

Jocketty has been one of the top 3 GMs in baseball the last decade. The proof is in the pudding. Calling him average is calling almost every other GM a piece of shit. I'm a Cub fan and HATE the F'n Cards, but there is no denying the job that S.O.B. :) has done.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on Dec 18, 2005 2:09 PM EST up reply actions

If winning is only criteria if so he is still

Avergage-

Please explain what you mean by only the yankess and braves have had similar success.

Plenty of teams have had similar or more success and I am inlcuding small market teams:
Oakland, MINN, SFG, CLE, HOU

Add in the teams that actually won and have been successful: BOS, FLA and CHI and I do not think STL qualifies as having been in the top 10.

by novaoakland on Dec 18, 2005 6:29 PM EST up reply actions

Sorry ANA and who ever else I

may have forgotten

by novaoakland on Dec 18, 2005 6:31 PM EST up reply actions

Average

Winning is the ultimate goal of a sport is it not? Not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game goes right out the window in pro ball. Please go look at the GM database on BA. I should have phrased that a little differently, using Schuerholz and Cashman instead of the franchise,as most have had multiple GM's in Jocketty's tenure, but even so I think Jocketty has better numbers than the most of what you hvae listed except for probably the Indians.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on Dec 18, 2005 6:50 PM EST up reply actions

Looking at that database

What numbers are you talking about.
Winning percentage?
Playoff appearances?
either way I have a tought time agreeing. Those team s I mentioned all have been better WINNING FRANCHIESES over past years than STL.

You are right winning is everything and the Cards have been average over Jockeys term.

by novaoakland on Dec 18, 2005 7:51 PM EST up reply actions

Here are a few of the winning issues

I think Jockey is no way better than these people based only on winning only:

First the non WS winners;
Bill Beane Oakland:
8 Seasons--7 of 8 winning.
4 Playoff appearance 50 %
5 90+ wins

Brain Sabean Giants-
10 Seasons--9 of 10 winning
4 playoff appearance
5 90 win seasons
1 WS appearance

John Hart 95 on ward CLE and TEX
11 seasons 8 winning
6 playoff appearance 2 WS appearance

Gerry Hunsicker HOU 1996-2004 ( key part in 2005 run also)
9 seasons
5 Playoff appearances
8 winning seasons

-------World Series Winners

Bill Stoneman Angeles
6 seasons
4 winning seasons
3 division titles and a WS

Kenny Williams White Sox
5 seasons all winning
WS winner

Larry Beinfest
4 season 3 winning
1 World Series

Theo Epstien
3 seasons all winning and a WS

Brian Cashman and John Scherhultz go without saying

Jockey is average and has done what one would expect with a team consistently in top 7-10 of payroll.

by novaoakland on Dec 18, 2005 8:15 PM EST up reply actions

i have to agree with slurve...

i don't have a link to this stat but it is something i saw during the ws...Over the last 10 years the four franchise that have won the most in no particular order are the braves, NYY, StL. Houston. Walt has done a spectacular job bringing in the right guys at the right time. Sure, you can point to one trade that is "questionable" and a farm system that is somewhat depleted but that speaks to the success he has had bringing in talent through trades and FA signings. StL had the best record in baseball this year with guys he brought in not inherited.

So while there are other GM's that have had success, few have done so over the same period of time as Walt. Beane - Yes, JS - Yes, Cashman - Yes but I can't put most of the other you mention in the same category as they simply have not done it as long or as well as Walt.

by cincod1 on Dec 19, 2005 9:42 AM EST up reply actions

But 10 years is arbitrary to make STL look good.

Make is 7 and I know for a fact the giants and the a'S ahead (again Aribitrary). Make it 15 and CLE moves ahead. Again just the ones I know off the top of my head.

by novaoakland on Dec 19, 2005 10:38 AM EST up reply actions

It's not arbitrary

It's how long Jocketty has been there, 11 seasons. I have no problem not including his 1st year, most of that team was his predeccesors. I can narrow the scope of many things down to not include the whole picture for the purposes of winning an arguement. You can't do that here, you need to look at what a Jocketty has done overall, just as you failed to do with his track record on trades and what his farm system is currently contributing to his MLB team currently.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on Dec 19, 2005 11:09 AM EST up reply actions

Yes but

My point is all those GM's I looked at had better or equal records.

