Offseason Review Review
« Deja Vu | Main | Why bother with those boring Congressional Steroid Hearings.... »Ben Jacobs, of the Hardball Times, has finished his three part series ranking all thirty major league teams for their ofseason moves. He starts off by skewering the Tigers, Nationals, and Diamondbacks for foolish spending, and progesses through the vast middle class of teams who didn’t really do much of anything this offseason. As one of the few teams that made headline moves, the Cardinals check in at number four, a rating that seems a little high given what he has to say about their moves this offseason.
First of all, he’s one of the few commentators outside of the traditional media that sees Mike Matheny’s departure as anything but a positive. Of Molina’s big promotion, he says:
Matheny can't
hit, but he's regarded as an excellent defensive catcher. Molina has only
received 135 at-bats in the majors, and he hasn't shown much offense in the
minors. It's hard to imagine somebody being a worse hitter than Matheny, but if
Molina isn't a better hitter and is a worse defender, this loss could hurt St.
Louis the most.
His opinion of the Mark Mulder trade is rather wishy-washy, as he sidesteps judging the trade’s long term value and merely comments that:
I think
Mulder will be good enough to help the Cardinals this year, which means they'll
be willing to deal with giving up three nice young players even if they do
develop. With Mulder coming and Woody Williams going, St. Louis should have a
better rotation.
He admits to being a Red Sox fan, but despite this he is
rather even-handed when writing of Renteria siging with his team. He points out that Edgar didn’t have
too much of an offensive contribution to the Cardinals last season, and makes a
vain swipe at justifying the contract with Boston says that they “are not the A's, who have to find bargains in order to be
able to compete.” Of Eckstein
however, he magnanimously concedes that he “won't be nearly as valuable as
Renteria, but he may provide more value considering his cost.” And he is surprisingly positive about
the acquision of Grudzielanek believing he is going to be “cheaper, and likely
to be better” than Womack would have been.
Overall, the sense you get from these
articles is that most teams did very little this offseason to help themselves
for 2005, which allows the Cards’s mixed bag of the winter that was to be rated
so highly.
What's weird, though not necessarily bad, is that Jacobs ranked the Cardinals 4th and the A's 3rd. I know the Cardinals and A's have different needs/wants and I know the Barton/Mulder trade wasn't the only transaction, but I didn't expect both sides getting that much love.
Posted by: Rob at March 16, 2005 07:33 PMIf this Cards offseason was 4th best in the majors, does that mean virtually the entire league is going to be considerably worse this year than last?
Posted by: Bird at March 16, 2005 10:24 PMBird, he's not ranking the teams based on how he thinks they'll perform as in '05. He's essentially ranking their front office for their offseason work.
Posted by: John at March 16, 2005 11:28 PMSo all he considered (I believe) were trades and free agent signings made after the season ended. Thus he doesn't consider Larry Walker, as a move made within the previous season, or Dallas McPherson, a rookie coming up. Essentially, most teams didn't make significigant trades or free agent signings.
Posted by: Iron_Throne at March 17, 2005 12:35 AMI realize that, John. But how the teams did in the offseason would obviously impact how they perform this year (compared to last year) to some degree.
I just can't believe he has the Cards 4th. I didn't think the Cards had a very good offseason. I didn't think it was TERRIBLE, I just think that if we're 4th, then a lot of teams must have gutted their teams without me knowing about it.
But then, I'm not quite as high on Grudz or Mulder as Jacobs seems to be...
Posted by: Bird at March 17, 2005 06:41 AMI'm too lazy to look this up so can anyone tell me if Jacobs has established some kind of ranking system for players? I read, or tried to read, the whole three part series but my eyes started to glaze over about the 48th time I read "good player;" as in "he's a good player" or the creative "he's not a good player." Then, some guys were called "very good players" and others were "decent" players.
Is there a ranking system here or is Jacobs just really limited with his descriptions?
Posted by: Flynn at March 18, 2005 03:59 PMI think he's just really limited in his descriptions of individual players. He's taking a broad angle sort of view.
Posted by: John at March 18, 2005 04:25 PM