Mo continues to keep his hands under his butt on major rotation additions for the Cardinals

Dallas Keuchel? To the White Sox at 3/$55.5, which could vest to 4/$74. Still cheaper than Hyun-Jin Ryu and $4/80 with the Jays.

They even passed on getting Gio Gonzalez for just $5M for one year. Though they did avoid paying, or overpaying, Madison Bumgarner at 5/$85.

I do NOT consider Gwang-Hyun Kim an acceptable answer for upgrading the rotation with Michael Wacha officially gone now, certainly not if the question is "Do you want to go to the World Series?" rather than "do you want to make the playoffs?" (With Cubs in sell mode and the Brew Crew kind of consolidating, making the playoffs next year should be a given. That said, MLBTR fans expect the Reds to win 85-89 games, so no sleeping on your hands!)

So, we're still at me wanting Mo to be daring and creative — daring enough to trade Matt Carpenter for David Price, while taking on Jackie Bradley Jr. as well in a salary dump.

First, per the question behind the question, and the poll at right, yes, the Cards really could use another starter.

Second, a lefty is preferable. Mo has said that.

So, would another starting pitcher on the mound help the St. Louis Cardinals next year?

I say yes. And, they've got money to do it, one way or another.

Carlos Martinez may or may not be a starter, and his latest shoulder issues? Don't hold your breath. Plus, if you move him out of the pen, who's your closer until midseason? At the same time, while Adam Wainwright surprised last year on both health and performance? Don't circle him in as a guarantee to do that again. (And, his big bounceback on performance was only to a skoosh above league average.) And don't count on Alex Reyes for much of anything.

So, riffing on David Schoenfield's blockbuster trade idea? To help the Red Sox get under the lux tax line, rather than trading for Mookie Betts plus not-needed-he's-a-righty Nathan Eovaldi, and giving up too much back? Send Carpenter (and maybe, but hopefully not, one or another of the OF players Schoenfield mentions) — for Price plus letting the Sox dump enough other salary to be it worth their while but not kill the Cards.

Cards get their lefty starter. Price may have a second gust of energy coming over to the NL.

It would have to be more than a 1-for-1 straight up, in all likelihood. With Carp's extension, the Sox would save "only" $13.5 million per year. Per Cot's Contracts, that move alone gets them close, but not under. But, if they combine that with some judicious cutting elsewhere? They get below the tax line one year, reset, and then maybe resign Betts.

And you do that by the Sox including JBJ.

And you know? It isn't that expensive for the Cards, but he would be enough to get you just below. And, MLB Trade Rumors says he could be an outfield boost. And that the Cards are looking for lefty bats, which he is one of. (They'd lose one with Carp, of course.)

But, besides him being a righty the Cards just don't need, they just don't need the overpaid Eovaldi on Schoenfield's idea.

First, Mo is not trading for Betts as a rent-a-player. He's traded for players on the last year of a contract before, but with the expectation he could resign them. I don't think Mo has plans to shell out 8/$260 or more for Betts. (Likely more.**)

Second, Mo is not trading away Tommy Edman. Period.

Third, he is not trading for Eovaldi, period.

And, the Sox could use Carp, at his old stomping ground of 2B, where they have a black hole right now.

The salary diff? That's $24.5 million this year, just above the $22M I said the Cardinals could easily spend in free agency. It drops to $13.5M next year. The third year is pricier cuz the Cards have only two years of Carp contract* while Price has three. But, other players will be coming off current contracts by them.

* Carp's contract vests for 2022 with 500 ABs both of 2020 and 2021.

And, doesn't he have a no-trade option? Yes, but it doesn't kick in until the start of the 2020 season, along with the higher pay of the extension, and we're in the 2019 offseason.

It's a gamble on Price's health, yes. But, even when injury-struggling, he's still been above average. When injury free, he's still well above average. And, if it feels like too much of a gamble? Ask the Sox to throw in a draft pick or two. Or minor league talent, if only "filler" level.

The problem, besides Mo's cheapness, seems to be Boston greed. They're wanting prospects back for Price. And they're simply not going to get that. As I note, this trade fixes a need, a major need, for Boston, while giving them pretty good salary relief at the same time.

Anyway, this trade seems more win-win (if gambles pay off on both sides) than does the Schoenfield proposal. And, it makes a fair chunk of sense within the current free agent world and prices. So, Cards fans who think trading for Price in any way, shape or form is crazy? I respectfully suggest you think again.

It makes more sense for another reason — reports that the Sawks, like the Stros, cheated on stealing signs. Assuming Rob Manfred drops the hammer, Bloom has more incentive yet to get under the lux tax cap with a team going nowhere. So, he'll lower his price soon enough.

But Mo will sit on his hands and snooze, even as the Dodgers are rumored to be making a big play to trade for Price PLUS Betts.

