#PED problem: Should Torre & La Russa get in the Hall of Fame?

 Joe Torre and Tony La Russa could soon be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame.
In 2014, the Veterans Committee returns to the "modern" era. And Torre and La Russa are on the ballot as managers.

But should they be in Cooperstown, given that the Baseball Writers Association of America has punished recently retired players who have used performance-enhancing drugs, incluing players managed by Torre and La Russa?

You know, like Roger Clemens, and Mark McGwire?

This is especially a matter for debate and discussion since former Major Leaguer Eric Byrnes has now joined longtime sportswriter Thomas Boswell in claiming that the Baseball Hall of Fame already contains, in Byrnes' words, not just a member, but a "prominent" member who was a serious user of performance-enhancing drugs.

Here's the money quote:

Disturbingly, not long ago I was having dinner with a former long time Major League player that spoke about the steroid use of a prominent Hall of Famer that played the majority of his career in the 70′s and 80′s… Ha! Not like I was shocked but damn… So many members of the Hall of Fame, including this character, have recently spoken out and condemned guys who have had ties to performance enhancing drugs, saying there is no place for “cheaters” in the HOF.

OK, "prominent." From Byrnes' angle, I take that not necessarily as a first-ballot HOFer, though it certainly could be, as someone who is well-known, keeps in the public eye, etc.

When Boswell's statement came out in 2010, some sites, like Wezen-Ball, speculated on who it might be. That said, per a poll I put up at the time, in a follow-up piece, Wezen-Ball has a 1988 quote from Boswell that indicates TLR  Tony La Russa had some idea what was up and therefore, from where I stand, should be kept out of the Hall just as much as Barry Bonds and the aforementioned duo.

The fact that La Russa wanted to ink Bonds to a Cardinal contract when he was a free agent after 2007 also points to his total lack of innocence on this issue. 

(For the money, poll respondents said they thought the actual, original Mr. October was Byrnes' most likely guy.)

But, in the case of both La Russa and Torre, but especially the former, the questions don't stop there.


And, in Oakland, TLR managed the two most notorious known, admitted users in Jose Canseco and Mark McGwire. Re Big Mac, TLR has claimed he didn't notice anything, didn't know anything. He's been more circumspect about Canseco. That's why I'd love a, say, Ken Rosenthal to put both of them, La Russa and Canseco, in the same interview room at the same time. Because, to be honest, I don't believe La Russa. And, given that he's got a law degree, he knows just how to parse and shade his language.

And, although La Russa seems "dirty," given his connection to Canseco and his "milkshake," let's not let Torre off the hook too lightly either.

What about Torre and his Yankee years? I said before that I thought Bonds' courtroom appearance twin, Roger Clemens, was juicing before that. Then there's Andy Pettitte who, yes, has apologized, and I said that Torre was probably not aware of Andy. But, I don't know. Whether he should have been aware of "Muchie Peachie" and others (Jason Giambi, pre- or post-apology) is a different question. 

That said, here's my thoughts on likely roiders among players. It applies to La Russa and Torre, too. (To riff on Ricky Ricardo, you got some 'splaining to do, and some apologizing, along with the players union, management, and now, I would say, at least one field manager.)

We can make some sort of guesstimate as to how your managerial career might have panned out without the "help." And, making it to three straight World Series in Oakland, then having a juiced Mac welcome a trade to St. Louis, to break Roger Maris' record, might not have happened, either.

That said, Torre might not deserve a 100 percent pass, either. How much did Yankee roiding help his team win four World Series in five years, and make it to five in six years?

So now, we're going to find out how well the Veterans Committee has studied this issue and how much it concerns them. 

And, no, this is not a snarky attack on the BBWAA or anything similar. It's a legitimate issue, I think.

And, managing roiding players aside, how do we judge "borderline" managers? See here for my cry for a WAR for managers.

This all is also complicated by one other issue, an issue we all saw illustrated during the World Series. Both Torre and La Russa now work for MLB, for ... Commissioner Bud Selig, he of ostrich-head in the sands during the early years of roiding, followed by playing Marshal Matt Dillon, with the help of leaking to a complicit, compliant press after that.

Given that the Veterans Committee is a partial creature of the commissioner's office, though its members are picked by the BBWAA, will it crap in Bud's retirement bed?

About as likely as Bud is to ban the DH from the American League.

But, if you want to persuade them otherwise, here's the committee's members:

This year's committee includes Hall of Famers Rod Carew, Carlton Fisk, Whitey Herzog, Tom Lasorda, Paul Molitor, Joe Morgan, Phil Niekro and Frank Robinson; Blue Jays president Paul Beeston; retired club executive Andy MacPhail; Phillies president Dave Montgomery; White Sox chairman Jerry Reinsdorf; Steve Hirdt of the Elias Sports Bureau; Bruce Jenkins of the San Francisco Chronicle; Baseball Writers' Association of American Secretary-Treasurer Jack O'Connell; and retired Fort Worth Star-Telegram reporter Jim Reeves.

