Pineiro's contract was for $13 mill

by jjray on Oct 15, 2007 6:15 PM EDT

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3064898

The other diary was well over 100 comments. Cumbersome to scroll thru so I started another diary. $6.5 mill per year ... not as bad as feared.

Wainwright
Looper
Pineiro

... not exactly a starting rotation that makes the opposition wet its shorts. But we've had worse in STL.

What I just can't figure out is the organizational che the 2008 Cardinals are throwing out there. A) Are we rebuilding? B) Are we making a run for it? C) Or is this a team built to be 500 which qualifies them to be in the hunt in the NL Central but mucked up with vets preventing any real room for growth as a team?

I fear C. Maybe that is wants DeWitt anyway, a steady competitive team with small peaks and valleys.

0 recs | Comment 44 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Oh yay

$6.5 million per year for a pitcher whose ERA hasn't been under 4.00 since 2003 and whose career ERA sits right around 4.50...color me unenthusiastic.

His ERA over the last three years is 5.61.

Sigh.

by mojowo11 on Oct 15, 2007 6:28 PM EDT 0 recs

Why can't it be "A" AND "C"?

The guys we are "rebuilding" with don't exist right now, at least in the sense that they're major league ready. And contrary to what some may realize, we still have to play a 2008 season. So....I'm not sure I see a problem with signing a mediocre pitcher to a 2 year deal for 6.5 a year when our "rebuilding" players won't be ready until 2009 or later.

by Big Red on Oct 15, 2007 6:30 PM EDT 0 recs

what does the Pineiro signing say about direction?

>>I'm not sure I see a problem with signing a mediocre pitcher to a 2 year deal for 6.5 a year when our "rebuilding" players won't be ready until 2009 or later.<<

No, I don't have a big problem with the Pineiro signing. Would have preferred one year but I'm sure he insisted on 2. There really is not a starting pitcher in our system who one can say Pineiro will be blocking in 2008 at least. Can one say that Hawksworth has done anything down at AAA this year to deserve his shot?

Just wondering what the Pineiro signing means for our long term strategy. Are more Pineiros (to join the Loopers and Franklins) on the way? Is a league average vet SS on our shopping list? How about another league average outfielder to replace the injured Juan E?

In my view, we need to mix in the youngsters when they show promise. That means right field is Rick Ankiels in 2008 until he plays his way out of a job (or gets hurt again). Same with Brendan Ryan. Throw him out at SS and see how close to his 2007 line he can deliver. If Rolen goes down again next year, no more Miguel Cairos!!! Just pencil in Barden or whatever infielder within the organization looks promising and go with it.

Others have talked about trading away spare parts or parts that really don't fit our needs (i.e., Reyes and C. Duncan) for younger players with upside to fill holes. I very much hope we go this direction instead of plugging holes with proven vets on the downside of their careers. Someone with a profile like Carlos Quentin is what I have in mind (as do others on this board).

by jjray on Oct 15, 2007 7:45 PM EDT up 0 recs

You just need to look...

"So....I'm not sure I see a problem with signing a mediocre pitcher to a 2 year deal for 6.5 a year when our "rebuilding" players won't be ready until 2009 or later."

Problem is...we will still be on the hook for 7.5M in '09.

I don't think many people would have a problem with a 1 year deal.

"I'm hungry. Not for food. Just for baseball" Amaury Cazana Marti

by bobbyballgame1 on Oct 15, 2007 11:31 PM EDT up 0 recs

81%

say its a good signing on the poll over at stltoday.com/cards

interesting.

course that could change if the angry mob from veb seens this and heads over there!

me? i'm indifferent towards it. don't think its really that much of an impact move one way or the other. now if we bring eckstein back for a big package and multiple year...now then I'd be concerned.

10-time World Champs!

by TheFranchise9 on Oct 15, 2007 7:03 PM EDT 0 recs

D)

We intend to rebuild, but we want a full ballpark in 2008 and must appear to be contenders
(and looking at the competition, we may be if we get lucky health-wise).

by vinniefromjersey on Oct 15, 2007 7:11 PM EDT 0 recs

I'm happy.

I'll chalk one up for the Pineiro fans here.. I'm happy we resigned him. He's not an ace, but he'll make a fine #4 or #5 starter.