by novaoakland on Dec 19, 2005 12:51 PM EST up reply actions

Please see

just looking at the individual GM's he is average
Here are a few of the winning issues
I think Jockey is no way better than these people based only on winning only:

First the non WS winners;
Bill Beane Oakland:
8 Seasons--7 of 8 winning.
4 Playoff appearance 50 %
5 90+ wins

Brain Sabean Giants-
10 Seasons--9 of 10 winning
4 playoff appearance
5 90 win seasons
1 WS appearance

John Hart 95 on ward CLE and TEX
11 seasons 8 winning
6 playoff appearance 2 WS appearance

Gerry Hunsicker HOU 1996-2004 ( key part in 2005 run also)
9 seasons
5 Playoff appearances
8 winning seasons

-------World Series Winners

Bill Stoneman Angeles
6 seasons
4 winning seasons
3 division titles and a WS

Kenny Williams White Sox
5 seasons all winning
WS winner

Larry Beinfest
4 season 3 winning
1 World Series

Theo Epstien
3 seasons all winning and a WS

Brian Cashman and John Scherhultz go without saying

Jockey is average and has done what one would expect with a team consistently in top 7-10 of payroll.

by novaoakland on Dec 19, 2005 12:52 PM EST up reply actions

"Make it 15 and CLE moves ahead."

We are grading the GM, not the franchise. You go back 15 years in Cleveland and there are 3 different GMs with their fingerprints on that team.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on Dec 19, 2005 11:13 AM EST up reply actions

you can part and parcel any stat...

to make it reflect what you want. all i'm saying is that your comment of StL, therefore, walt not in the top 10 is ridiculous. he is surely in the top 6 over the period of time he has been gm. the other teams, gm's, you mention have had peaks and valleys where as walt has managed to keep the cardinals on top throughout his tenure with smart moves and acquisitions. i'm not saying he is the best but not in the top 10? come on....

by cincod1 on Dec 19, 2005 11:56 AM EST up reply actions

Exactly

The caveat for my position on Jocketty was that "in the last decade" part. Many of the ones you listed simply haven't been there long enough to provide the air-tight case that Walt has, in particular, Beinfest and Epstein. Do I think they aren't great GMs? No, but those 2 inherited quite a bit. Beinfest won the WS in his second year, hardly enough time to call that team "yours." The BoSox were good when Theo got there and I am willing to bet as long as their payroll is among the top they will continue similar success w/o him. As long as you think it's fair to take shots at a guy for making a bad trade novaoakland, how about Kenny Williams? He made some great deals last year, but he has some horrendous ones under is belt as well. The strength of the AL central up until this year also tarnishes the "all 5 years" of winning seasons. Not sure, but I think they have had the largest payroll in that division for his 5 years and he also inherited a lot of his talent for the good part of his 5 time there. Look at the stinker Schuerholz pulled of last year. The Brewers felt so bad, they took Kolb back this offseason. Take away a few of the these ones you've listed, and the list that can be compared to Jocketty becomes quite small. If there are only about 4-5 others comparable, that leaves about 25 or 26 other franchises out there. I don't know about you, but if I finish top out of 30, I consider that ABOVE average. Average would mean he would have about 12-17 other GM's that have had BETTER success than he has over his 11 years. That simply is not the case, no matter how you slice it.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on Dec 19, 2005 11:00 AM EST up reply actions

Also a GM is responsible for a farm system

and STL's is among worst in the game.

by novaoakland on Dec 18, 2005 6:34 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah, it is

but teams use different aspects/strengths to get to where they need to go. The Yanks always do OK with their putrid system. 3 of 4 teams in the ALCS/NLCS this year didn't have great farm systems. The team with the best system got swept. If my team has a poor farm system, yet goes to the WS, do think I would really give a flyin'-F?

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on Dec 18, 2005 6:41 PM EST up reply actions

i think he's overall one of the top 7

but the Mulder trade is definitely the worst he's ever made.

by ohad @ Minor League Ball on Dec 18, 2005 3:15 PM EST up reply actions

Mulder

Even though he gave up way too much, Mulder has still been an effective starter for them. At least they didn't get nothing for the talent they gave up.

Carlos Silva for Eric Milton was a far worse deal than this.

by limozeen on Dec 18, 2005 4:22 PM EST up reply actions

Good to very good

I think it is hard to look at just Jocketty because it seems to me it is more of a combo Jocketty and LaRussa. Those two have such a good working relationship that I am not sure if Jocketty would be as effective with another manager.