But should the VC find the same conscience I do? I'll get it to try. I still have to contact the BBWAA to keep Jack Morris out of the Hall one more year. It will be an uphill sled with HOF players possibly not buying my argument that a manager should be aware of this stuff, plus Whitey and Tommy surely in their corner. But, gotta try! (And, the Morris contacts are now pretty well done!)

By the way, just like my stance on Big Mac, my stance on TLR should be proof I'm not so much a Cardinal homer that I can't stand up for truth, justice, and the real baseball way.

Meanwhile, there's a third manager on the ballot.

Bobby Cox? I've heard nary a rumor about any Braves roiding. Nor, laughingly, other than his propensity for getting tossed out of games, does he have any real black marks of other sorts. Obviously, although the Braves only cleared the World Series victory hump once, his teams had an incredible run during the 1990s. Vote him in. 

Otherwise, there's also two other overdue people. Folks, labor leader Marvin Miller and catching great Ted Simmons, who had the misfortune of playing in Johnny Bench's shadow, in the same league, for much of his career, should also both be in the Hall.

And, what good is a post like this without a poll?

Free polls from Pollhost.com

Should Veterans voters treat La Russa, Torre like BBWAA voters on alleged roiders?

Yes   No   Uncertain

 

The insurance sellout called #Obamacare

The failure of our neoliberal Dear Leader to push for a single-payer "Medicare for All" national health insurance program, rather than the hypercapitalist-driven, insurance-lobbyist written Obamacare, becomes clearer by the day.

Insurance companies cancelling policies without telling now ex-policyholders about options in the exchanges. 

Donna received the letter canceling her insurance plan on Sept. 16. Her insurance company, LifeWise of Washington, told her that they'd identified a new plan for her. If she did nothing, she'd be covered. 

A 56-year-old Seattle resident with a 57-year-old husband and 15-year-old daughter, Donna had been looking forward to the savings that the Affordable Care Act had to offer.

But that's not what she found. Instead, she'd be paying an additional $300 a month for coverage. The letter made no mention of the health insurance marketplace that would soon open in Washington, where she could shop for competitive plans, and only an oblique reference to financial help that she might qualify for, if she made the effort to call and find out. ...

 Across the country, insurance companies have sent misleading letters to consumers, trying to lock them into the companies' own, sometimes more expensive health insurance plans rather than let them shop for insurance and tax credits on the Obamacare marketplaces -- which could lead to people like Donna spending thousands more for insurance than the law intended. In some cases, mentions of the marketplace in those letters are relegated to a mere footnote, which can be easily overlooked. 

And, surely, continuing to do this because Team Obama's use of Twitter as a PR beatdown mechanism, while good for press pushback, does bupkis to actually rein in insurance companies.

"You never find an organization that is collectively this good at Twitter," said Peter LaMotte, head of digital communications practice at Levick, who advises major corporations on using social media.

The story details just how much this is true, on Twitter as PR weapon.. 

Insurance companies playing a time-generated version of marketplace skimming to avoid poorer risks. (Which, in turn, is being spun in conservative press outlets, then attacked by Team Obama's Twitter-swarm, but still continuing to happen.)

“The company’s plans reflect its concern that the first wave of newly insured customers under the law may be the costliest,” UHC Chief Executive Officer Stephen Helmsley told investors last October. “UnitedHealth will watch and see how the exchanges evolve and expects the first enrollees will have ‘a pent-up appetite’ for medical care. We are approaching them with some degree of caution because of that.”
 
The company packed its bags and dumped its beneficiaries because it wants its competitors to swallow the first wave of sicker enrollees only to re-enter the market later and profit from the healthy people who still haven’t signed up for coverage. 

But, the state of California, playing its neoliberal version of hypercapitalized state politics, contributed to this:

The two insurers were also operating at a tax disadvantage in the state. As California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones explained, “One of the factors I believe contributed to this decision….is the special tax break that California law gives to Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, which has allowed and continues to allow those two companies to avoid paying $100 million in state taxes a year.” “Aetna and United Healthcare don’t get the special tax break provided to Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and so they faced a major competitive disadvantage in California.”

So, there you go.

Will Aetna and UHC demand their own tax breaks to come back in the market? Why wouldn't they?

Anyway, this is just the tip of an iceberg of a "national health care" plan that may only insure one-quarter or so of the currently uninsured, as I blogged before. Or maybe one-third, if we make allowance for the young uninsureds who will deliberately pay the tax penalty, which is modest, rather than buy insurance. (Wait for insurers to lobby for an increased penalty after Obama's out of office.)

So, there's shoes that will continue dropping for some time.

Yes, I will agree with Team Obama that we shouldn't judge Obamacare by a clunky website.

Instead, we should (faux outrage from Faux News types aside) judge it by how well insurers can ultimately game it.

Stay tuned for how much insurance companies cram inside that "80 percent for actual services" provision, as I blogged before, including cutting staff to make sure CEOs get their continued large cut. After all, some companies are already cutting commissions to sales agents.

