Comments on: Daily Farm Report 6/6/09

By: Redbird

Redbird — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 03:45:37 +0000

Sorry but at this point I don’t think you could get much for either Duncan or Ankeil. The best thing you could possibly do to this team is DFA Duncan and open an everyday spot for someone else in LF. As it said in todays blog in the STLToday. Larussa wants a bat. Well lets package trade Duncan & Ankeil or Ludwick his buddies for a player. Then see what he does after thier gone.

By: Shaneo69

Shaneo69 — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 02:46:59 +0000

^
I’d argue a 34 year old Lankford was done when we traded him for Woody. He was putting up Duncan-like numbers for the 2nd or 3rd year in a row and had been moved from CF to LF to make room for Edmonds. But to be honest, I don’t care what we get for Duncan, bucket of balls would be fine. At least we wouldn’t be eating much salary.

I’m only willing to dump Ankiel because he’s gonna walk at the end of the year. And yeah, Wallace would probably be better off at Springfield right now, but I still don’t think there’s any way he could make our lineup worse than Thurston.

I don’t think our problem with making trades has anything to do with how other teams value our players. I think the problem is Luhnow/Dewitt don’t want to trade the young guys, and LaRussa doesn’t want to trade his boys.

By: Mike G.

Mike G. — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:16:50 +0000

Ray Lankford was less impressive than Chris Duncan? Are you actually familiar with Ray Lankford’s record? Although in retrospect he was clearly on the downside of his career when that deal was made, he wasn’t that old and the Padres were hardly irrational when they made the trade. They were getting a very accomplished all-around player who, unlike Duncan, could actually run and catch the ball in the outfield. In any case, a 10-year-old deal is hardly evidence that Duncan could net the Cardinals real value today, and value is the point of a trade unless all you want to do is dump the player, as the Cardinals did with Kennedy. Just because the Rays subsequently got a player for him doesn’t mean that the player had any real value; you certainly don’t make any such case.
As for your suggestion that that Jay and Craig are likely to improve the Cardinals’ present putrid offense, there is little in their records at Memphis to indicate that this is so, although I grant their batting averages have climbed a bit in recent weeks after horrible starts (Craig isn’t even considered a third baseman anymore. As for Wallace, despite his fast start in Triple A, have you actually looked at his overall record? He’s currently hitting about .238, with two home runs and eight RBI’s, and that includes his .500 start. In other words, he’s barely equalling what Ankiel is doing in the majors and you’re more than willing to dump Ankiel. Wallace may be a genuine prospect, at least as a hitter–his fielding is another story–but his development has been rushed, and for now he probably belongs back in Double A and certainly not in the majors. I agree about Descalso, but here you’re talking about next season, not this one.

By: shaneo69

shaneo69 — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:40:33 +0000

^
Ray Lankford was less impressive than Chris Duncan, and we got Woody Williams for him. Tampa was able to get a player for Adam Kennedy, who was also less impressive than Duncan when he was with the Rays. If you want to trade a guy, you can. If Duncan’s out of the way, you have Ludwick, Rasmus, and Ankiel with Mather and Stavinoha as your backups. Ankiel should probably be traded at the deadline before he walks, and Jay could be a potential CF starter, with Colby moving to a corner. Move Descalso up to Memphis in the 2nd half, and he could be a potential starter at 2B next year, with Schumaker moving back to OF and allowing Thurston to play more 2B where he belongs.

And Craig and/or Wallace could put up better numbers right now than the Joe Tarden combo at 3B.

By: Mike G.

Mike G. — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 05:17:40 +0000

Shaneo69:
You may prefer to trade Duncan–perhaps I would also–but have you seen any indications that there is a market for Duncan? You don’t want Duncan, but what makes you think that anyone else does, and why should they if he is so unimpressive to you? It’s easy to consummate make-believe trades in which you are both buyer and seller, but in the real world you have to find someone who is willing to take what you are offering. What I’m beginning to suspect is that there aren’t that many players in the Cardinal system, majors or minors, that are all that desirable to other teams, and that puts a real crimp in our trading plans. Which of the minor leaguers that you seem so fond of in the abstract should actually be brought up to replace the players you want to get rid of? What unrecognized gems still in the minors do you imagine are ready to replace Barden and Thurston?

By: Shaneo69

Shaneo69 — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:59:05 +0000

Mike G.: “I’m becoming increasingly convinced that the inability to trade surplus minor league talent to help the big-league club is indeed because there is precious little minor-league talent that anyone wants…”

BS. I’d rather see them trade some of the major league guys like Duncan and demote the minor league FA’s that LaRussa loves so much (Barden, Thurston) and give our minor league talent a chance here, instead of trading them away. Why can’t we trade Duncan? Because LaRussa won’t allow it, probably because Dave Duncan would throw a hissy fit.

The other problem we’ve supposedly had is drafting high-end starters. Well, those guys usually throw hard, which runs opposite to Duncan’s preferred pitching strategy. He wants the guys who throw 91-92, keep the ball down, and pitch around the good hitters in the opposing lineup. Duncan, like LaRussa, also prefers the 30 year old guys who have failed in other organizations that are down to their last chance and will try anything Duncan suggests. How in the hell are we supposed to draft a guy that Duncan will work with? And why should we bother drafting a left-handed starter? Duncan has ruined every lefty starter he’s had with the Cardinals.

By: Redbird

Redbird — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 21:32:59 +0000

azruavatar,

I would have to agree with you. But I disagree about the assessment that I believe all prsopects are big league material. I can go down the list of guys on the Memphis roster and identify a few for starters.

Career Minor Leagers:
Javier Brito
Jarrett Hoffpauir
Casey Rowlett
Casey Rowlett
Mike Folli
Matthew Scherer (maybe a cup of tea in the bigs)
etc.

Just because a guy hits .300 at AA doesn’t mean he’ll even make it in the pros. Jarret H hit .345 at AA and I do not believe he is a major leagueer. If you go back through the stats at AA Springfield since 2005 I can find several guys that hit .300 that are no where to be found in the organization anymore.

By: Mike G.

Mike G. — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:44:22 +0000

If it’s really no more than a “crap shoot,” then we might as well let a computer do the drafting. Why pay Luhnow and his staff if intelligence and experience have nothing to with it? Let’s give DeWitt another excuse to save money! Of course, that doesn’t explain why some teams, like the Braves, consistently draft better than the Cardinals despite years of drafting last or near last. But let’s not critique Luhnow and his cohorts and hold them accountable for the decisions they are being paid to make; let’s pretend the draft is only “a crapshoot” instead.

By: southeast redbird

southeast redbird — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:25:41 +0000

I ago with Erik he is 200% correct, the draft is a crap shoot and the draft is about getting the best players you can for the least amount of dollars.
Perhaps out of one draft class for each team, you might get a ML player or two if lucky. Most players drafted are, not so much for development, but so that they can provide teams for those they consider true prospects.
Perfectgame has does some good statistics and articles on this.
Perhaps out of each draft class, there are some players where it is very obvious, but most of the time scouting is so subjective, most times it doesn’t work out. I know many early round choices that have not panned out, and I know of later picks that have.

By: azruavatar

azruavatar — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 18:06:11 +0000

I never said that because he doesn’t hit for power he sucks. But he’s not a prospect. Of all the commenters, you seem to really struggle with the reality that not every farmhand is destined for big league greatness.

Shorey is a corner outfielder who isn’t good defensively. He strikes out a lot and doesn’t walk much. He just isn’t a good enough offensive talent to overcome his deficiencies in other areas.