Jocketty has done a very good job of keeping the roster stocked with veterans that LaRussa wants and he is also able to sprinkle in some younger low cost players to stay within the budget. I think where Jocketty probably stands out is he has been able to make some very good trades. The McGwire, Rolen, Edmonds and Larry Walker trades brought in a lot of this veteran talent and the veterans enjoyed playing here enough that they gave the Cards the hometown discount and stuck around longer. While the farm system has been down, it has produce enough to make these trades happen.

Jocketty has also brought in a stat guy and has promoted him pretty high up, I believe to asst GM, I can't think of his name right off. I think this shows that even though he has been successful Jocketty is still flexible enough to look at other methods.

by StLouBlue on Dec 18, 2005 1:05 PM EST reply actions

Good GM

I think Jocketty is a very good GM. You can find bad trades on the resume of any GM out there, but for the most part Jocketty has done a nice job of keeping the Cardinals in yearly Championship contention. He has struggled to build a strong farm system which is a knock on him, but he's been excellent at finding reasonably priced free agents and undervalued players in general to fill his roster without breaking the bank.

by eastin on Dec 18, 2005 1:15 PM EST reply actions

On the decline

I think Jocketty has been a very good GM, but the lack of farm talent recently has made St. Louis a very vulnerable team in the future.

by SABRJoe @ Minor League Ball on Dec 18, 2005 1:58 PM EST reply actions

jocketty is the man.

i'm not a fan of the mulder trade but look at the other trades he has made:

eric ludwick, tj mathews and blake stein for mark mcgwire
armando alamanza, braden looper and pablo ozuna for edgar renteria
alberto castillo, matt dewitt and lance painter for pat hentgen and paul spoljaric
manny aybar, rick croushore, jose jimenez, and brent butler for darryl kile, dave veres and luther hackman
juan acevedo, matt parker, and eliezer alfonzo for fernando vina
kent bottenfield and adam kennedy for jim edmonds
jose leon for will clark + cash
britt reames and fernando tatis for dustin hermanson and steve kline
ray lankford + cash for woody williams
placido polanco, bud smith, and mike timlin for scott rolen, doug nickle and cash
jason burch, chris narveson and john gall for larry walker

these are all clear wins for st louis, and in some cases ridiculously lopsided (mcgwire, rolen, edmonds, kile). against that, he has made some trades that didn't work out as well: mulder, jack wilson for jason christiansen, coco crisp for chuck finley. jd drew and eli marrero for marquis, king and wainwright looks pretty close now, considering the braves only got one year out of drew, but even if we call this one a loss for jocketty it's clear he's been awesome on the trade market. (acknowledgments to the cardinals essay from the 2005 BP annual, which is where i got most of this info.)

the cardinals drafting and developing has been ridiculously poor in terms of depth, but they did produce albert pujols, who's worth vastly more than the league-average filler produced by most farm systems. same goes for drew, to a somewhat lesser extent.

by jpahk on Dec 18, 2005 2:45 PM EST reply actions

MULDER FOR HARON + BARTON = BROGLIO FOR BROCK???!!

IN IT WILL BE BROUGHT UP OVER, AND OVER, AND OVER AGAIN, BECAUSE IT WAS THE A'S WHO HAVE A SABRMETRIC ORIENTED FAN BASE ON LINE...

by TOLAXOR on Dec 18, 2005 3:06 PM EST reply actions

Forget the trade it goes to Character

He paniced.

by novaoakland on Dec 18, 2005 6:35 PM EST up reply actions

he's real, real good

Before we pile on the Mulder trade, shouldn't we wait until 1) Barton has a good major league career and 2) Mulder declines? Now, I think both those things are very likely, but neither one has happened yet, so, hold your horses on that.

I really can't think of much to criticize about Jocketty. What can you say about a guy who can heist Mark McGwire AND Scott Rolen AND Jim Edmonds AND Edgar Renteria?? That's basically the whole team, besides Pujols (whom I'm assuming Jocketty both drafted, and at least gave the go-ahead to call him up in '01 when few people thought he was ready.) Jocketty makes good smaller moves too. Last year, he picked up a quality middle infield, Eckstein and Grudz, for damn near nothing. I can't remember a signing by him that really hampered the team's ability to compete, and some of them (Izzy, Will Clark in 2000) were huge.