Stay tuned for how little electronic patient data and records actually save, vs. how much money it makes for the companies creating their software, as I've blogged before. Also stay tuned for how little they're able to communicate with each other.

Stay tuned for the possibility of more employers dumping their health care coverage — as I've blogged before, in fact, more than once.  Which will then lead us to further ask if there is that much savings from Obamacare or not, since that was a touted point.

Does 4-way Lite Guv race benefit Dudley Dewless?

The Texas Trib, in its analysis that accompanies its latest polling, suggests that incumbent Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst could actually benefit from the four-way primary he's in.

First, the numbers:

In the second state race on the GOP primary ballot — for lieutenant governor — the UT/TT Poll found incumbent David Dewhurst in front, with 26 percent, but his rivals for the position combined for an anti-incumbent vote of 28 percent. State Sen. Dan Patrick had 13 percent, Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson had 10 percent and Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples had 5 percent.

Then the take:

“Dewhurst has had a good month or so, and the others have not been able to get a lot of traction,” Shaw said. “A four-way race is a complicated thing. A candidate has to say, ‘Do I want to go after Dewhurst, which benefits the other two and hurts me because I went negative?’ Nobody really wants to do the dirty work of going after him, because they’ll get the damage of going negative.”

Kind of makes sense to me.

That said, I'd venture that Patrick would be most likely to go negative first, then Patterson. And, if he plays staying above the fray right, Staples benefits.

Even though he's in last in polling right now, we're still far enough away from the primary that I think he can hold off on firing. Plus, isn't Patrick by nature Mr. Negative anyway?

Otherwise, Shaw is right. Two months ago, we were all talking about Dudley trying to pull rank to benefit a relative arrested by the Allen PD. But yet, he's still polling as well as all three opponents combined.

How much of that is name recognition, I don't know. Staples does have a statewide office, too. But, fewer and fewer Texans farm and ranch all the time. Ditto for Patterson;  unless trying to calm numbnuts over the Alamo, or trying to get guns in Big Bend, we don't hear from him. Patrick has his talk radio, but that doesn't cover the whole state.

Anyway, this race WILL have fireworks eventually. Or even hand grenades. It's just a question of who pulls the pin first.

And, Staples actually is going negative, online, via surrogates. Right now, though, it's just against Patrick.

Don't forget, a 4-way guv race in 2006 benefited Tricky Ricky.

Per the Trib, the name recognition element is also why AG Greg Abbott is still at only about 40 percent in the latest poll for the governor's race vs. Wendy Davis. (This of course assumes Abbott wins his primary.)

Obamacare: Is it about style more than substance? (Updated)

Update, Oct. 28: Call it a "cave-in" or whatever you will, but Obama's granted a six-week extension in sign-ups. 

Meanwhile, HHS is doubling down, and again, on the email blasts in the last day.

But, back to the original thread.

This time, that's again a rhetorical question in my header. It's time to start seriously discussing that idea.

The software for enrollment sucks.

Let me repeat that.

The software for enrollment sucks. Period. End of story.

And, we now know, as of Oct. 24, officially know, it was inadequately tested.

"Fed­eral of­fi­cials did not fully test the on­line health in­sur­ance mar­ket­place un­til two weeks be­fore it opened to the pub­lic on Oct. 1, con­trac­tors told Con­gress on Thurs­day.

While in­di­vid­ual com­po­nents of the sys­tem were test­ed ear­lier, they said, the gov­ern­ment did not con­duct “end-to-end test­ing” of the whole sys­tem from start to fin­ish un­til late Sep­tem­ber."

That, in turn, is probably because something was running behind schedule. Assuming that's the case, somebody, or multiple somebodies, are and have been lying, not just passing the buck.

(Note: States that have their own state-level exchanges aren't having problems.)

And, given separate funding for this part of Obamacare, this has nothing to with Tea Partiers, sequestration or anything else.

What was it Mike Dukakis said in 1988? Oh, yeah: "A fish rots from the head down."

We can and should blame Obama for this. Obamacare is the signature act of his presidency. (Well, since NSA's massive spying expansion isn't from a single executive order, it doesn't count.

And now, there's a possibility it will take MONTHS to fix this? and there's already talk of contractor overruns on the software, is a reasonable takeaway message that Obamacare is about style more than substance? 

Per Ars Technica, it notes that, due to the molasses-type speed of many federal projects, we should, on the other hand, marvel that the system is running at all.

Politico's piece, at the first link, might appear to support that:

Facing such intense opposition from congressional Republicans, the administration was in a bunker mentality as it built the enrollment system, one former administration official said. Officials feared that if they called on outsiders to help with the technical details of how to run a commerce website, those companies could be subpoenaed by Hill Republicans, the former aide said. So the task fell to trusted campaign tech experts.

I disagree. The fact that CGI Federal had done similar portals in Massachusetts for Romneycare meant that it should have been prepared for particular problems in the molasses minefield and pushed for better support on fixing them.