And I'm happy that we only need to patch up two more holes in the starting pitching this off-season.

I know that no one here has any faith in Mulder or Carpenter returning to form, but what if they did? Mulder's recovery from his latest surgery won't take too long and should have him ready to compete for a spot by Spring Training. Will he be any good? Time will tell. Hopefully he'll get enough Spring Training starts to work out the kinks.

I wouldn't be shocked if we only go for one more starting pitcher this offseason, and that we leave slot #5 for Mulder/Thompson/Reyes/Wellemeyer/whoever.

by Ghost on Oct 15, 2007 7:47 PM EDT 0 recs

The problem with cutting up a discussion

is people end up having to repeat themselves.

Backloading good. Gives the team $1.5 M more to spend this year.

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 15, 2007 8:30 PM EDT 0 recs

Backloading is good?

Why? Pineiro then has to be worth $7.5 M in '09. What are the odds of that? Plus, it makes it even less likely that we'd be able to trade him.

Do we need the extra $1.5 M next year? Why? To sign David Eckstein? We shouldn't sign him regardless. What we need is LESS money on the books in future years -- as the free agent market gets better and as Duncan, Wainwright, and Molina become eligible for free agency.

Backloading the contract makes it worse, not better. The only good thing about this contract is that it's for only 2 years -- it could've been worse. I was afraid of 3 years.

by houstoncardinal on Oct 15, 2007 9:32 PM EDT up 0 recs

Liam talked about this earlier

in the other post and what he said made a lot of sense. Backloading means that we can trade him if we want to put someone else in his place in '09. And then we will be out less money.

by nycardfan on Oct 15, 2007 9:41 PM EDT up 0 recs

he'll be more difficult

to trade if more money is owed to him. Of course it benefits us to pay as little as possible and then trade him w/ more $ left on the contract, but it's not going to be easy to trade a barely-above-replacement-level pitcher who's earning $7.5 M in the next year.

by houstoncardinal on Oct 15, 2007 10:17 PM EDT up 0 recs

But he'll

probably be REALLY cheap for a starting pitcher by 09. Maybe we would be able to trade him.

by spants on Oct 16, 2007 12:16 AM EDT up 0 recs

I disagree

the Cardinals have much more payroll flexibility in 2009, where the extra $1.5 M can absorbed. In 2008, that $1 M (total of $17 M) to spend on a pitcher (via trade or FA) and a SS (same way).

So, say the Cardinals flip Reyes and Flores for Renteria (not endorsing this), That is $6 M added for Renteria's salary, $1 M subtracted from Flores and 500k from Reyes. Garcia replaces him in the bullpen (LHP) and the Cardinals still have $12 M for a Curt Schilling at the front of the rotation on a 1 year deal.

Rotation
Wainwright
Schilling
Looper
Mulder
Pineiro

Then, in 2009, Renteria, Schilling, Looper, Edmonds, Izzy, Springer, Mulder, Juan all come off the books and the Cardinals have $40 M to spend on FA or just to promote from within. Rasmus will be up for CF, replacing Edmonds and leaving $39.5 M to rebuild a rotation/roster.

I think having Pineiro be cheaper this year gives the Cardinals much more flexibility.

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 15, 2007 9:46 PM EDT up 0 recs

Why would we want Schilling?

He's old, and expensive, and wants to go to the Phills

by jedmonds15 on Oct 15, 2007 9:56 PM EDT up 0 recs

The Cards aren't signing

Schilling and it's really difficult to perceive Mulder as part of the rotation. Aside from that, and assuming your Renteria scenario holds, all the other guys come off the books in '09 anyway. If Pineiro was owed $2 M LESS in '09 than '08 rather than the other way around, it would add $2M MORE to spend in '09 -- taking it to $41.5 M.

It only gives us more flexibility in '08, but less in '09, when it will be more advantageous. Bad decision, MO!

by houstoncardinal on Oct 15, 2007 10:22 PM EDT up 0 recs

Wait

so you think it is bad to take up 22% of the 23 M we have to spend in 2008 and would prefer to take up 28% of that than to only take up 16% of the $45 M in 2009 that they had to spend?

For 1 year contracts, the Cardinals have to overpay. They need 1 year contracts in 2008. Having more money in 2008 is better for the teams chances of improving.

