The Colby Rasmus Situation
by Bravesin07 on Sep 5, 2010 4:53 PM EDT
Email
PrintWhat does everyone think of the relationship of Rasmus and St. Louis falling apart that he is likely to be traded in the offseason. I honestly think that LaRussa should quit as he is getting stale there as Torre was with NY. I think if they do trade Rasmus, they will regret it as who would protect Pujols and Holliday in St. Louis. It's like Bonds and Kent all over again. If I were a CF needy team I would go after Rasmus in a heartbeat. I think Atlanta and Boston would be great fits as both need centerfielders.
108 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If Pujols has legitimate issues with him
that goes beyond the response he gave today, then I think Rasmus gets shipped out, as Pujols, obviously, has priority there. If Pujols is simply frustrated with those comments, which would be understandable, and can co-exist, I bet they probably wait and see what happens with Tony LaRussa before making a decision on Rasmus.
Obviously, all things being equal, they should keep Rasmus. Jay’s been better than expected, but Rasmus, as you note, offers lineup protection that they lost when Ludwick was dealt.
They are going to regret it when Jay is a below average player in center next year
Doesn’t Jay have like a .390 BABIP right now..
Wow!
U mean he’s not going to continue to be a .330 hitter! Genius guys, genius. Sorry, I have come to despise all BABIP talk.
May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house.
-George Carlin
Then you're probably listening to people who don't know how to properly use BABIP
Acting as if BABIP doesn’t have a massive influence on a player’s overall numbers is simply asinine.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 6, 2010 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
If Rasmus becomes available...
I could definitely see the Red Sox making a huge play for him. I wonder if the Cardinals would be interested in Ellsbury…
Not without some high end additions
Baseball makes the world go 'round, or at least in my world it does.
What about..
Ellsbury, Casey Kelly and another piece? Could Boston find a way to include Papelbon?
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 6, 2010 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Would Papelbon really improve the deal?
He’s already making an absurd amount of money, and will move into the 8 figures with his next arbitration hearing.
The third piece has to be substantial to land Rasmus.
http://bullpenbanter.com/
It was under the assumption that the Red Sox would probably kick in some cash
Obviously Paps doesn’t have much surplus value right now.
What about Ellsbury, Kelly and either Reymond Fuentes or Derrik Gibson?
I just don’t really see the Sox moving Jose Iglesias, although I think that he’d be the most obvious piece to include once Ellsbury and Kelly are in the deal.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 6, 2010 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Iglesias...
If the Sox think Lowrie can stay healthy, I could see them moving Iglesias.
But would the Red Sox really risk dealing away a potential franchise shortstop?
I know that Iglesias isn’t the best SS prospect in baseball or anything, but that’s totally dependent on the development of his bat.
For a team that’s had such a revolving door at shortstop lately, I just have a hard time seeing them deal away the best SS prospect they’ve had in a while. Although obviously dealing him for Colby Rasmus is a different story. I just wonder if there’s some of that sentiment out there.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 6, 2010 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions
just a guess
The Red Sox would make a trade for him, but they won’t deal anybody that they’d miss too much.
by mrkupe on Sep 6, 2010 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I lean more towards this
The Sox aren’t giving up Elsbury and any prospects of substance if they know that Rasmus must be dealt. I am sure there are some MLB GMs who would be hesitant to make that deal straight up, especially with so many tough lefties in the AL East (Price, Pettitte, Sabathia, Romero, Cecil).
by King Billy Royal on Sep 6, 2010 9:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Forget GMs...
There’s not a front desk receptionist in MLB who wouldn’t personally drive Ellsbury to St. Louis in a 30’ stretch limo to bring Rasmus back. Anyone who even has to think about whether they’d rather have Ellsbury than Rasmus loses their baseball viewing privileges for a year.
by realitypolice on Sep 7, 2010 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions
I think Phillips put the class of the NL Central talks to rest.
Baseball makes the world go 'round, or at least in my world it does.
"they will regret it as who would protect Pujols and Holliday in St. Louis"
All studies show that “protection” is a complete and total myth.