Top blogging for December

Blogging last month (recorded as of New Year's Eve) was heavy on baseball, as I did what I normally do this time of year — play my own version of Hot Stove League for the next St. Louis Cardinals season, followed by assessing Hall of Fame candidacies (so far this offseason, primarily looking at the veterans committee).

No. 1 was in the second half of that vein, where I insisted, contra Atlanta Tomahawk Choppers, that Dale Murphy is NOT a Hall of Famer. (The VC agreed.)

No. 3 called for Cardinals pitching upgrades in general and No. 4 explicitly called for trading Matt Carpenter for David Price.

No. 8 was another baseball post, this one about the (relative) endurance of Albert Pujols even as other first basemen slump lower than him in their baseball old age.

Some weren't from December, or even from this year. A long-ago post about how Iran going nuclear might LOWER Middle East tensions was No. 2 after breaking into the top 10 in November.

Sitting at No. 6 was a recent political blog post with some connections to that, as I lamented the smear jobs against Jeremy Corbyn while also wondering if he couldn't have run a better campaign, and followed party discipline better by opening standing for Remain.

At No. 5 was a cultural post even older than the Iranian bomb post. People can't get enough discussion about Timothy Treadwell being fricking nuts.

No. 7 was a new cultural post, about the smugness of Apple's iCult.

No. 9 was updating old blogging, in light of new Twitter interactions, about the conspiracy theorists at Consortium News.

No. 10 was about the 10th anniversary of the Texas Tribune, and how I said the anniversary of the online paper should NOT be the occasion for uncritical huzzahs and handsprings.

Texas progressives say Happy New Year

This corner of Texas Progressives wishes you a Happy New Year while reminding you that a number of state laws go into effect tomorrow. That includes an end to surprise medical billing, with better rules than the Texas Medical Association was originally going to write. Rules on flood-related valuation exemptions also kick in. Houstonians and other Gulf Coast denizens hope they're not necessary.


Texas politics

Texas ConservaDems are invited to hop aboard the Beto PAC gravy train!

At the Monthly, CD Hooks wonders wither the Texas GOP in 2020 and can Trump save it, or at least give it a respite?

Off the Kuff analyzes a poll released by the Eliz Markowitz campaign.

Texana

Socratic Gadfly got out to Big Bend for the first time in more than eight years, and he shares photos and discusses changes he saw. Two additional posts will follow.

The Trib reports on the state's ongoing fatal driving accident streak. In urban and suburban areas, bad drivers are also killing ever more pedestrians and bicyclists.

The Observer offers its top 10 weird stories of 2019.

The EPA is being sued for failure to update water protection rules from slaughterhouses.

Grits for Breakfast talks pardons, homelessness and other topics.

Texas Monthly eulogizes Bob "Daddy-O" Wade.

Cristina Tovar warns of a bilingual teacher shortage if DACA fails.


Dallas

Jim Schutze reviews his harshest criticism from others of 2019, including that of over his overly friendly defense of Amber Guyger, called out in these precincts as elsewhere. As I said then, for stuff like this, the #OKJim hashtag would replace #OKBoomer. #OKJim? Shocking that somebody from the Snooze is righter than rain and Jim Schutze, but Bill Marvel is right. Schutze has a crackpot side — and it got worse this year. And I'm not EVEN going to go read his Facebook.


Houston

The oilpatch economy is slowing down, both out in the field and in the high-rises, meaning Houston economic growth is slower than once thought. As Brains notes, this means Abbott's version of Rick Perry's Texas miracle is no more true than the original. One independent driller would like to see the RRC do its job on natural gas flaring, with the hope that would slow drilling enough on oil to prop the price up more, and also help natural gas prices. Another wants to see the feds step in and go back to the future with some sort of production regulation. The same holds true to a lesser degree in the Metromess, of course.


National

Brains ties his last 2020 of the year to the willingness of national Dems to die on the cross of Obamacare instead of single-payer.

Chuck Todd showed himself to be an even bigger idiot about politics in general, and today's GOP in particular, than even the most cynical of us suspected. Why he is still hosting Press the Meat, I don't know. Why Trump Trainer's fake fakery calls of "Fake News" gain traction is clearer than ever.

RIP William Greider. Dean Baker has a good assessment.  Per The Nation, I remember his explosive interview with David Stockman, in which it was revealed the trickle-down emperor had no clothes. I was less politically active then than today, and still Republican, but that was one of the first things to open a small wedge in my mind.

Updated 2020 Doinks presidential odds, likeability

To round out the year, this is an update of a post from January 2019, now that the Democratic presidential field has been winnowed, and occasionally added to.

As with the original?

Three things.

First, I'll give you oddsmaking.

Second, I'll give you his or her likely target audience.

Third, as a Green-leaner, I'll give a letter grade based on my take on the acceptability of their political stances and related issues.