And even if they try to move Pineiro in 2009 and have to assume $3.75 M of the money he is owed, in relation to the amount they have to spend it is much less damaging to the teams chances of improving.

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 15, 2007 10:47 PM EDT up 0 recs

This isn't a 1 year contract

it's a 2 year contract and I'm suggesting that it would be better to overpay for a 1 year contract rather than leave more $ for next year. And, I disagree, having more money for '09 and beyond is essential for the Cards' chances of improving. You seem to be advocating a win-next-year approach. To me, they should prepare for beyond next year and, if we happen to be competitive next year -- great.

But w/o Carp and Mulder, and w/ Edmonds and Rolen in the starting lineup, with the rotation what it is -- making a serious challenge for next year just isn't that realistic. This organization needs a long-term approach. We've been going with the win-next-year approach long enough and it's worked. But we're past that stage. We need to prepare for the next several years -- not the next 1.

by houstoncardinal on Oct 15, 2007 11:15 PM EDT up 0 recs

I never said it was a 1 year contract

It's a 2 year contract with the more risky part of the contract happening during a time in which the Cardinals can afford to make a mistake on a paying a player too much.

I'm not advocating a win-next-year approach, I'm advocating a dont-force-2-bullpen-games-a-week approach. The Cardinals need pitching. It ain't coming from Memphis. Maybe it could come from Springfield, but the better prospects from there are either hurt or just got there and in essence would be making a leap from Single A to MLB and none of them are really that good.

Who does this signing block in 2008 or 2009? If we overpaid for a barely above replacement level innings eater, so be it. He comes off the books in 2008. If we are making big free agent signings for pitching and positions in 2009, they will all be backloaded in a way that Joel Pineiro's $7.5 M won't make to bad a dent in the $45 M they would have had to spend without him.

Even if they signed Sabathia and Burnett, they'll probably only combine for $32 M that year (Zambrano got $15 M, Zito got $10 M in their 1st years).

CF, LF, RF, 1B, C, 3B, 2B are all blocked. They'll still need a SS and will have $7 M to spend on a 1st year of a contract to go with that roation of Carpenter, Sabathia, Burnett, Wainwright, Pineiro.

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 15, 2007 11:25 PM EDT up 0 recs

off books 2010*

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 15, 2007 11:27 PM EDT up 0 recs

LESS money

"What we need is LESS money on the books in future years"

Let's not forget about all of the money coming off the books after '08: Jim Edmonds, Mark Mulder, Juan Encarnacion, to name the larger ones. I'm not sure if a mil or two for Pineiro will be as critical as you say. Just my opinion.

by qwikimport on Oct 16, 2007 12:39 AM EDT up 0 recs

deferring is almost ALWAYS good

in non-salary cap sports it is almost universally better to defer money. any time there is inflation, future dollars will be worth less than present values. even if there were no inflation, it would still be a good idea to defer. i think people fall into a trap by trying to tie performance in a certain year with salary in a certain year. it is more accurate to look at the total cost of the contract vs. the total value the player produced. it doesn't matter what pinhead is worth in year 2 so long as he produces $13 million in value over two years. whether he is actually worth $13 million over two years is a different discussion. backloading can't make this worse. suppose pinhead stinks after 1 year and the cards want to dump him.

example 1

he is paid $7.5 in year 1 and has $5.5 remaining. the market value for him is $5.5. the cards dump him on the pirates for a worthless prospect. total cost to cards = $7.5.

example 2

he is paid $6.5 in year 1 has $6.5 remaining. the market value for him is $5.5. the cards dump him on the pirates and pay $1.0 cash to get a worthless prospect. total cost to cardinals = $6.5 + $1.0 = $7.5 million.

example 3

he is paid $5.5 in year 1 has $7.5 remaining. the market value for him is $5.5. the cards dump him on the pirates and pay $2.0 cash to get a worthless prospect. total cost to cardinals = $5.5 + $2.0 = $7.5 million.

if there is no inflation the cost will be the same. of course, it is unrealistic to assume no inflation. paying $5.5 now and $2.0 in one year is different than paying $7.5 now. there may be also more options in waiting. maybe the market values pinhead at $6.5 or $7.5 one year from now.

by dmb60614 on Oct 16, 2007 11:24 AM EDT up 0 recs

That's a huge assumption

that ownership would be willing to pay Pineiro $2 M to go away. They did that w/ Tino but probably wouldn't do it again -- at least not in this case. That would make us stuck w/ him.