The only criticisms I can think of come with all sorts of caveats. Yeah, the farm system isn't good, but no one said you have to keep the players in order for the farm system to be useful to the organization -- as long as you keep drafting good ones, you can trade them. Trading youngsters for proven vets is a perfectly legitimate strategy IMO, as long as you're not trading the Pujolses, and as long as you're not getting guys who are about to fall off the cliff -- the Cards know this, I think. And yeah, the Cards traditionally had a much weaker starting rotation than hitting, but that's certainly changed the last couple of years. I do think players like Andy Benes and Rick Ankiel should have been used as long relievers, rather than being thrown in the rotation right away. Very few teams actually do that, though. Some of the other problems the team has had, like the Ozzie Smith retirement flap and not getting much out of J.D. Drew, were LaRussa's fault. And although LaRussa bugs the hell out of me, I can't honestly say I would fire him.

I think the Cards do an excellent job of incorporating stat analysis into their moves, without having a stats-vs.-traditionalists war break out in the front office (Boston) or getting other GMs and baseball people angry about their perceived arrogance (Oakland). The fans love the team, too, and although St. Louis was always a great baseball town, it wasn't always the love affair you see currently.

Definitely one of the very best.

and boom goes the dynamite.

by Mean Dean on Dec 18, 2005 3:44 PM EST reply actions

whoops

Meant Alan Benes, not Andy.

I also forgot Jocketty's best "signing," buying out Pujols' arbitration years. I don't even know how much that cost, but whatever it was, it was worth it.

and boom goes the dynamite.

by Mean Dean on Dec 18, 2005 4:03 PM EST up reply actions

the mulder trade

again, i'll preface this comment by saying jocketty's track record is top-notch. but...

"Before we pile on the Mulder trade, shouldn't we wait until 1) Barton has a good major league career and 2) Mulder declines?"

you could certainly make the case that 2) has happened already, but regardless, the answer is no. danny haren outpitched mulder in 2005 (essentially the same ERA despite being in the AL, and much better defense-independent stats). haren cost the league minimum; mulder made $6M. haren is 25 and has room to grow; mulder is 28 and is clearly on the wane. so even if the trade were mulder for just haren, it's clearly a loss already. when you include the fact that the A's also got kiko calero, an excellent (and also cheap) reliever, and daric barton, the #1 prospect in either organization, it's not even close.

jocketty has made a bunch of terrific moves, but this wasn't one of them. basically he gave up value in exchange for certainty. that's fine for a team already in position to win, but if the uncertain value that you traded away turns out to be gold, then you lost the trade. if mulder had reverted to 2002-03 mulder and haren was a bust and calero blew out his arm and barton turned out mediocre, then you could say that the cardinals won the trade. but to me, it looks like any one of those things not happening means the A's win, especially if you consider relative salaries. so no, it doesn't depend on barton eventually producing.

by jpahk on Dec 18, 2005 7:40 PM EST up reply actions

I think

it's a little premature to pass judgment on this trade. Mulder didn't have his best year, but performance curves hardly ever go up like a perfect parabola, it's quite possible Mulder has quite a few high quality years left in him. He's not even 30 yet and it sounds like some want to put him out to pasture. He may even have a few years that are better than any he has had so far. I like Haren, but he's not a sure thing to continue to improve. I think the odds are overwhelmigly in his favor, but I thought that about Bud Smith and Rick Ankiel also. Barton has already lost some of his luster from when he was traded. The A's put him at 1b and there are less and less scouts that think he will develop enough power to hit more than 15-20 HR. I like Calero, but let's face it, middle relief is pretty replaceable. I know that statement is poorly timed w/ the recent signing of Looper for 3/13.5 mil, but middle relief is usually readily available at the trade deadline. I think the A's probably got the better end of the deal, but Jocketty had a real need for another starter and Mulder was one of the better ones available.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on Dec 18, 2005 8:01 PM EST up reply actions

yes and no

Okay, I oversimplified with my initial statement, but I won't quite go as far as you did. I'll revise my statement... two of these three things have to happen: 1) Barton becomes a quality major leaguer, 2) Haren keeps it up as a quality starter, 3) Mulder declines. Haren and Mulder were comparable last year, but I can't consider a guy who did it once to be the equivalent of a 28-year-old who is 88-40 with a 3.65 ERA over the last five years. I would be willing to pay $6M for the extra certainty there, at least if I had it to spare and if I were a pennant-contending team. So you're right that, if Barton succeeds and Haren keeps it up, Mulder doesn't even have to decline for it to be a bad deal. But, I'm not yet ready to concede that Mulder and Haren are comparable pitchers, not until either Haren does it again or Mulder starts struggling. (I don't think Calero is going to swing the trade. If he's the next Eric Plunk and reels off eight straight good years of middle relief, then yeah. Otherwise, middle relievers, even good ones, are fungible.)