Besides, what Politico giveth, it taketh away:

Even as early as 2010, HealthCare.gov was bug-ridden, a harbinger of problems to come. But few read the tea leaves because the site had a small fraction of the traffic it would get in October 2013.

“The wheels were practically coming off the wagon at that point, which should have been a clue that anything more than this — a nicely branded site with a lot of information and not much interactivity — was going to be impossible,” the former official said.

Beyond that is the fact that, at least for public consumption, with Dear Leader's ongoing "no comment," I at least am getting the sensation there was no sense of urgency about this.

It just doesn't make sense that you wouldn't anticipate the usual federal molasses issues, estimate additional cost and time-crunch estimates, square that estimate, then add that into budgeting.

And, also, per Politico, if we had a debt ceiling drop dead day, we might have an early partial equivalent for Obamacare:

For now, the failure has mostly been a PR nightmare for the administration. But it has the potential to cascade into a crisis for real people if challenges continue too long.

Some industry officials point to Nov. 1 as a potential test for the system. That’s the day when the federal exchange is due to transfer thousands of Medicaid applications to state agencies.

“If the marketplace isn’t working well by the first part of November, I think people are going to start raising major concerns,” said Bobby Peterson, executive director of the Madison-based ABC for Health.

Stand by for news! But, to riff on Paul Harvey, maybe you should NOT stand by for Obamacare.

And, if Politico is right, between now and Nov. 1, the administration's response to actually fixing the software glitches will give us more light as to which side of my rhetorical question is right.

So, too, will the finding that more people think the glitches indicate problems with Obamacare itself than think they're just glitches.

And, Sully has now weighed in.

===

Updates, Oct. 24: Obama's starting to lose a few Congressional members of his own party, some of whom are talking about delaying the individual mandate. We're now up to 10 Democratic Senators wanting that delay. And now, Texas' Pete Gallego and four other House Dems are wanting more yet, including a contract clawback from CGI Federal, if warranted.

CGI Federal and other contractors for the website, software, etc., are playing the blame game. They'll continue to do so until Dear Leader knocks heads.

And, the glitches allow the GOP, especially the House side, to take shutdown-free potshots at Obamacare. (Note: I will continue to use that term for the foreseeable future; that's a "house style rule" exception to the AP style that normally guides my blogging.) In turn, that may guide larger GOP "tactics."

And, the Obamiacs are already circling the wagons. Here's Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, hitting some new level of intellectual dishonesty:

Obamacare is working.

True, that sentence comes with a large asterisk. It is working in states that have followed the essential design of the Affordable Care Act, particularly in Kentucky, Connecticut, Washington and California. The law was written with states’ rights and state responsibilities in mind. States that created their own health-care exchanges — and especially those that did this while also expanding Medicaid coverage — are providing insurance to tens of thousands of happy customers, in many cases for the first time.

He omits, at this point, that 34 states, including No. 2 in population Texas, with the highest percentage of uninsured people in the nation, and No. 3 by now Florida, don't have state-level exchanges, at least not as the primary method of offering insurance to the currently uninsured, and so are dep endent on the craptacular-to-date federal exchange. (And that Texas and Florida were particularly obstructionist.)

Dionne does admit the federal exchange is an embarrassment, before engaging in more apologetics:

Some explanations, however, are obvious. The federal government was not supposed to be running this many insurance exchanges.  

Well, really? "Wasn't supposed to?" How long ago was the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare? Ever since John Roberts said states didn't have to expand Medicaid, you knew that the federal exchange, beyond knowing even before that that most states weren't going to do state-level exchanges anyway, was going to take a big hit on workload.

===

Update, Oct. 28: Per Politico (yeah, I know) what if young healthy people decide that, even with any subsidy they get, it's still a lot less money to pay the tax hit for being uninsured rather than buying insurance? What if Congressional Dems get cold feet about making that tax hit actually stick? Guess Obama's projected savings are up in smoke then, aren't they? And, if we're swapping anecdotes between Dear Leader and We the Peop le, what about the more and more people who say, "No, I can't keep my old insurance because it's being discontinued, or the rates have gone up too much to afford it"? And, how long will Obamiacs try to minimize these cases?

Update, Nov. 4: Underscoring the "style" side is Team Obama's use of Twitter as a PR beatdown mechanism. 

"You never find an organization that is collectively this good at Twitter," said Peter LaMotte, head of digital communications practice at Levick, who advises major corporations on using social media.

The story details just how much this is true. 

#Cardinals teh stupidz at SS: Miller PLUS Freese for Profar?

Yes, you read that right.

Self-proclaimed St. Louis Cardinals expert Ray DeRousse says the Birds should offer BOTH Shelby Miller and David Freese for the Texas Rangers' prospect (or stumbling rookie phenom) Jurickson Profar to get the needed shortstop upgrade from Pete Kozma.

