The Cardinals Need to Resign Jason Heyward

If there is one imperative this offseason for the St. Louis Cardinals, it is that the team resign right fielder Jason Heyward.  Heyward was acquired this past offseason in a trade in which the Cardinals sent pitcher Shelby Miller to the Atlanta Braves. Heyward had a terrific season for the Cardinals this year, hitting .293 with 13 homeruns and stealing 23 bases. These are decent offensive numbers.  But when combined with Heyward’s defense, which won him a Gold Glove this year, and the fact he is still only 26 years old, Heyward is a prime free agent this year. 

Heyward’s past numbers alone may not seem like they merit a large contract, but it must be taken into consideration that Heyward is just now reaching his prime years.  Most players do not reach free agency at this young of an age.   Most players Heyward’s age are just making it to the major leagues, let alone already having an established, all-star career.  Heyward is only going to get better as he continues to mature. 

Heyward was vital to this team.  After being acquired to fill the void left by the death of right fielder Oscar Tavares, Heyward was a staple on the team.  He was a solid, middle of the order bat and provided consistency in the lineup when injuries plagued the team all throughout the year.  Heyward brought much needed speed to the basepaths, where the Cardinals have been very lacking in recent years, stealing 23 bases.  Heyward also played outstanding, Gold Glove defense in right field.  Another area where the Cardinals had bad lacking in recent years was outfield arm strength.  Heyward has one of the best throwing arms of all major league outfielders.  All this being said, and remember, he should only get better. 

However, the most important reason the Cardinals need to resign Heyward is they need a new franchise player.   When Albert Pujols was here, he was the franchise player.  He was the guy the team was built around.  After Pujols left, Matt Holliday became the franchise player.   Holliday is older now and not quite the player he was when he came here.  The Cardinals need someone to take that mantle and they don’t have anyone else on the team who fits that bill.  Matt Carpenter is a very good player but isn’t a guy you build the team around.  Randall Grichuk and Stephen Piscotty could both develop into that type of player but they are not there yet.  Yadier Molina is the best catcher in baseball and still the most irreplaceable player on the team but he is not offensively adept enough to label a “franchise player”.  Jason Heyward fits that bill.  Franchise players don’t come around very often. They Cardinals need Heyward to be on this team. 

Now what do the Cardinals do if they are unable to resign Heyward?  I say they use the money they would have spent of Heyward and use it to sign a couple of players.  First, they should sign Ben Zobrist.  Zobrist is what one would call a “super utility” player.  He can play anywhere.  Infield, outfield, you name it, he can do it.  The Kansas City Royals acquired Zobrist at the trade deadline and that worked out pretty well for them as they went on to win the World Series.  What Zobrist would bring is depth.  He can spell guys like Jhonny Peralta and Carpenter, who both suffered from fatigue this year.   He could also play some right field if needed, since Heyward would not be here anymore.  But most importantly, he could play his main position, second base.  Kolten Wong has struggled to show he can be a consistent, everyday second baseman.  Perhaps learning some under Zobrist would do him some good.  As well as Zobrist, the Cardinals should sign first baseman Chris Davis.  The biggest issue for the Cardinals this past year was a lack of power.  Chris Davis would easily help solve that.  Davis has hit 159 homeruns over the past four years and totaled 47 this past season.  To put that in perspective, the Cardinals top two hitters combined for 45 homeruns last year.   The Cardinals need power and Chris Davis can provide that.  That being said, signing Heyward should remain the first priority, but these two players provide a solid back up plan.  

Should the National League adopt the DH?

On April 25, the St. Louis Cardinals ace pitcher and perennial Cy Young contender Adam Wainwright suffered a torn left achilles.  Wainwright was running out of the batter’s box after hitting a pop up.  A couple steps in and he stopped, obviously injured. Wainwright had to be helped walk off the field by his manager and the team trainer.  He had surgery on the 30^th to repair the achilles and will miss the rest of the 2015 season.