I definitely agree that this is quite likely to eventually be one of the few black marks against an otherwise great GM. But just as of right now, I think it's a "too early to tell" thing.

and boom goes the dynamite.

by Mean Dean on Dec 18, 2005 8:20 PM EST up reply actions

Gotta give luv

for the Eric Plunk referrence.

by grover on Dec 19, 2005 12:00 AM EST up reply actions

thanks

People forget how good he was! I really can't think of many middle relievers that consistent. One bad year from 1988 to 1996.

and boom goes the dynamite.

by Mean Dean on Dec 19, 2005 9:45 AM EST up reply actions

He operates his team as if he were in one of

the 'big markets' - in that, he is aggressive with trading away his young prospects for proven major league talent. While the Cards haven't won a championship, they are usually the favorite to win the NL and that should be attributed to him.

It is EXTREMELY short sighted to dismiss all the good that he has done for the Cards based on the Mulder trade. Young, lefty, number 1 caliber starters cost a lot in terms of prospects...

by akk99 on Dec 18, 2005 3:57 PM EST reply actions

Well

2 out of 3 ain't bad.

by mrkupe on Dec 18, 2005 4:48 PM EST up reply actions

Trader Walt

I think not running a top-shelf farm system is a viable strategy as long as guys like Bowden, O'Brien and Flanagan can get GM jobs.

But as sabermetric research advances, and the good old boy carousel fills up with proteges of Epstein, Beene, Shapiro, et al., I believe most teams will begin valuing talent more rationally than currently.

And if Jocketty finds he can't victimize his less capable colleagues in trades as in the past, he'd better be able to improve hiw own farm system. Still a top 5 GM in my book, of course.

by igreen01 on Dec 18, 2005 4:51 PM EST reply actions

I would like to add...

... That the value of a good farm-system and cheap prospects rises alongside free-agent salaries. So Danny Haren is more valuable this year than last simply by virtue of what it's costing the Jays to sign Burnett.

by igreen01 on Dec 18, 2005 5:29 PM EST reply actions

Targeting injured players

Another area where Jocketty has been ahead of the curve in acquiring talent was getting guys like Womack and Cris Carpenter on the cheap as they recovered from injury. They paid Carpenter 300K and $2 million for his last 2 years of production. Even Grud for $1 million last year coming off injury was a solid deal. Got Edmonds the year after an injury-plagued '99 and he's given them 550+ PA every year but one (531 in '03).

Hard to say how much responsibility Jocketty should assume for Ankiel. Maybe Ankiel's problems were inevitable, but some criticism could be targeted at Jocketty for how quickly Ankiel was promoted.

by woody @ Minor League Ball on Dec 18, 2005 5:49 PM EST reply actions

An interesting add-on question for

these "Critique the GM" pieces, would be: would you feel comfortable if this GM took over your favorite franchise?

If Walt took over the Mets, I wouldn't complain too much. If Bowden took over the Mets, I would write some letters...

by akk99 on Dec 18, 2005 5:50 PM EST reply actions

Sorry John

Didn't read your sub questions of the Twins GM. You do have the question I suggested (how would you feel if your team hired this GM).

by akk99 on Dec 18, 2005 5:58 PM EST up reply actions

Good Question

Good perspective, especially for us Boston fans. If Jocketty suddenly left the Cards for the Red Sox, I could live with that. If it had been Bowden.... shudder

by NBarnes on Dec 18, 2005 6:55 PM EST up reply actions

Ron Shandler

BTW, give the Cards credit for hiring Ron Shandler (Baseball Forecaster) briefly during '04 I believe.

by woody @ Minor League Ball on Dec 18, 2005 5:52 PM EST reply actions

mgl

and doesn't mitchel lichtman (aka mgl) do some work for st. louis? the eckstein signing had mgl's finger prints for sure.

by chris p on Dec 18, 2005 7:49 PM EST up reply actions

Defense

O.K.