Frontloading the contract makes him more tradeable. Backloading it almost guarantees we're stuck with him.

by houstoncardinal on Oct 16, 2007 10:53 PM EDT up 0 recs

what?

if they dont have a problem front loading the deal to the tune of $7.5 in year 1 they surely wouldnt have a problem with splitting it $5.5 + $2.0. management is familiar with the idea of time value of money. its the most basic principal of finance.

by dmb60614 on Oct 17, 2007 7:58 AM EDT up 0 recs

principle

i really wish we could edit.

front loading costs more. thats why mgt is always deferring and backloading.

by dmb60614 on Oct 17, 2007 9:20 AM EDT up 0 recs

Backloading Bad...

I'm never a fan of it, especially in this situation.

'09 is where the Cards need to be focused...great FA class, help from the farm, big money coming off the books etc...

Well now they have 7.5M dollars tied up in a pitcher who could just as easily pitch himself of the team as be a decent pitcher.

Backloading makes this deal look even worse...if that's at all possible.

"I'm hungry. Not for food. Just for baseball" Amaury Cazana Marti

by bobbyballgame1 on Oct 15, 2007 11:36 PM EDT up 0 recs

It is...and it does!

by houstoncardinal on Oct 16, 2007 12:25 AM EDT up 0 recs

Bad Diary

I think the discussion in this morning's post or in the diary already posted covers this. I don't see why a new diary was started.

Hopefully lb can combine the diaries or delete this one.

The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!

by Zubin on Oct 15, 2007 9:15 PM EDT 0 recs

the direction question is new

by nycardfan on Oct 15, 2007 9:41 PM EDT up 0 recs

Cardinals are setting the market

Springer worth 1y - 3.5 mil.
Pineiro worth 2y - 13 mil.

Is this fear of the open market? If so, I would expect the Cardinals to jump all over Eck in the next week. 3y-20 mil?

All my friends became Cardinal fans and grew up happy and liberal. I became a Cub fan and grew up embittered and conservative." -- George Will

by wannabeGedman on Oct 15, 2007 10:14 PM EDT 0 recs

Here is why

2008 starters assuming no Wells or Pinero
Wainer
Looper
Reyes
Thompson
Wellemeyer
Maroth

That is not good, actually that is just scary. Now name another pitcher we could sign for less than Joel P who has the upside. We don't have a lot to trade and to be honest I don't think Duncan should be traded nor do I think he gets a MLB ready good pitcher.

You can not assume Carp or Mulder. If you do you must be as dumb as Cubs fans who assumed Wood and Prior would be ready every year.

No I am not saying it is a great signing, but you know what it will help plug a gap for a couple years.

God knows we have zero prospects at the minor league level who are close to contributing.

Can you see where I am coming from?

by ICbirdfan on Oct 15, 2007 11:14 PM EDT 0 recs

OK, after reading every thing

here's my thoughts. i know you've all been on pins & needles wondering what i had to say. so i wont make you wait any longer.

(yes, just like Dr. Cox i have a giant ego.)

i'm not a fan of this deal. it's way, WAY too much money for a guy who's only worth the league minimun.
my thinking is the Cards felt like they let Dream Weaver get away last year &
they think he could have been really successful under Dr. Dave.
they now feel the same about Joel, even though he was only here for barely two months.
he fits Dr. Dave's style & he started making progress so their thinking is, what the heck?
what do we have to lose? lets see if we can't strike gold one more time.

there really isn't a top of the line starter on the free agent market. and if they want one,
they are going to have to make a very unpopular trade and give up some kids to get some.
they say dont want to do that. so what can they do?
because with Tony & Dave still around they cant go into a full rebuilding mode because they wont stick around for one.

seams to me they really are trying to do both at the same time. rebuild, but also WIN NOW.

can it be done? maybe. but i dont want them to try it.

the Cards are confusing & disappointing me with this move.
it's more of the same old song & dance.
bring in a washed up vet & pray Dr. Dave can work his magic.

i thought they fired Walt because they weren't in the business of doing the same old song & dance?