If that is what he thinks is a smart trade, based on the value of Profar's "prospectism," then, why not this, Ray? As I said at his post:

OK, so, if trading a good rookie MLB pitcher plus a so-so infielder for a prospect is soooooooooooo smart? Then the Dodgers should resign Mark Ellis and trade him plus Hyun-jin Ryu for Kolten Wong, right? (Or, adding to what I said there, Carl Crawford instead of Ellis, since, before last year, Freese is a more similar comp to Crawford.) Heh heh. Because that's the exact equivalent of what DeRousse is proposing. And, if I were the Cardinals, I'd take that Dodgers offer in a New York minute.

But, Ray? That ain't never happening. (I'll go back later to watch himself try to explain how this isn't the same deal, even though it is, since Ryu and Miller were almost identical as rookies, and Ellis is an older, 2B-playing rough equivalent of Freese.)

And (Nov. 7) since Miller beat out Ryu for the third finalist spot on the NL Rookie of the Year ballot, this makes my counter-analogy to DeRousse all the more true. Right, Ray?

And, agree or disagree, with me or or DeRousse, I've got a poll up now, and you can make your comment on best shortstop upgrade options.  

Hey, if you think it would take more than just Miller? OK, Miller plus Kozma, since we wouldn't need Kozma then anyway. Or, if the Rangers have to have a non-SS, give them Ryan Jackson, since Memphis had him playing OF. Or Daniel Descalso.

But, DeRousse clearly thinks more than that is needed, per a Twitter exchange and comment exchanges, even though he says he's not exclusively saying Miller plus Freese. However, he is clearly saying Miller plus someone of Freese's level, or else he would have said Miller plus Kozma right away.

It's also stupid for other reasons. Ken Rosenthal notes that the Rangers have got a logjam in the middle infield, with minor-league prospects pushing hard behind both Profar and Elvis Andrus, as well as Ian Kinsler. Even more reason not to overpay.

Anyway, Ray, contra your self-promotion, you're not a genius, either.

Note. This is, to a fair degree, a rewrite and extension of my previous post, my initial thoughts about what the Cards should do during the Hot Stove League. As I was finishing up that post, and looking for a particular player on Baseball-Reference, I came across DeRousse's post. Eventually, with the above comment by me and an exchange of several further comments with him, I decided I wanted to focus on just this issue.

That said, I would certainly consider Miller plus Kozma for Profar. But, even then, I wouldn't automatically make that trade. Whether trying to get Profar to learn how to field other positions caused that much hitting problem or what, I don't know, but ...

He couldn't hit a whole lot better than Kozma did last year. Now, if he sucked it up more to start 2014, and everybody else played the same as in 2013, then, let's talk about something like DeRousse's idea.

But, trading a rookie who actually showed something PLUS a veteran at least a bit above replacement, at an MLB-thin position? Ray, that's fucking nuts. Profar is a "prospect" who's had an initial stumble. And, for longer that Wong's late season call-up with the Cards, to riff on another comment of DeRousse's, when he said my analogy didn't fly.

It didn't fly because Ray, the Cardinals Expert(TM), is so in love with his own idea he can't let go of it.

But, I can.

First, there's another trade possibility. The Cards did a bit of tire-kicking on the Angels' Erick Aybar at midseason. I don't know why it fell through, but I'd certainly look at it again. At the same price that DeRousse proposed for Profar, I'd do this trade much more quickly. Aybar's a solid talent, league-average or better for SS at the bat, and above-average in the field.

Free agency is also a better route than DeRousse's trade idea, by far, especially if the price is right.

The Cards just bought out Jake Westbrook's option, so that's $9.5 million free. Chris Carpenter's presumed retirement frees another $12.5M. So, that's $22M to be spent on a free agent, in part, and "banked" in part.

Stephen Drew is one option. I wouldn't pay more than 3/$36M myself, but we'll see. Another is a shorter-term deal with previous shortstop Rafael Furcal, which, assuming Drew's marquee from being on a world champion leads to him being overpriced would likely be a better option.

Other free agents? Yunel Escobar would also be cheaper than Drew, and Tampa is likely to let him walk. Jhonny Peralta would be more of an offensive upgrade over Kozma. Detroit played him in the outfield when he came back from his PED suspension, but they're probably not that wedded to that as a longer term idea. He'd be more pricey than Escobar or Furcal, but less than Drew, in all likelihood. Furcal, for his age, is still the best base running option.

Update, 11:45, Nov. 4: Escobar is out of the running, as the Rays have picked up his option. That said, the $5M price tells me I'm right on what would be the max price for Furcal, and that there's affordable options out there in free agency that are better than Kozma. That said, the Cards could kick the tires on an Escobar trade.

And, as of Nov. 14, no thanks on Peralta, if he's wanting "much more" than 3/$45M, a massive, massive, overpay. Hell, 3/$45 is an overpay itself, let alone "much more," whatever that means. (What it really would mean is Tulo-range money, and in that case, I'll trade for Tulo if the price is halfway right.) There's also an attitude issue, and I don't care what fellow Tigers players said about his clubhouse presence. There's an attitude issue for him wanting that much money coming off the roiding suspension, and who's only busted 115 on OPS+ twice since 2005? 