I have heard WJ get blasted for the current weak Farm System. Look at what that farm system has produced since he has been there. Molina, Pujols, J.D. Drew, Ankiel(was a former #1 prospect as a pitcher), Brad Thompson, Coco Crisp, Placido Polanco, Dan Haren, Anthony Reyes. The Cards farm system is no longer the worst in the game I think BA bumped it to middle of the pack for the upcoming issue of The prospect handbook.

The Mulder Trade is another popular blast on WJ. He has made so many more good trades than bad ones. The Mulder trade is overrated as a bad trade though IMO. The cards got what they "needed" an "ace". Mulder did pitch well 17 wins and a 3.something era. I would rather have Haren and Barton and Calero right now, but hey he did what he had to do.

McGwire for a few currently no name prospects
Rolen for basically Polanco
Edmonds for Donovan Osbourne and Adam Kennedy
Renteria for Looper
Walker for Chris Naverson (who is back with the Cards) and some other decent prospect
Marquis, King and Wainwright for J.D. "L" Drew and Marrero
John Rodriguez for Javier Cardona (o.k. it's not an incredible trade but J-Rod contributed last year and cardona didn't do anything)

The Bad Ones
Carlos Hernandez for Ben Johnson (could use johnson right now)
The Mulder Deal
Chuck Finley for Coco Crisp (hey the Tribe wanted Pujols, WJ made them settle with CC)
Ray King for BIGMILES (I would say this is more of a mediocre trade)

Not going crazy. I think he has done a good job this offseason with not going crazy with the rest of the GMs, not shelling out Millions for guys who have been mediocre cough Burnett cough WJ took a stance on AJ and didn't back down, so what he didn't get his man. The only G.M.s I would say are better are Scheuholz (not sure of spelling) and Beane.

by stlcards5129 on Dec 18, 2005 8:41 PM EST reply actions

Addition

Not only has WJ made some good trades he has made some excellent bargain signings.

Taveraz
Carpenter
Grudz
Womack
Sanders
Al Reyes
Pujols (the guy is making so much less than he should)
Nunez
Mabry

by stlcards5129 on Dec 18, 2005 8:52 PM EST up reply actions

MULDER FOR HARON + BARTON = BROGLIO FOR BROCK?

I just want to say that (IMHO) no trade in the modern free agent era could equal Brock for Brogilo. At best when a GM makes a trade he gets a player for 3-6 years after which he has to pay him at least close to market value.

That being said, the trade was pretty awful. If you consider Harren and Mulder to be of equal value, it basically means Jock lost $12M(?) + 1-4 years of a #2/#3 starting pitcher and whatever Barton amounts to.

-Zubin

by Zubin on Dec 19, 2005 12:14 AM EST reply actions

Mulder trade

All time bad move?

I agree, it was a good trade for Oakland, but I can think of at least half a dozen worse trades this past year alone. Mulder is still a good pitcher(who won more games and posted a lower ERA than Haren last year), and Barton has yet to record a major league at bat.

I guess we can just disregard the trade of Jim Edmonds for Kent Bottenfield and Adam Kennedy. And Scott Rolen for Placido Polanco, Mike Timlin and Bud Smith. And Larry Walker for Chris Narveson and Jason Burch. And Edgar Renteria for Armando Almanza, Braden Looper and Pablo Ozuna. And Woody Williams for Ray Lankford. While we're at it, let's disregard the signing of injury castoff-turned-Cy Young winner, Chris Carpenter.

If the Mulder trade is an all-time worst, Beane's trade of Tim Hudson for Juan Cruz(7.44 ERA), Charles Thomas(.109/.255/.109), and Dan Meyer(5.36 ERA in AAA) must be one, too.

by Ian Miller on Dec 19, 2005 1:50 AM EST reply actions

Agreed

Haren is good and cheap. Relatively speaking, so is Mulder. Sure, he lost Calero and Barton, but it's not as if he got back Eric Milton in return. Mulder is still a good pitcher.

by limozeen on Dec 19, 2005 1:52 AM EST up reply actions

This is fun

It forces me to learn more about the Cardinals over the last 12 seasons.

Here's a bad Jocketty trade:

November 10, 1997

Traded Dmitri Young to the Cincinnati Reds. Received Jeff Brantley.

Young had four very good and cheap years for the Reds, Brantley was never good again.

Overall though, of course Jocketty has been very good. Looking at his teams, his starting pitching has been fair, some years even quite good, but rarely reliably good. His bullpens became pretty bad in his early tenure, but have long since been a great strength. He has done a very good job of getting slightly above average or average pitchers in unexpected places.