If they regret getting rid of Rasmus, it’s because he’s a good player who thrives elsewhere. It won’t be because of some non-existent idea of protection.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Sep 5, 2010 5:45 PM EDT reply actions
+1
It was hard for me to resist writing this so, thank you. The real “protection” lies in having a lot of good hitters on a team. Everybody hits better with guys on base. The traditional concept of protection is overblown but, it doesnt stop people from saying it huh?
May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house.
-George Carlin
Just like the traditional concepts of batting average and pitcher wins!
Which I am sure you’d never use as all-encompassing gauges of talent, right?
oh, wait
by RedSoxFaithful on Sep 5, 2010 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
That was ERA
Keep track. I won’t even bother to clarify my position on that. I see Batting Average, Wins, RBI, and ERA as exactly what they are. They have thier biases but, then again, so do you too man.
May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house.
-George Carlin
ERA
ERA will tell you a lot more about how a pitcher performed over a large sample size then FIP. FIP will tell you more on a yearly basis, but some guys routinely pitch below/above their FIP and ERA lets you know how they actually perform (i.e. Vazquez).
by King Billy Royal on Sep 5, 2010 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions
True, but only a small minority of players reach that kind of sample size in the majors
and none do in the minors. For the purposes of this site, ERA is of only niche utility.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
Agreed on the protection part
I have no idea why the Cardinals aren’t playing Rasmus everyday though. He’d be the guy I’d least want to trade if I were in charge of the Cardinals.
http://bullpenbanter.com/
Hmm
Probably has omething to with them not running a tryout camp, aka being in a pennant race, and Rasmus’s .190 career average versus lefties in a lot of ab’s (194) the past two years.
Just teasin’ though really. I agree with the most part, I would play him and certainlty wouldn’t want to trade him but, If he wants to play versus lefties he should start hitting them more. I’m sure the Cardinals would LOVE for him to be a everyday player but, they want to win also.
May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house.
-George Carlin
194 at bats over two years is....not a lot of at bats.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Sep 5, 2010 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sure
Its not enough to prove he can’t hit lefties but, he hasn’t exactly been platooned either ‘til recently right. He’s been given some opportunity to hit lefties. Thats all I meant.
May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house.
-George Carlin
When you're platooning him with guys like Randy Winn
and Nick Stavinoha, there. are. problems.
Needs moar dingerz.
It's not even CLOSE to enough to make any judgments about his platoon skills
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
really?
so if you are a meh hitter on the Yankees who destroy other teams pitching and get to the weaker relievers early this won’t help?
Or if you are a hitter pressing with no-one behind you it wouldn’t help to have a star hitting behind you?
I think we have seen enough stud hitters go into the playoffs and get pitched around (and have bad numbers) to know having someone behind you can help. Maybe in a 162 game schedule this happens much less, even to the point of being hard to measure.
After all don’t your studies take averages? Isn’t is possible that some players play worse with protection? For example a star player on a terrible team might not be pitched around because who cares if he hits a solo shot, they will just beat that team anyways? Or other cases. And if this is possible and we average it all out we will miss something that actually happens.
Not sure how any study proves this, thought it wasn’t possible to prove the negative. I thought the study just couldn’t show any measurable effect of protection. Which is not proving it doesn’t exist.
We know there are no powerful aspects of offense that we don't grasp
because if there were, our models would not work as well as they do. Things like clutch hitting, protection, etc.— even if they were to exist— can’t have any significant impact on offense, or else the models would deviate from random more often than they do.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
We know?
Isn’t that what people thought ten to fifteen years ago as well? Fwiw Newtons theories work quite well but Relativity was a powerful aspect that wasn’t grasped.
I’m not sure how clutch doesn’t exist. There are many hitters with better numbers with men in scoring position and in close and late situations. Clutch probably is more of a skillet with regards to ability to perform against better pitching, and probably the exception being very young jitters feeling pressure. So I guess for the larger part I agree on true clutch being a minor part except for a real ability to perform at a higher level against better pitching.
I definitely think there are things we are missing. What is the value of the steady hitter vs. streaky jitters? Clumping is something most stats don’t handle well at all.
If I was to guess those bat control hitters like Polanco with high average but mediocre obp that are consistent and put the ball in play a lot probably have a lot more value than we realize.