The injury to Wainwright has kindled the evergoing debate of whether the National League should adopt the designated hitter rule, where a certain player will bat in place of the pitcher.  Currently only the American League uses the DH.  This is one of the hottest debates in baseball, with people entrenched on either side.  Max Scherzer, a pitcher for the Washington Nationals, injured his thumb batting on April 23, and missed his next start as a result.  Scherzer says that he is “not opposed” to the National League adopting the DH.  According the Scherzer, people “don't want to see me hit. No one wants to see a pitcher hit. No one pays money for that.”  Scherzer spent the previous 5 seasons playing for the American League Detroit Tigers who use a DH, so he has experience in both settings. 

On the other hand, there are players such as the San Francisco Giants’ Madison Bumgarner.  Bumgarner offered this view of Wainwright’s injury and the DH debate: “"What if he got hurt pitching? Should we say we can't pitch anymore?...I hate what happened to him. He works his butt off out there. But I don't think it was because he was hitting. What if he gets hurt getting out of his truck? You tell him not to drive anymore?” Bumgarner continued his thoughts with, “"It's a beautiful game to me the way it is…That's obviously the way baseball started and I'm a traditional guy. I'm not much for change. I know people argue both sides, but for me, from what I see, it's a more challenging game. It's more challenging for managers. There's so much more that goes into it in the National League than, 'let 'em pitch until they can't get outs anymore.” Last year Bumgarner hit .258 with 4 homeruns and 15 RBIs, and has hit 6 total homeruns in his career.

In my opinion, I would have to side with Bumgarner in this debate.  This is the way baseball has always been played.  Since the National League was founded in 1876, the pitcher has always batted for himself.  It was not until 1973, almost 100 years later, that the American League officially adopted the DH rule.  Plus Bumgarner presents a valid point that Wainwright could have injured himself some other way, such as pitching, working out or just by accident.  One freak injury should not merit a drastic rule change. For the record, Wainwright agrees with this sentiment, saying, “"It was a fluke thing and baseball needs to stay exactly where it is”.

However, I am a realist.  And I do think unfortunately that the National League will move to adopt the DH.  Baseball is the only sport which has different rules for different leagues.  And there is no way the AL will give up the DH. They make way too much money from players simply being a DH.  Second, while I don’t think one freak injury should spur a rule change, there is precedent for this.  Giants catcher Buster Posey was injured in 2011 after a collision at home plate, which spurred the new rule about catcher’s blocking home plate.  Finally, as I mentioned in a previous blog, run scoring in baseball has been down the past few years.  Having another solid hitter in place of a pitcher would easily help to produce more runs.

We will see what comes of this injury.  I really would not like to see the DH come to the National League, but I do think it is inevitable now.  What do you think? Should the National League adopt the designated hitter rule?  Do you think they will? Let me know! 

2015 St. Louis Cardinals Predictions

I'm a couple weeks late getting this one out, but I enjoyed thinking about the topics so I wanted to make sure I still published this. I always have fun discussing predictions.  So I decided to write about 5 of my predictions for the Cardinals this year.

1. Kolten Wong will steal 30+ bases.

I think this one will be pretty easy.   Wong stole 20 bases last year, showing he has the ability.  I think with another year under his belt, he will hit for a higher average and become a smarter base runner.  30 bases should be a piece of cake for Wong this year.

2. Trevor Rosenthal will have a sub 2.00 ERA.

Last year Rosenthal had an ERA of 3.20, so that would be over a 1 point drop.  But I think Rosenthal could do it.  He has another year of experience under his belt, which always helps.  He should be smarter and more skilled.  But I think a big factor in this will be that Rosenthal is pitching exclusively from the stretch this year.  Last year when the bases were empty, when he was in the windup, batters hit .248 against him.  When there were men on base, from the stretch, batters hit .198 against him. That is a 50 point drop in average.  All this combined, I could definitely see Rosenthal posting a sub 2.00 ERA.