Edmonds, Pujols, healthy Roland, and Drew have made the offenses look really good, and have masked a lot of sub-par pieces (e.g. Tino Martinez) which have been in the offense. The bench often looks thin too.

We'll see what happens as Edmonds fades, but Jocketty has certainly been a very good GM, especially since Edmonds and Pujols have been in the same line-up.

by jakarta on Dec 19, 2005 4:38 AM EST reply actions

I think he's a very good GM

First, the BP section on the Cardinals did a good writeup on him last off-season. The maturation of Danny Haren really makes this last trade look a lot worse, and I thought it was a stinker beforehand. But, as people have pointed out, his trading history is pretty good.

I would say he's a good (and/or lucky) GM for these reasons:

Once a good talent base was in place, he "finished" his team. Having the best record in baseball two years in a row is no small feat. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit for recent successes, but we all have to agree that if your team isn't ready yet, throwing all your resources (money/talent) in order to get a short-term gain isn't very useful... just leads to near miss seasons, or early exits. But, when the Cardinals are good... they won't miss the playoffs due to a small missing piece.
He and his manager are in lock-step. I personally don't always think the players WJ brings in are the best players in the world, but I also know that LaRussa is very much a "role" manager, and it appears that when TL needs a role filled - either before or during season - WJ can make it happen.
This may be in the "lucky" (perhaps spelled D-U-N-C-A-N) category, but I'm really impressed with the Cards ability to get lots of innings out of their SP's (jealous Chicago resident here). This has to be partly due to WJ's leadership in getting guys in who are less likely to break down, in addition to whatever on-field magic TL and DD work. Who knows if WJ even has a clue what to look for, but he apparently surrounds himself with people who do - both scouting people and Sabremetricians.
He's able to make trades. He has the respect of and communication with the other GM's, and has the will/power/courage to pull the trigger on deals.
Players like playing for the Cardinals. Who knows why this is (TL? Winning? Great fans?), but I don't think it would be true if the GM didn't think it was important. I don't know that you have to be winning to have this either - Cleveland seems to have done the same thing recently.

In short, I think Jocketty has a realistic sense of the state of his team, communicates well within his organization, aggressively tries to win when it's feasible, is able to evaluate short-term talent levels quite well, and nurtures a winning atmosphere.

I'm about as high on Daric Barton as can be. And I think that WJ received far FAR less than the market would bear for him. That said, I'm happy for Barton that he was traded, since he would have been blocked forever in StL. I just cannot picture them letting Phat Albert go, and haven't read anything that indicates Barton is a good candidate to play elsewhere.

by BobbyMac on Dec 20, 2005 5:12 AM EST reply actions

Would Call him Underrated

As a Cub Fan -- I have been underestimating him for years now. Each season I think the Cardinals are going to take a step back because - and each year he pieces together a solid team. I have called him "lucky" over and over aging as players do much better than I ever think they will. Even when he makes a huge mistake (Tino Martinez) he somehow comes out OK as he was able to dump him on Tampa Bay.

In reading the posts above I feel:

He is being criticized a bit hard on the Mulder trade. The Cardinals had an old nucleus going into last season and had made it to the World Series the year before. I think it is not a bad gamble to add a proven Major League starter when your core has Pujols (young and productive for a long time to come), Larry Walker, Scott Rolen, and Jim Edmonds -- ALL OVER THE HILL. To try to win a Championship with this group was not a bad plan -- though it didn't work out. in hindsight -- Haren was ready and the trade looks bad -- but Mulder was 16-8 with a 3.68 ERA - not a bad season at all. The team did win 100 games and had a shot at the title. You do have to give up something to get something.
He is being given too much credit for the McGwire trade. While those prospects did not amount to much -- the whole world saw this as a rent-a-player deal for one season. All reports were that McGwire was set on signing somewhere on the West Coast after that season. He fell in love with St. Louis and the fans and resigned -- but I don't thiink Jocketty traded for him with that in mind.
The farm system is not great -- as has been pointed out many times -- but producing Pujols alone gives them more than the sum-total of many systems.

4)He brought in LaRussa -- which is a big reason why some of the bazaar moves work-out.

Would I want him as my team's GM? Probably not -- but would I be happy if the Cardinals didn't have him anymore -- DEFINITELY.

by bsherlag on Dec 29, 2005 4:07 PM EST reply actions