All of this has been studied (read "The Book" and Baseball Between The Numbers, for a start)
There’s nothing there. Hitters don’t hit better or worse in the clutch. Hot streaks are a myth. Protection is a myth. They’re randomly generated patterns in data, like those occasional loaves of bread which look like Jesus.
Newton’s theories suck when you’re trying to explain phenomena at the subatomic level. Relativity is useful. Clutch hitting stats are worthless. They predict nothing. Clutch splits are no more useful than day/night splits or Monday/Tuesday splits.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
Disagree
Day/night is an obvious one, some players have vision problems that are different from one to the other. I have also heard of allergies affecting more in the day causing eyesight problems. These would only affect a small number of people and studies would not show it. That does not mean it doesn’t exist.
I have played and I sucked in the clutch. I tried to do too much and thought too much. I doubt it affects many players but to take averages and use that to say every player who mentions clutch (from experience) is unequivocally wrong because your study doesn’t show it, that is way off.
As far as I know many studies have sample size issues and so things like using multiple years form players and other things are done. These increase sample size but also bring in other variables.
I’m not sure why you, or others, state these studies as fact. They are rarely peer reviewed especially not by a scientific community.
They are reviewed by the, like, 9234097207 baseball fans who read them
many of whom are very well versed in statistics. I venture to say that they are far more closely vetted than your average economics article.
Something that affects a very small number of people can absolutely show up in studies. If you have what is otherwise a bell curve which suddenly shows a bump in a weird, outlier location, then that distribution is probably not random chance. The question is not whether someone is outside the norm— someone is always outside the norm. The question is whether the number of people outside the norm is greater than you would expect based on random chance.
Have you considered that the fact that you sucked in the clutch may have been a contributing factor to your failure to reach the major leagues? If mentally weak players are weeded out along the way, then they will not exist in the majors.
The fact that some studies are not well-conducted is not a reason to reject studies. Like I said, start by reading the studies in those books. Then if you have methodological issues with them, we can talk.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
So you agree that there are people outside the norm
In other words, there may be people who do better or worse in “clutch” situations, even in the major leagues. Of course, it’s very difficult to identify who they are, or what a clutch situation is, or what the difference may be, but they still could exist.
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Sep 7, 2010 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions
They "could" exist,
but when a large number of different studies, looking at the problem from a variety of different angles and sometimes using different data sets, conclude that they do not exist or exist only at the most minuscule of levels in the MLB population… I mean, give it up. That’s scientific proof.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
Everybody has conclusions
The “large number” is really a small number of incentuous writers, most or all with no training in statistics. They aren’t peer reviewed in the sense that it is used in other scientific disciplines. They are routinely lacking in sound reasoning and can’t even give a routine definition. They ignore the masses of ESTABLISHED SCIENCE in other disciplines like neurology. Saying “flow state” to the clique that writes your religious doctrines would only be met by, well, in all probability, snark.
Bring something, but don’t declare scientific proof. That is a fantastic pile of BS.
Protection is a myth, but there may be an effect: a negative one. To quote JC Bradbury:
“While having a good hitter batting behind you might put more balls in the strike-zone, it doesn’t mean these pitches are of the same quality than with a poor hitter on-deck. It’s not that the pitcher just wants to avoid walking a batter when a good hitter follows. The pitcher wants to keep the hitter off-base any way he can… This means that a good on-deck hitter has reason to lower a current batter’s chances of reaching base via a walk AND a hit…
We find evidence that good on-deck hitters actually harm the hit and power probabilities of the current batter.”
http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2004/09/the-protection-externality-it-doesnt-exist/
sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew
by alexwithclass on Sep 6, 2010 10:34 PM EDT up reply actions
So basically pitchers are powering up their stuff selectively?
Interesting. I’m skeptical, because by most accounts that was far more common back in Ye Olden Days of Yore, but I suppose it’s not outside the realm of possibility.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
Eh, he says the effect is very near zero
So maybe that was the case back in the day, but nowadays there’s almost nothing to the “effort hypothesis.”
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
Lovers
Occasionally they fight but, Albert always comes home :-)
May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house.
