Updated 146 Days ago
The first shot of the trade deadline wars was officially fired yesterday when C.C. Sabathia, last year's American League Cy Young winner, was shipped to the Milwaukee Brewers.
With that move, any question about the Central Division being the strongest in the National League was put to rest. And for Cardinal management (and fans) several more complicated questions are now on the front burner. Most notably:
Do the Cardinals have a responsibility to "answer" their competition's move with a big trade of their own?
There is no simple answer to this one. Making a trade for the sake of a trade would be risky and stupid. Look no further than the Mark Mulder deal to see just how badly a deadline move can go. The Cardinals gave up Dan Haren, who has won eight games in Arizona this year and has a 2.83 ERA. First Baseman Daric Barton is struggling at the plate, but he's played in every game for Oakland. Mulder has been injured and hasn't won a game for the Cards since 2006.
That said, you have adjust to the guys you're in a fight with. The Cardinals demonstrated this weekend they're not as good as the Cubs. (Yes, I said it.) Up to now they've been a touch better than the red hot Brewers, but the Brewers are now significantly improved. Standing pat would seem to offer Milwaukee the ability to shoot right by, leaving St. Louis fans "waiting 'til next year."
The argument for making no trades hinges on a little bit of timing and a lot of luck. If Chris Carpenter can return to the rotation by August, and pitch like his old self, then the Cards would have an addition on par to the Sabathia acquisition. This is dependent upon his repaired shoulder being "as good as new."
If our friend Mr. Mulder can find a little bit of his old magic (something he wasn't able to do during his rehab stint in the minors) he could be the lynch pin for improving the entire staff. Another solid starter gives Tony LaRussa plenty of options (Joel Pinero? Braden Looper?) to shore up the bullpen. That bullpen is currently the biggest weakness.
As for bats, there is still one very big one sitting in the minors in the person of Colby Rasmus. Two questions with him: a) are you rushing him to the big leagues? And b)where to you put him in a talented, crowded outfield?
Which takes us to the "make a move" school of thought.
If the Cardinals are going to trade for a pitcher, the price will be pretty high. The key is to keep your best prospects, (like Rasmus and pitcher Jaime Garcia) but still get the guy you're looking for. Chris Duncan is one possibility as trade bait. You could probably package him with a minor leaguer to get a decent reliever, plus you make room for Rasums' bat with the big club. There is some minor league talent worth trading. Catcher Bryan Anderson is considered one of the ten best in the system, but will likely never make it to St.Louis. Yadier Molina has a long career ahead of him!
My vote is for the trade strategy I just outlined. We will not get a big, sexy name in return, but we don't necessarily need one. One of those solid, no-name, middle innings guys combined with a few chips falling in the right places could make the Cards pitching staff significantly better in the second half. If we wind up getting Carpenter (and Adam Wainwright) off the disabled list and pitching well, you could see a playoff favorite emerge before your very eyes.
Meanwhile, if Pujols stays healthy, they're going to score runs. Adding Rasums' bat (assuming he hits) would provide a jolt to the offense and give LaRussa even more flexibility defensively.
So if the next month only yields some guy you've never heard of, don't fret too much. There's still hope for this October. And whether that pans out or not, 2009, has tons of promise. You'll still have your prospects, and there will be some big dollars that can be spent on a free agent class that has plenty of names you'll recognize.
What is reCAPTCHA?
reCAPTCHA is a free CAPTCHA service that helps to digitize books.A CAPTCHA is a program that can tell whether its user is a human or a computer. You've probably seen them Ñ colorful images with distorted text at the bottom of Web registration forms. CAPTCHAs are used by many websites to prevent abuse from "bots," or automated programs usually written to generate spam. No computer program can read distorted text as well as humans can, so bots cannot navigate sites protected by CAPTCHAs.
About 60 million CAPTCHAs are solved by humans around the world every day. In each case, roughly ten seconds of human time are being spent. Individually, that's not a lot of time, but in aggregate these little puzzles consume more than 150,000 hours of work each day. What if we could make positive use of this human effort? reCAPTCHA does exactly that by channeling the effort spent solving CAPTCHAs online into "reading" books.
To archive human knowledge and to make information more accessible to the world, multiple projects are currently digitizing physical books that were written before the computer age. The book pages are being photographically scanned, and then transformed into text using "Optical Character Recognition" (OCR). The transformation into text is useful because scanning a book produces images, which are difficult to store on small devices, expensive to download, and cannot be searched. The problem is that OCR is not perfect.
reCAPTCHA improves the process of digitizing books by sending words that cannot be read by computers to the Web in the form of CAPTCHAs for humans to decipher. More specifically, each word that cannot be read correctly by OCR is placed on an image and used as a CAPTCHA. This is possible because most OCR programs alert you when a word cannot be read correctly.
But if a computer can't read such a CAPTCHA, how does the system know the correct answer to the puzzle? Here's how: Each new word that cannot be read correctly by OCR is given to a user in conjunction with another word for which the answer is already known. The user is then asked to read both words. If they solve the one for which the answer is known, the system assumes their answer is correct for the new one. The system then gives the new image to a number of other people to determine, with higher confidence, whether the original answer was correct.
Currently, we are helping to digitize books from the Internet Archive and old editions of the New York Times.