3. Matt Adams will lead the team in home runs.

Last year Adams was third on the team with 15 homeruns, behind Matt Holliday (20) and Jhonny Peralta (21).  Personally I don’t see Peralta hitting more than that.  I feel he is a 15-20 home run guy.  Holliday at this point will probably max out at 25.  The addition of Jason Heyward is interesting as he has hit as many as 27 homeruns in his young career, so he definitely has the potential to hit many.  But I feel Matt Adams will lead the team this year, with 25-30. Last year he was trying to figure out how to adjust to the shift, hitting for a strong average, but sacrificing power.  Late in the year he started not focusing as much on beating the shift and simply hit.  If that mindset carries over to this year, I think Adams will hit for more consistent power.

4. Yadier Molina will not win the platinum glove this year.

Each year the platinum glove goes to the best defensive player in each league.  The award has been given out for the past three years.  Molina has won the award twice.  The other time the award was given to Atlanta Braves shortstop Andrelton Simmons.  Personally, I believe Simmons will win the award again this year.  No discredit to Molina’s talent. I think he’s the best defensive catcher in the game.  Just credit to Simmons.  That man is incredibly gifted. If you have never seen him play, I encourage you to check out some of his highlights here.  

5. Lance Lynn will throw a no-hitter.

There is no way to really prove this one, as no hitters are well…unpredictable.  They can be thrown by the most random pitchers if they are in the right groove.  The last two no hitters thrown by Cardinals have been by rookies who never really amounted to much as starters, Jose Jimenez in 1999 and Bud Smith in 2001.  More of my point with this prediction is that Lynn has grown so much as a pitcher.  He is more consistent and more in control of his emotions.  He seems to have gotten over the “Lynning” he struggled with so much.  Lynn is one of the more underrated pitchers in my opinion.  Lynn has averaged 16 wins the past 3 years, and more importantly lowered his ERA to 2.74 last year, from the high 3’s the two previous years.  There is no telling when a no hitter will happen, but I really do believe Lynn has much more potential to be able to do it now. 

Baseball Should Eliminate the Intentional Walk

Run scoring has been down recently in baseball.  There are many reasons for this.  There has been a resurgence of high quality pitching.  Pitching specialization has become very common (righties vs. righties, lefties vs. lefties).  The past few years the number of defensive shifts has increased exponentially, taking away the areas towards which batters most commonly hit.  As a result, hitting is down all across baseball.  Now I’m the type of person who loves watching pitching duels (call me crazy).  But I do also enjoy good hitting.  There have been a lot of ideas to aid hitters.  So I thought I would introduce an idea of my own.  Baseball should eliminate the intentional walk.  

Now hear me out on this.  I’m not saying pitchers couldn’t pitch around batters they don’t want to face.  There is no realistic way of doing that.  But the catcher putting his hand out and sidestepping out from behind the plate would not be allowed.  If pitchers wanted to, they could still just not throw strikes to the batter and put him on base.  However, they would have to execute those pitches, with the catcher behind the plate.  These pitches would be much closer to the zone and therefore, there would be much less margin for error.  And as intentional walks are typically given to the better hitters in the lineup, these hitters would be more adept at hitting any mistakes from the pitchers.  Another factor to consider is that intentional walks are given when there is at least one runner in scoring position.  So if pitchers are forced to throw closer to the zone, where mistakes will be more common, to batters who are better at hitting mistake pitches, logic would dictate there should be at least a small increase in runs scored.  And also intentional walks are usually given in crucial moments of the game, often when the game is very close.  So this could potentially lead to big impacts in games.