-George Carlin
I would say it's more likely that LaRussa will be gone and not Rasmus, if this trade stuff is true
Except for the fact that keeping LaRussa around may help in the re-signing Albert Pujols front.
Well, they take on joint speaking engagements
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Sep 6, 2010 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions
FWIW
Mozeliak, on Rasmus: “He is a tremendous talent and we are going to give him every opportunity to do it here.” #stlcards about 1 hour ago via Twittelator
via jefffletcheraol
by Arlo Brunsberg's Swing on Sep 5, 2010 6:58 PM EDT reply actions
What else is he supposed to say?
“After talking with Colby I’ve decided that I hate him just like our 65-year-old manager and so we’re going to blatantly hurt his trade value by announcing that he’s a loser and he’s fully available to all 29 teams.”
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 6, 2010 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions
This won't happen, but what if the Cardinals DID trade Rasmus?
What are some realistic trade scenarios you could see playing out with him involved?
A minimum 3-win centerfielder cost-controlled through 2014?
A top-tier prospect.
Just as an example the Braves: not Julio Teheran, but Mike Minor and another player. IMO.
by Kenneth Arthur on Sep 7, 2010 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions
I just don't think its going to take that much....
IF he goes, the Cards are obviously motivated to move him.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
Personally I think they should be and will be more willing to fire LaRussa.
by Kenneth Arthur on Sep 7, 2010 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Possibly
But Albert called out Rasmus for the situation and if he wants Tony to stay, than we can say buh bye to Rasmus. They need to keep Pujols happy with his pending free agency.
by King Billy Royal on Sep 7, 2010 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions
It sucks for Rasmus that Albert is against him, especially considering Mr Pujols contract status.
by Kenneth Arthur on Sep 7, 2010 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe Rasmus needs to be more respectful
I find it very bizarre that he has demanded two trades and he isn’t even in his 3rd year. He needs to spend more time on his game and less time whining.
by King Billy Royal on Sep 7, 2010 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions
IMO
There is no way St. Louis could get fair value in return. However, the only way I would trade Rasmus is if they could fix multiple holes with high quality players. On the other hand, Colby is not the problem in St. Louis. Tony LaRussa is the real problem. There is no reason to threaten to send him down to AAA (no power to do that anyway) and there is no reason to bench a guy who is already a top centerfielder and start Randy “F’ing” Winn over him.
Option #1: Get rid of LaRussa and replace him with someone more competent to deal with younger players.
Option #2: Get rid of Rasmus. Hope that you get a haul back which would outplay Rasmus.
Option #3: Don’t do crap and listen to ESPN and the Post Dispatch make speculations all day, every day.
Personally, I’d take option one. However, who would be the replacement? Try to pry a guy like Joe Maddon or Terry Francona to St. Louis? Someone else?
Baseball makes the world go 'round, or at least in my world it does.
The Secret Weapon
Don’t you think Oquendo has earned a shot at the job? The biggest reason why I’d want him to get the job is that there might be an outside chance that Duncan would stay on as pitching coach in that scenario. Duncan is most likely gone if/when LaRussa goes, and that is going to suck for Cardinal Nation.
by Arlo Brunsberg's Swing on Sep 5, 2010 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't see Duncan being around much longer anyway.
It’s bound to happen one of these days. Matheny will most likely take over. I’d look at O’Quendo but I am not going to give him the manager position without looking over the pros and cons.
Baseball makes the world go 'round, or at least in my world it does.
Wasn't there a "Duncan-fight-with-minor-league-pitching-coach" aside to this whole Rasmus thing somewhere too?
I seem to remember reading something to that affect in some article somewhere, but I’m not sure I remember clearly.
I remember the who Baby Dunc issue
Basically when Chris Duncan was ran out of town. The guy ignored an injury that could have paralyzed him and told no one. Give me a break.
Baseball makes the world go 'round, or at least in my world it does.
It's pretty simple in my mind.
It comes down to what Pujols wants.
But when approached by a herd of reporters after the game, Rasmus denied that any request was ever made.