Note: Odds may go over 100 percent total because they would change in reality with candidates dropping out, etc.

Note 2: I have written in-depth takes on selected candidates and will do more in the future. Where available, they're linked.

Note 3: A candidate's name in red means they've officially entered the race. A strike-through means they're officially out. (As noted, I've already winnowed from the original.)

And, since he liked mine, Gaius at Down with Tyranny also has a ratings/oddsmaking.

(June 29, 2019: Here's my take on winners and losers from the first pair of Democratic debates.)

So, let's start, with ...

Julian Castro! [Officially declared candidates, and those with official exploratory committees are in red.] Odds: 6 percent. Target: People with the last name of Castro. Like factor: D. (Laughingly, Nate Silver calls Castro "a major candidate."

Castro, like the not-so-dearly-departed from the race Bob on a Knob O'Rourke, decided to start pandering leftward when he saw both Sanders and Warren have good numbers. His only saving graces were speaking Spanish better than Beto and pandering somewhat less blatantly, or he'd be gone, too.

And, Julián started the new year by bowing out.

Booker is most likely the person most helped by this; one minority fauxgressive bowing out for another.

Joe Biden: Odds 18 percent. (Don't overestimate those early Iowa polls.) Biden has the pluses of being a better establishmentarian candidate than Hillary Clinton and ties to the Obama coattails, and may be seen as more progressive than is actually true. With both her and Bloomberg out, too, he's the only "establishmentarian" heavy hitter left. (I forgot to delete that from the original!) Minuses are being almost as old as Bernie Sanders, being gaffe-prone, being Sen-MBNA on bankruptcy tightening 15 years ago, and lots of #MeToo baggage beginning with but not limited to the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. Since the start of the run, he's looked more and more memory-befuddled. Plus, the impeachment process has brought his family baggage into the light. Target: DNC establishment and DNC superdelegates if a brokered convention happens. Like factor: D-minus, and maybe a flat F with his opening the door to a Republican Vice President.

Cory Booker: Odds 8 percent. Has pluses of being a minority. Has baggage of footsie with Big Pharma, of many "poseur" stances (he's a weathervane in a field filled with them), and lack of a Senate legislation paper trail for his length of time in office. Target: Slightly more conservative Kamala Harris voters. How much her dropping out will boost him remains to be seen. Could be an acceptable establishment alternative if Biden slips more. Like factor: D-minus, but perhaps moved up to a straight D.

Bernie Sanders: Odds: 22 percent. Pluses include previous campaign history, plus him moving slightly leftward again on foreign policy. (Let's see how Palestinian issues continue to play out, and if he keeps schwaffling on Venezuela.) Minuses include the downside of previous campaign history, plus no "Hillary voted for Iraq and spoke to Goldman Sachs" easy campaign targets. Minuses from a Green POV include that he's still way too much of a military Keynesian. Additional baggage of age. See my posts about him and F-35s. Additional baggage for some Dems of being a white male.  (The male part is coming into play on some of his Congressional endorsements, and questions about them.)  Other minuses (not for him, but his campaign) include becoming ever more a target of the Dem establishment and establishment media, even with antisemitic smears similar to those against Corbyn. Like factor: B-minus. (I'm not grading on a curve, but you can compare his grade with other Dems.) That said, he IS a Dem. See this new piece. Or click the Bernie tag below.

Michael Bloomberg: Odds: 3 percent. (This odds is as a Democrat only; I in no way rule out him making an independent run in the general election — even if he's chided Howard Schultz for thinking of that.) Political, if not real, pluses include perceived liberalism, especially on climate and environment through things such as the soda tax, claims to appeal to centrist independents in general election. Minuses include bankster background and everything related. Target: Democratic establishment. Like factor? Hell,. F. It was an F originally, and his entering the race after all only makes this worse.

Elizabeth Warren: Odds 18 percent. Pluses? A woman in the MeToo era, perceived as liberal to left-liberal economically. Minuses include her Cherokee Nation baggage, that she's not as liberal on as many things as believed and that she's anti-BDS. Also, per her "I'm having a beer" NYE Instagram video, a too-transparent sense of earnestness, possibly coupled with a too-transparent sense of pandering to Millennials with that as an Instagram rather than Facebook video. Additional minus is that she reportedly has hired comms staff from Hillary 2016. Politically unastute plus they were hacks. Like factor? C-minus, and I am amending an earlier statement. I am partially grading on the curve; otherwise, she might be lower. Thanks to Daily Wire or whoever gave that graphic to somebody connected to Trump, who then Tweeted it.

John Delaney: Odds: Less than Julian Castro. Pluses besides being first to file? None. Minusus? Bland older white guy from exurban Congressional district. Plus/minus: Looks like a bald, blander Will Ferrell. Target: Cabinet position in next Dem presidency and staying in longer than Julian Castro. Like factor: Not even registered. But, the fact that he's worth at least $92M is registered.