As of Nov. 16, Christina Karhl, in her weigh-in, for some reason, ignores Aybar entirely, and also thinks Drew is available for less than $10M/year. I kind of doubt that, but ... if he is, I'd take him over Aybar for sure. Because then, we're near a salary wash, without trading anybody. Sign me up.

Given that, that's my preference, as the free agent market at shortstop is thin after the players mentioned above. And, per my caveat on Wong, I'm not expecting him to come up and move Carpenter to third to start the season. So, if Furcal will take a 1-year deal for $6M, with options taking it to $8M, with a second option year for that price, let's make a deal. (And, given Nick Punto just signed a 1-year, $3M contract, I may have overpriced Furcal. Granted, Furcal is better, but this still moves his likely price to $5M, not $6M, especially if he has some bonus targets.)

DeRousse (shock me) disagrees with all of this, citing age, contract demands, PED history. He also says, in his self-assuredness, that the Cards won't go with "stop-gap players."

Although now he appears to have changed his mind, or updated his tune, all while filtering that through different language:

It might be a wiser option for the team to use its stockpile of talented farmhands to land a less-constraining shortstop ...

I don't know what the difference is between "less constraining" (my emphasis in quote; his comment was in the backdrop of Tulo talk) and "stop-gap," but, there you go. And, there's been very occasional rumors about Furcal and steroids, but I think sensible people treat them even less seriously than the claims that Freese still has a drinking problem. (And, yes, some people make that claim, too.)

The reality on "age"?  Aybar will be 30 next year, Escobar 31, Peralta 32. None of them is "old" if you're looking at, say, a 3-year contract. They're all about the same in terms of bat and glove both. Not smash hits at SS, but more than gap-fillers. That's right, Ray, they're all more than gap-fillers. Contract demands? I said the Cards' willingness to deal should be flexible based on demand.

Well, I ruled out Drew, myself, due to likely contract. Escobar and Peralta probably wouldn't cost that much, and I laid out details of what could be done with Furcal. Aybar, at $8.5M/year, and under contract for three more years, certainly wouldn't cost much.

So, one trade option, and two free-agent options better than yours, Ray. And, a "gap-filler" who was the Cards' starting shortstop in 2012, before injury ended his 2013.

But, I'm not stopping there. I'm calling more bullshit on DeRousse's whole animus about "gap fillers." Didn't you read that the 2013 team only had six players left from 2011? Hasn't Beltran been viewed as a stop-gap player all along?
Beyond that, the idea that the Cards wouldn't have more of a "stop-gap" attitude about some positions other than others? And, why not? Mozeliak doesn't have a Yankee-sized budget. That means, unless your entire roster is near-rookie level, you have to treat some positions as more "secondary" than others. And, shortstop is probably one of them.

Back to DeRousse's own trade idea, though. I think he misreads the Rangers, too. I don't think that, as of this offseason, they would insist on his trade minimum for Profar. Now, per my midseason idea, yes, if Profar's BA is up 15 points, OBP up 20 and slugging up 30, they would. And, per my scenario, I'm OK with such talk then.

But now? No, and Ray, that's just fucking crazy.

And, if the Rangers are as crazy as Ray, I don't want to look at them as a prime trading partner then.

And, I need to start marketing myself as a Cardinals Expert(TM), I guess.

If the sarcasm of that point isn't clear, I'm developing a new level of disliking for DeRousse with every exchange of comments I have with him. Which means, if I do comment at his site in the future, it will be "one and done."

His latest is that he's sure none of these other options will happen.

Well, of course not. He's a Cardinals expert. And we'll see how he reacts to my sarcasm.

Ohh, it's an "insulting tone." Dude, if you'd get off your high horse and stop being condescending, and not just to me, maybe you wouldn't get the sarcasm guns trained on you.

Finally, DeRousse never addresses the issue of why this relates to the need to not pitch Miller more in the postseason for fear of ruining a potential trade, yet, Miller was kept on the postseason roster. Guess this Cardinals Expert(TM) is too naive, or too much a management suck-u, to ever be a skeptic.

And, yet another person, from Yardbarker, who has more sense than DeRousse about trade-making involving Miller.

#Cardinals: #HotStove2014 initial thoughts

I've already blogged about how the St. Louis Cardinals should give Carlos Beltran a tender offer, and blogged about how they're not a good base running team and need to address that, and also discussed how the postseason handling of Shelby Miller reflects badly on both manager Mike Matheny and general manager John Mozeliak.

It's time to look at broader offseason issues, having done a sneak peak in August. Much of them are going to focus on base running, because I see this as relating to other Cardinal batting order needs. And, without addressing these and related issues, while the Cardinals will have ongoing potential to be very good, it will be nowhere in the bag.