"I never did that," Rasmus said. "I don’t know where that’s coming from. I just want to play baseball and have fun. …I love being here. I love the fans. I’m moving forward and just trying to play hard and I’m happy we won today."
he is the perfect kind of guy the Rays could go after
I could see a package including Matt Joyce and Matt Garza (who is rumored to be shopped this off-season)…Giving the Rays Rasmus/Upton/Jennings OF when Crawford leaves.
Me thinks...
Shields is more likely to be traded than Garza. Hellickson pretty much has the same style as Shields, and Garza has the better fastball.
Rasmus probably isn’t going anywhere.
the problem is Shields has a much friendly contract and in TB that plays a huge deal
Garza is more expensive so he would more likely be the one to be moved.
Um
Shields is less expensive this year, but Garza likely could be signed to a similar deal and is the pitcher with upside still to be seen.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
Garza cannot be signed to a similar deal
Shields signed his deal because he had less than 2 years’ service time when he inked it. He gave up a lot of potential money for the certainty of getting enough to retire on.
Garza’s already into arbitration. If he signed an extension, a much better comparison would be Scott Kazmir’s contract.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
I would rather
a package including Upton and Shields/Garza instead of Joyce.
"Pacing back and forth as he decides retirement, Brett Favre accidentally completes Redskins conditioning test." — ESPN.com's Jeff MacGregor
by thedudeofdudes on Sep 6, 2010 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe if Rasmus had a more memorable name like Tom Collins or Jack Daniels, he'd be playing every day and this wouldn't be a problem.
by ThomasG on Sep 6, 2010 2:03 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I was trying to avoid
a LaRussa/Busch reference, but you played that well, sir.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
As much as the memory still burns in my brain...
Of ATL trading a young pitching stud to STL for an OF’er, I’d love to see an OF that included Colby and Heyward for the next 7-10 years…not sure what it would take to make it happen though?
Jerz
you make me smile and cry all at the same time. How you doing man?
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
As far as answering the question
It completely depends on how Rasmus ends the season with the Cards. If they’re on bad terms, and a trade is obvious, the Cards would lose a lot of negotiating angle. That said, he’d be a huge prize that seemingly a lot of teams would make a play for. I think the discussion for the Braves would again have to start with a top arm, Minor or Teheran, and would likely include more pieces. I have a feeling it’d be a polarizing trade in the Huzzah world as it’d cost a lot of value, and Rasmus seems to be very polarizing among most.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
Lineup Protection...
has never been shown to have any basis in reality. It’s something people make up to make themselves sound like they’re actually thinking about the nuances of the game, when nobody’s ever demonstrated that pitchers change their approach to the guy in the batter’s box based on who’s waiting in the on-deck circle.
I get the impression that the people who declare that it doesn’t exist want to sound like they’re experts. I think many of them are still angry that a junior high girl not only beat them at tetherball, but injured them.
What you’re saying has never been demonstrated has probably been testified to by the actual pitchers thousands if not tens of thousands of times.
Rasmus Trade
He’s not going anywhere.
If the Cardinals move him then they HAVE to get a quality middle of the order hitter in return. We’d have absolutely no decent #5 hitter without Rasmus next year.
The talk of Rasmus for a pitcher is silly. We don’t need pitching, we desperately need hitting.
And with that said, that is why he isn’t going anywhere. How many teams will/can give up an equally cheap and talented player?
And if you think the Cardinals will give him up for cheaper than they might had there been no feud then think again. Bill DeWitt will fire LaRussa before he lets the cost controlled Rasmus go for anything less than a different version of Rasmus.
Rasmus will be a Cardinal in 2011.
Who's the prospect? He better be damn good.
Because Kemp is more expensive, has two less years of team control, and is Rasmus’ equal at best.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 8, 2010 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions
disagree
Rasmus has not had a solid, all around season. He has an 850 OPS, then he has a 340 something BABIP, his highest since A ball, with below average defense and a 33% K rate. And he hasnt hit lefties… how is he equal to Kemp who has had 2.5 above average(minimum) seasons…?
by lakersdodgersyankees4life on Sep 8, 2010 9:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Well
He has an 850 OPS, then he has a 340 something BABIP
Kemp has posted an OPS over 850 only once, and had a .411 BABIP that year.
with below average defense and a 33% K rate
UZR has rated Rasmus better than Kemp both this year and last year, Total Zone had Rasmus better than Kemp defensively last year too(no totals yet this year at fangraphs). Rasmus may have a higher K rate, but he also has a much better walk rate and has posted better BB/K ratios the last two years. Beyond that he’s two years younger, isn’t arbitration eligible yet, and will be under team control for two extra years.
