Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild

[Lesson]

Hicks has a 5.2 BB/9 and 1.5 WHIP.

He also has a 3.02 FIP behind one of the worst defenses in baseball.

[dmarx114]

You could get 12 years of player control of potential contributors from another organization or you can extend an oft-injured, often ineffective reliever at his highest price.

This sentence makes no sense to me.

Come on guys. We can't just say we can get 2 really good minor leaguers for Hicks, and in the same sentence say how much Hicks actually sucks.

If other teams think Hicks is an oft-injured ineffective reliever, why are they sending us 2 guys who can be really helpful for us?

[Popeye_Card]

Trevor Rosenthal had a good 3 year run from 13-15.

Rosenthal was pretty poor in 2014 for a reliever/closer. 5.4 BB/9, 1.408 WHIP.

Hence why I am citing Brebbia as the answer to your question.

Maybe, and even he would probably be categorized as “serviceable” as relievers go. Not someone I would rush to extend his contract.

[Mdcardfan60]

You could get 12 years of player control of potential contributors from another organization or you can extend an oft-injured, often ineffective reliever at his highest price.

This sentence makes no sense to me.

Come on guys. We can't just say we can get 2 really good minor leaguers for Hicks, and in the same sentence say how much Hicks actually sucks.

If other teams think Hicks is an oft-injured ineffective reliever, why are they sending us 2 guys who can be really helpful for us?

Because he isn’t injured now, is pitching as well as he ever has in his career and could help them win a championship. That could be worth two reasonably good pitching prospects.

[MrCrowesGarden]

Add to that that we just saw what Pierce Johnson retrieved, and while Hicks isn't great, he is better than Pierce Johnson.

[Lesson]

Trevor Rosenthal had a good 3 year run from 13-15.

Rosenthal was pretty poor in 2014 for a reliever/closer. 5.4 BB/9, 1.408 WHIP.

Hence why I am citing Brebbia as the answer to your question.

Maybe, and even he would probably be categorized as “serviceable” as relievers go. Not someone I would rush to extend his contract.

He's been fine in SF in 2022 and this year.

He doesn't have as much upside as someone like Hicks does who can throw 100+ consistently but has better control and has been fairly durable (including him having Tommy John).

Guys like Brebbia are still important as you need someone who can go out consistently to help a pitching staff finish all 9 innings.

My approach to constructing a bullpen would be as follows:
-1 premier reliever
-Combination of guys on minor league or 1 year deals who have been serviceable recently or have underlying metrics that show they can be useful (think along the lines of guys like Belisle, Neshek, Villanueva)
-Pitchers who have endurance issues in the minors but can strike out guys
-AAAA caliber guys who aren't really good enough to start but do a good job from the BP

[dmarx114]

You could get 12 years of player control of potential contributors from another organization or you can extend an oft-injured, often ineffective reliever at his highest price.

This sentence makes no sense to me.

Come on guys. We can't just say we can get 2 really good minor leaguers for Hicks, and in the same sentence say how much Hicks actually sucks.

If other teams think Hicks is an oft-injured ineffective reliever, why are they sending us 2 guys who can be really helpful for us?

Because he isn’t injured now, is pitching as well as he ever has in his career and could help them win a championship. That could be worth two reasonably good pitching prospects.

It was explained to me that he has a 5.2 BB/9 and 1.5 WHIP. So I remain confused. Does he suck? Is he good? So many contradictions.

[dmarx114]

FWIW, I would prefer to trade Hicks than sign him.

[Lesson]

Also, to be clear on my stance regarding having 1 premier reliever on staff and the financial contribution associated with that, I'd be fine signing a reliever to a rich multi-year deal as long as it ends at the end of their age 29 or 30 season.

After that, I feel like most relievers have diminishing returns in terms of results and the volatility of their health isn't worth it.

I would not have signed Andrew Miller to the $ and length the Cardinals gave him because I think he was warned out from his usage in Cleveland by the time he was in St. Louis and the reliever he was in 2018 onward was not the same guy who was dominating in 2016.

[cardsfantx]

Also, to be clear on my stance regarding having 1 premier reliever on staff and the financial contribution associated with that, I'd be fine signing a reliever to a rich multi-year deal as long as it ends at the end of their age 29 or 30 season.

After that, I feel like most relievers have diminishing returns in terms of results and the volatility of their health isn't worth it.

I would not have signed Andrew Miller to the $ and length the Cardinals gave him because I think he was warned out from his usage in Cleveland by the time he was in St. Louis and the reliever he was in 2018 onward was not the same guy who was dominating in 2016.

And if hicks is the guy you’d want to sign, you can still do that after trading him for a prospect or 2 this year