Tulsi Gabbard: Odds: 1 percent. Political pluses (note that caveat) include Sanders connections, especially if he does not run, a Kool-Aid stronger than Beto's, perhaps, and definite support from people like H.A. Goodman who haven't done the full Bernie-to-Trump but are definitely the conservative faction of BernieBros. General pluses are willingness to take on Dem establishment. Minuses are basically everything I've said above under political pluses plus the fact she still, Kool-Aid drinkers aside, appears to back Islamophobia, and that she's as much a political re-inventor as Trump. That's all true, and I've blogged about her Hindu nationalist fascist bromance three full years ago, and now, like Beto, about her Kool-Aid drinkers plus Kool-Aid brewer Michael Tracey. Targets: The conservative portion of the Sanders movement. Like factor: D. Dropped from D-plus due to the cultic level of her backers.

Andrew Yang: Odds: 6 percent. Political pluses include enthusiasm of his groupies. However, that becomes a minus when they often become cult-like TulsiTwerker type folks. More serious pluses? Basic Income focus (and a version that at least seems to be non-libertarian) indicates he thinks outside some boxes. But, on Israel and Zionism, he remains firmly inside the current Doink foreign policy box; also, his health care ideas look more like Warren than Sanders. Target? Millennials. Like factor? C-minus.

Amy Klobuchar: Odds: 3 percent. Pluses? Lemme think. Minuses would be being behind two or three other women senators and being older than two of them, as well as being seen as less progressive than all three. Target: Hillary Clinton backers who wouldn't vote for one of those other women, along with masochistic lower-level white collar employees who love sadistic bosses. Like factor: D-minus.

Marianne Williamson: Odds: Not a ghost of a chance or even a New Agey ghost of a chance. (I'd forgotten that there had been noises about her until she was mentioned on someone else's blog. But she even has an exploratory committee and website.) Pluses: Not a politician. She has, though, made extensive donations, mainly to progressive Dems but also to ConservaDems like Jon Ossoff and Doug Jones. "Peace" imagery. Minuses: All her baggage as a New Age nutter. Target audience: People who think "A Course in Miracles" is real. Like factor: Probably on the non-New Agey angle, a B-minus; including it, a D-minus. Her campaign contributions do NOT include the Green Party, but do include the Natural Law Party. Nuff ced. My full take is now up.

Suspended means you're out, Marianne. Be honest.

Who's helped? Maybe (or maybe not) the Green Party if she endorses the party, or whomever the party nominates.

Michael Bennett: Odds: Less than Julian Castro. John Hickenlooper with another name and without fracking oil directly on his hands. Target? You fucking got me, other than his own vanity. Like factor? No more, no less than any other milquetoast centrist neoliberal, so, D?

Deval Patrick: Odds: About the same as Obama actually getting the 22nd Amendment overturned. Gov. "Obama's Third Term" is making bland noises about separating himself from Democrats' recent past, but of course doesn't mean it. Target? People who wish Obama could run for a third term. Like factor? Same D as many candidates here.

Tom Steyer: Odds: About half of Bloomberg's. Likeability factor? About twice Bloomberg's, if that's not damning with faint praise. More serious about climate change than any other Dem. That includes Bernie, who I don't think really REALLY gets it, and Liz, who of course "has a plan for that." Target? Environmentalists. Like factor? C-minus.

Pete the Budgie, aka Mayo Pete, aka Mary Pete (suck it, certain subtypes) otherwise known as Pete Buttigieg: Odds: The same exact percentage of Julian Castro's odds as South Bend's population is of San Antonio's. That was my assessment when he first entered. Now? 9 percent. Target audience: The future Dem president who gives him a Cabinet seat/Indiana Dem Senate voters. Like factor: F, dropped from original; worked for management vulture McKinsey for three years, for doorknob's sake, and more and more leaks. His claiming that South Carolina black leaders support his was odious. Has zero real accomplishments at South Bend and embroiled city in racial issues. No, seriously. Wikipedia. Here's more reasons, with a blog post written just to "out" Beto-Lite, why you shouldn't vote for him.

As with the original, when candidates drop out, I'll strike through their names. We're at 14 with Castro's departure.

==

Finally, with Dem changes on superdelegates, is there some chance of a brokered convention? Yes, but not much Put it at 5 percent; note how wide open the GOP race was in 2016 but how much it converged well before the last round of primaries.

==

No, more finally. What about the Republicans?

Well, Bill Weld has now formed an exploratory committee and since then, officially entered the race. Since then, largely unrepentant wingnut Joe Walsh, who is now simply a Never Trumper Past Today wingnut, has also entered. Former SC governor Mark Sanford entered for all of what, two weeks, then wandered back down the Appalachian Trail.

Odds? Weld 4 percent. Walsh 1 percent.