So yeah, I’d take Rasmus over Kemp without a second thought.
http://bullpenbanter.com
Kemp had an OPS of 842
last year, with above average defense, and a 345 BABIP. The difference is the fact that Kemp’s career BABIP, even with this year of just 302, is 348. Rasmus’s is 307, and this year’s BABIP is 346. And he is K’ing 33%. Looking further into Rasmus’s season, I can’t take it seriously, considering how lucky he has been and how bad some other aspects of his game have become even worse…
One final thing, Rasmus’s WAR is 2.8. Kemp’s WAR last year was 5.1…
by lakersdodgersyankees4life on Sep 9, 2010 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions
And this year it is 0.7
Perhaps Rasmus never puts up that big of a win total, but I’m not picking the guy for his past performances. I believe in Rasmus more than Kemp at this point.
http://bullpenbanter.com/
Kemp has 10.2 career WAR
in 40% of the PA’s Rasmus has 5.0 career WAR. He’s younger, cheaper and under team control longer. If you’d rather have Kemp that’s fine, but I think you’re letting your personal feelings for a Dodgers player cloud your judgement.
http://bullpenbanter.com
Kemp is too much to pay straight up...
proven talent vs potential
by lakersdodgersyankees4life on Sep 8, 2010 9:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Contract difference
Kemp is a free agent after 2011. Rasmus isn’t until 2014. If I’m the Cardinals, I laugh (hard) if the Dodgers offer that.
by Franchise887 on Sep 8, 2010 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Difference
The Cards may be forced to deal Rasmus. If Albert wants LaRussa to be his manager, than the Cards may be forced to get rid of Rasmus.
by King Billy Royal on Sep 8, 2010 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions
its potential vs actual results...
Why would you take Rasmus? Like I said Rasmus, has not had a season where everything was plus. He has an OPS of 850, but he has a 33% K rate, poor defense, and has pissed off the best player in baseball. Kemp has done nothing beside have a made mechanical flaw that he needs to get fixed. In fact, he is the one who has admitted to the media he is doing crapily, while Torre, Bowa and Colletti have all thrown him under the bus in the media
by lakersdodgersyankees4life on Sep 8, 2010 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions
You're making it like Kemp doesn't have these problems
Rasmus is striking out in 28% of his PA’s. Kemp is striking out in 25% of his PA’s. Neither one is good.
But Rasmus walks more, is regarded as a much better defender in center, has similar if not more power, is younger, is cheaper and is under control for longer.
Kemp had 667 PA to put up 5.1 WAR. Rasmus’ WAR comes out to 4.2 if you extrapolate for the number of PA. Factor in Kemp’s major decline this season, and we’re looking at a superior player with a more team-friendly contract situation.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 9, 2010 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions
he wont bring back someone equally cheap and talented....
b/c they dont have alot of leverage b/c Pujols couldnt keep his mouth shut. Everyone knows that if Pujols wants Rasmus gone, Rasmus will be gone.
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Sep 8, 2010 2:25 AM EDT up reply actions
That's assuming
There will be a continuing problem between Rasmus and Pujols…not likely as long as Rasmus keeps quiet. Pujols won’t stay on Colby’s case if he does that.
Rasmus’ feud is with LaRussa and even that might not last long if TLR leaves after this year or if Rasmus stays healthy and gets 550 ABs next season.
The Cardinals will either get an equally talented and cheap player or they won’t move Rasmus at all. They won’t get rid of him for cheap.
rasmus has been quiet this whole time....
pujols and larussa are the ones bitching to the media
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Sep 8, 2010 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions
DING DING DING!!!!!
This (wo?)man knows what he’s talking about.
Albert Pujols is a god, and you my friend should be doing no less than groveling at his feet.
To the Reds
For Brandon Phillips plus whatever evens it out..
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