One counterpoint that comes to mind to this argument is that if pitchers are doing well, shouldn’t they be able effectively pitch around batters, even without an intentional walk?  Maybe.  “Unintentional intentional walks” generally get the job done.  However, I have two responses to that.  First, pitchers are still human and they will make mistakes, especially with a much smaller margin for error.  Second, if pitchers are able to just pitch around batters, then doesn’t that leave the intentional walk pointless?  Pitchers can just throw balls without having to go through the whole routine.   Either way, I think it would be better if the intentional walk were simply eliminated.  I honestly do not think it serves a purpose.  

Do you think I have a point?  Do you have any other arguments against my idea? Let me know what you think!

A Majors Issue

One of the biggest stories currently in baseball is a man named Kris Bryant.  Bryant is a 3^rd base prospect for the Chicago Cubs.  He is an integral part of Chicago’s future.  Bryant was the 2^nd overall pick in 2013 and is currently tearing up spring training.  As of March 27, he leads all of spring training with nine 9 homeruns.  Logic would dictate that a player with the most homeruns in spring would make the opening day roster.   Historically, that has been the case.  However, that might not be the case for Bryant.

The issue obviously is not with Bryant’s batting capabilities.  He has repeatedly shown throughout the minors and this spring that he can flat out hit.  Last year between AA and AAA, Bryant hit .325 with 43 homeruns and 110 RBIs.  The reason Kris Bryant may start this year in the minors has to do with business.  An average baseball season takes 183 days and if a player is on the roster for at least 172 of those days, it is a full year.  When a player has reached 6 full years, they are eligible for free agency. If Chicago were to bring Bryant up to start the year in the majors, that would start his major league service time immediately and he could be eligible to be a free agent after the 2020 season.  However, if they were to keep him in the minors for 12 days, he would not reach 172 days on the major league roster this year and the Cubs would have a 7^th year of control of Bryant.

So the major debate is whether the Cubs should keep Bryant on the opening day roster and let him play or send him to the minors for 12 days and have him for an extra year.  Bryant’s agent Scott Boras believes Bryant has more than shown that he is ready to play and Boras is not happy with the idea of Bryant being sent to the minors.  I think Boras has a point.  Bryant is certainly ready to contribute to a major league team and the Cubs would definitely benefit this year from him being on the team.   And Boras is doing the right thing.  His job is to represent his player and the player’s best interests.  It would certainly be in Bryant’s best interests to start the year in the majors.  He is a baseball player.  He wants to play.  He is ready to play.  Also, if he desired to sign a big contract one day, he could possibly do that one year sooner.

However, I would have to side with the Cubs management on this issue.  When it comes down to it, whether you like it or not, baseball is a business and business decisions must be made.  As mentioned, Bryant’s agent is Scott Boras.  Generally, Boras’ clients do not sign extensions before they reach free agency.  And when they reach free agency, they sign huge contracts.  So, for Chicago to delay Bryant’s free agency by a year makes great sense for them.  Bryant is going to be a major piece if they Cubs are going to try to turn their franchise around.  It makes sense to keep him around as long as possible.   And there really isn’t any harm in sending him down.  Essentially, Bryant would miss 9 games at the  beginning of the year.  It is not as if those 9 games would make or break the Cubs season.  They have too many young hitters this year who have yet to prove themselves.  Yes, the Cubs have great potential, but at this point it is only potential.  There is no guarantee all these players have good years.  They are young and need to learn.  It is generally thought, outside Chicago, that the Cubs are a year or two away from being competitive.  So if the Cubs most likely will not be in a playoff race this year, would it not be better to sacrifice 9 games this year, for a whole year in the future when they might actually need him for a playoff race? I think so.

Plus, teams make business decisions all the time.  Players with minor league options get sent down over players who are out of options.  Some players start simply because a team has made a financial commitment to them.  Some players are not resigned because they have reached the point where they will make too much money for it to be worth it to the team.  Baseball is a business and sometimes business decisions have to be made. 