After all, they may regress to the mean next year on batting with runners in scoring position. We just saw them do no better on RISP batting than their overall average against the Red Sox, and we just saw how that ended. Without multiple errors in Game 2, and a mix of errors and a historic finish in Game 3, the Cards get swept. Also, per this reflecting on Matheny as manager, the team's Pythagorean W-L should have been 101-61

And, Joe Strauss at the Post-Dispatch is right with me, apparently. As is ESPN's NL Central analysis, at least in part.

The upgrades on both base running and batting start at shortstop, where it's more than time to move beyond Pete Kozma, while also stating for the record that Ryan Jackson is not the answer, either. (The fact that Memphis told him to try out an outfielder's glove by the end of the season indicates that Mo doesn't think he's the answer, either.)

The Cards have a few options at upgrading at shortstop. If they think Kolten Wong is ready for the bigs on a full-time basis at second base (an iffy deal to start 2014 going by his September cup of coffee), then they can move Matt Carpenter to third and look to trade David Freese, looking for a shortstop in return. But, per my parenthetical note, I don't think Wong's ready yet, and I don't think the team thinks he's ready yet, so I'm not going to discuss possible trade acquisitions at this time. Call me back in March 2014. And, if rumors of trade ideas are true, I do NOT want Starlin Castro. He's a defensive liability who greatly regressed on offense this year.

But, other trade ideas without calling up Wong and moving Carpenter? Joe Strauss hints that the reason Miller was AWOL from the World Series was to keep him protected for a trade that was already lining up, for a shortstop. Jurickson Profar, perhaps? I would consider that trade on a straight-up deal. I would NOT, per the blog that linked me to Strauss, add another player, like Freese, to the mix as a 2-for-1 to land Profar. That's an overpay, and proposing that is crack smoking.

Per the guy, Ray DeRousse, who came up with this idea?

OK, so, if trading a good rookie MLB pitcher plus a so-so infielder for a prospect is soooooooooooo smart? Then the Dodgers should resign Mark Ellis and trade him plus Ryu for Kolten Wong, right? Heh heh. Because that's the exact equivalent of what Rousse is proposing. And, if I were the Cardinals, I'd take that Dodgers offer in a New York minute.

But, Ray? That ain't never happening.

Free agency is the other route here. The Cards just bought out Jake Westbrook's option, so that's $9.5 million free. Chris Carpenter's presumed retirement frees another $12.5M. So, that's $22M to be spent on a free agent, in part, and "banked" in part. Carpenter has officially filed for free agency, but that's likely just a formality.

Stephen Drew is one option. I wouldn't pay more than 3/$36M myself, but we'll see. Another is a short-term deal with previous shortstop Rafael Furcal, which, assuming Drew's marquee from being on a world champion leads to him being overpriced would likely be a better option.

That said, as of Nov. 16, Christina Karhl, in her weigh-in, thinks Drew is available for less than $10M/year. I kind of doubt that, but ... if he is, I'd take him over Aybar for sure. Because then, we're near a salary wash versus my ideas about Erick Aybar without trading anybody. Sign me up.

Other free agents? Yunel Escobar would also be cheaper than Drew, and Tampa is likely to let him walk. Jhonny Peralta would be more of an offensive upgrade over Kozma. Detroit played him in the outfield when he came back from his PED suspension, but they're probably not that wedded to that as a longer term idea. He'd be more pricey than Escobar or Furcal, but less than Drew, in all likelihood. Furcal, for his age, is still the best base running option.

Given that, that's my preference, as the free agent market at shortstop is thin after the players mentiod above. And, per my caveat on Wong, I'm not expecting him to come up and move Carpenter to third to start the season. So, if Furcal will take a 1-year deal for $6M, with options taking it to $8M, with a second option year for that price, let's make a deal. (And, given Nick Punto just signed a 1-year, $3M contract on Nov. 13, I may have overpriced Furcal by a fair chunk.)

Let's assume he hits half the targets and costs $7M. That's $15M in money left to spend. If Beltran gets the tender offer and accepts, that's $14M left. We should move that up to $17.2M if the Cards are smart and let Edward Mujica walk.

Next come other people who were not the smartest base runners, and who also showed some regression in 2013.

Freese is in his second arbitration year. Jon Jay is going into his first. So is Daniel Descalso. Given Jay's partial regression this year, as well as that of Freese, the Cards should, in my opinion, be a bit hard-nosed in negotiations with both. Let's put Freese at $5.1M, Jay at $2.5M and Descalso at $1.5M and that's $5M of the free money gone and $12.2M left. If the team can't come to a deal with Furcal, that leaves $5M or so above that $7M I suggested there for a free agent shortstop of not too much pay, with $7M of the free money left, or $8M extra to spend for a $15M/yr shortstop and $4M still to bank for the future.

And (Nov. 7) MLB Trade Rumors says I was about on the money on my estimates. It puts Freese a bit lower, at $4.4M, moves Jay higher at $3.4M, and cuts Descalso just a bit at $1.2M. Total, though, of $9M is right in my ballpark of $9.1M. (Sidebar: It estimates John Axford at $5.7; that means he's a likely non-tenure, especially if Cards have some more Motte news by Dec. 2, the deadline to offer contracts.)