All that being said, I do not like this service time rule.  It is inhibiting a player who is clearly ready for the major leagues.  If a player has proven they are good enough to contribute at the major league level and there is a spot for them on the roster, then that player should be allowed to play.  Plain and simple.   A player should not be penalized playing time because a team wants to keep them another year.  However in the baseball world we live in, this rule is in place and decisions must be made because of it.  And I believe if the Cubs keep Bryant in the minors for 12 days that is the right decision to make. It is unfortunate but that’s the way it is right now.  So despite the spectacular spring Kris Bryant is having, he will most likely not make the opening day roster.  But there is every indication he will be ready for the majors when he makes it there. 

Bye Bye Bradford

The Sam Bradford era in St. Louis is officially over.  On Tuesday the Rams traded Bradford and a 5^th round draft, as well as a possible conditional pick next year to the Philadelphia Eagles for quarterback Nick Foles, a 4^th round draft pick and a 2^nd round pick next year.  Bradford was the 1^st overall draft pick by the Rams in 2010 and won the Offensive Rookie of the Year that season.  Foles was drafted in the 3^rd round in 2012 by the Eagles.  He made the Probowl during the 2013-2014 season when he threw for 2,891 yards, 27 touchdowns and 2 interceptions. 

I was a huge Sam Bradford supporter from the beginning.  The man won rookie of the year with one of the worst receiving corps I have ever seen.  He was smart.  He knew what his team was capable of and what he needed to do to help them be successful.  However thus far, Bradford’s career has been marred by bad luck.  He was slow to repeat his rookie success.  I believe that is partially due to the fact he had three different offensive coordinators during his first three seasons, having to learn three different offenses.  That is a lot to expect of a young player.  Most players have enough trouble adjusting to playing in the NFL in the first place.  Also, Bradford’s career has been marred with injury, including a high ankle sprain in 2011 and two left ACL tears in 2013 and 2014. 

And those injuries are the key to this trade.  Despite his potential and flashes of success, when it comes down to it, Bradford has not been able to stay healthy.  It doesn’t matter how much potential a player has if they are not on the field.  Bradford could very well be healthy now and go on to future success.  It would not surprise me in the least.  But what it comes down to is that Bradford is not a smart investment anymore.  The Indianapolis Colts faced a decision like this in 2012 when future Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning had spinal fusion surgery and his future was uncertain.  Ultimately the Colts released Manning because despite his success, it was not a wise investment to keep him and for him to possibly not even play.   Manning ended up signing with the Denver Broncos and making it to the Superbowl in 2014.  The decision also worked out well for the Colts, who ended up drafting Andrew Luck who has made the Probowl each year and has the Colts poised as one of the top teams in the NFL currently.  Bradford is not on the same level as Manning obviously, but the concept is the same. 

Another part of this trade is the draft picks.  This year the Rams move up a pick from the 5^th round to the 4^th round and gain a 2^nd round pick next year.  This may be overlooked, but is of some importance.  This year the Rams only have 6 picks for the seven rounds, and considering the draft is how St. Louis typically builds its team, moving up a round could be key.  Plus a second round pick next year means adding a potential starter.  The Eagles do receive a conditional pick next year based on how much Bradford plays.  If he misses the entire year, the Eagles will get a 4^th round pick and if he plays less than 50% of the snaps, they get a 5^th round pick.  Either way the Rams win on the draft pick side of the deal.  Plus the Rams also save $11.5 million, which can now be used to add other talent to the team.

Overall I am a fan of this trade.  As stated before, I am a huge Sam Bradford supporter, and though this trade does hurt a little, I wish him the best of luck in Philadelphia. However, the Rams need a quarterback who can be on the field, and coming off two ACL surgeries, Bradford is not a good option.  Nick Foles has a great amount of potential, already having made one Probowl in his young career.  He is still learning, but if he can stay on the field, that’s already more than what Bradford has been able to do.  In the end the Rams gave up an injury-plagued quarterback with potential for a Probowl caliber quarterback.  I would say that is a pretty good deal for St. Louis.