Among other things, speed kills, and so does lack of it, in baseball.

Not that I totally disagree, or totally agree, with Earl Weaver's ideas about small ball in general, but the Cards have only about 30 stolen bases on the year, last in the league, and that may be part of what hurt them  against the Pirates. They're horrible on double plays. Of course, not all of those are due to lack of speed. There's been a couple of DPs on bad baserunning ideas on fly balls, just as there's been a lot of poor baserunning outs on the bases after outfield hits. Hello again, Matheny; that's your baby. Baseball-Reference doesn't have a rank on GIDPs, but the total of 104 ain't great.

And, as ESPN notes, the (lack of) speed kills elsewhere:

That team speed spread shows up in the defensive numbers as well. The Pirates are third in the majors with 48 Defensive Runs Saved (entering Wednesday's action) while the Cardinals rank 26th at minus-33. (Matt) Holliday, who botched a fly ball into a home run on Tuesday, has been the biggest liability at -11 runs, but center fielder Jon Jay also grades poorly at -10. 

And, with Beltran both getting older, and a free-agent to be, the Birds could be facing a major OF overhaul sooner rather than later. It may be time to trade Holliday in the offseason, presumably to an AL team. And some Birds fans will probably need to stop the love affair with Jay and Freese.

Sooner or later, then, and hopefully sooner, they need to look at Oscar Taveras as a replacement for Jay, rather than a departing Beltran. (Craig is your replacement for Beltran, if Carlos leaves this year, opening 1B for Matt Adams, of course.) Already last year, I wasn't overjoyed with Jay, and he regressed this year, even with a late-season surge.

Problem is, Matheny still may have some fixation on Jay, though the World Series seems to have diminished that.

Anyway, back to what to do with that money from Chris Carpenter's contract.

Second year upgrades to Miller and Trevor Rosenthal plus full rookie year deals for Michael Wacha and Carlos Martinez are payable out of that, too, with money still left over.

So, the Cards can make the tender offer to Beltran and spend a fair bit to upgrade at shortstop and still have the same payroll as this year. Or, they can tender Beltran, re-sign Furcal, and save more than $10M, which they can then "bank" for longer-term contracts in 2015 and beyond for some of the young gun pitchers.

The Cards have one other arbitration-eligible player on whom they face a decision — John Axford. He partially rehabilitated himself after the trade from Milwaukee, but, if he's expecting the $5M he got this year, he's got to rethink. Somewhat related, what does the team do with 2012 saves leader Jason Motte? Rosenthal wants to start, but, even if Motte's 100 percent back from Tommy John, and quickly, I don't see that happening, because Rosenthal hasn't shown to me the pitch array needed to be a starter. Motte's a free agent after 2014, so the Cards may try to showcase him for a midseason trade.

Another thing on Matheny, that I noted in passing in the Where's Waldo blogging about Miller? He has to do better next year on managing Adam Wainwright's regular-season innings. His total this year of 241 2/3 brought him to an even 300 by the end of the World Series. This next year, Waino needs to be kept at 225.

That leads to the rest of the rotation for next year. Wainwright, Wacha and Miller seemingly nail down the top three spots, but where after that? Is Martinez the No. 4? Lance Lynn, whom I still distrust, at No. 5? Or Joe Kelly? And, what about oft-injured Jaime Garcia? He had a breakout year in 2010, but has been little better than average since. He is a lefty, which is a plus. And, under contract for two more years. I'd prefer to keep him, if he looks fully recovered from the shoulder surgery, and look to deal Lynn.

Lynn, for the second straight year, ran out of gas later in the season. I'd like to see him off to a strong start, then an in-season trade, perhaps. Besides, Kelly was just good enough, and enough younger, to be the No. 5 for less money. And, if not him, there's John Gast, if his post-surgical recover is at all OK. That's all we're asking any of these folks to be, is the No. 5, or maybe No. 4 if Martinez needs to be started more slowly. Plus, the depth here will allow the Cards to "spot" the starts of Wacha and Kelly, just like with Miller last year, to stretch their arms out slowly.

Or, there's Rosenthal, who's again made clear that he wants to start. He's got a pitching mix, but, are all of them starter-level? At the same time, with the hottest heat, and a dead-speed fastball first guy, he makes for a good closer, especially with Motte an open issue.

And, as of Nov. 4, Mo has said that Rosenthal comes to spring training as the closer, Martinez has a shot at the rotation, and Motte has a shot at doing what he can. But trading Miller, say as part of a deal for Erick Aybar, would have the side benefit of opening a slot for Miller.

Finally, DeRousse never addresses the issue of why this relates to the need to not pitch Miller more in the postseason for fear of ruining a potential trade, yet, Miller was kept on the postseason roster. Guess this Cardinals Expert(TM) is too naive, or too much a management suck-u, to ever be a skeptic.

This all said, I'm developing a new level of disliking for DeRousse with every exchange of comments I have with him.