I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson And That's A Winner!

by gdm426 on Oct 16, 2007 1:06 AM EDT 0 recs

firing Walt

>>i thought they fired Walt because they weren't in the business of doing the same old song & dance?<<

Yeah, it now looks like we were fooled. We foolishly thought firing Walt meant that DeWitt was boldly committing the organization to new organizational direction: build from within, no more mucking up the roster with merely serviceable, league average vets, mix in the youth. So far since Walt's departure, the club has been in vet mucking mode. As the poster directly below posits, Walt appears to have been fired for not playing nice with the other kids in the sandbox, not for organizational philosophy. I now assume TLR, Duncan, Walt, Jr. (Mozeliak) will just carry on in 2008 like nothing happened in 2007. We'll just keep up this charade that the Cardinal roster did not implode in 2007 under the weight of injury prone, creaky old vets. Who knows, maybe sneak into the playoffs in '08 by the skin of our teeth due to how bad or division sucks (as opposed to the merit of our play). Sad. The Cards could have set a new course here and now.

by jjray on Oct 16, 2007 10:17 AM EDT up 0 recs

We were fooled

But did DeWitt make you believe that or did the lot of us just jump to that conclusion?

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 16, 2007 10:23 AM EDT up 0 recs

Good question

I jumped to that conclusion. The day after the firing, I read that Mo was planning on aggressively going after Izzy, Springer, and Pineiro. And I still jumped to that conclusion.

by nycardfan on Oct 16, 2007 10:48 AM EDT up 0 recs

good point

>>But did DeWitt make you believe that or did the lot of us just jump to that conclusion?<<

Good point. DeWitt never said the Card were embarking on a new direction. In fact, if I had listened, he was saying the opposite: i.e., the club wants TLR back. TLR is the king of vet roster mucking. TLR is not the guy to bring back if you want to rebuild from within. I had assumed DeWitt was just making a half-hearted statement for public consumption regarding bring back TLR and that he would have sent secret signals through back channels that the club really doesn't want Tony back. Wrong. Mozeliak, to my eyes, is doing the bidding of TLR / D. Duncan.

by jjray on Oct 16, 2007 12:00 PM EDT up 0 recs

Maybe Im Wrong Here...

but, didn't Bill say himself that he wanted the organization to take a new direction and start investing in player development?

It seems so far away now...I guess I could have made it up in my head.

"I'm hungry. Not for food. Just for baseball" Amaury Cazana Marti

by bobbyballgame1 on Oct 16, 2007 12:06 PM EDT up 0 recs

Yes, he said that

he was going to make a commitment to "player development." The obvious inference was that the days of trading prospects for vets and rehashing overpriced, mediocre vets was over. Now, apparently, Mozeliak is having discussions w/ Eckstein about a contract extension.

So much for the "new direction!" It's the same direction, which was justifiable when the team was winning 100 games or after it had won a World Series. When it's below .500 in its last 323 regular-season games, it's time for a new direction. I'm going to be extremely disappointed when DeWitt names Mozeliak the new GM and I'll probably vomit when we re-sign Eckstein.

by houstoncardinal on Oct 16, 2007 10:58 PM EDT up 0 recs

....no....IMO,

.....they fired Walt because of the split in the front office and because Dewitt had enough of Walt talking about it in the press. Everybody has a boss. (and the years of poor drafting, seems like the Cards have a lifetime history of this problem)

Luhnow can now take the responsibility for putting blue chip prospects in place so they CAN rebuild without Walt having issues with his decisions, and thats gonna take awhile.

And qwikimport has a point! "Let's not forget about all of the money coming off the books after '08: Jim Edmonds, Mark Mulder, Juan Encarnacion, to name the larger ones. I'm not sure if a mil or two for Pineiro will be as critical as you say. Just my opinion."

If Pineiro eats innings and keeps us within 2-3 runs it was a solid affordable considering the market and value for pitching over the next two years.

Youth movement or not, I want Carpenter, Speezio JEd and Rolen back in '08...yeah, those old guys that play the game like pros.

by cardschinmusic on Oct 16, 2007 4:39 AM EDT 0 recs

Do I understand correctly

That we had an option on Pineiro for 1 year at $4M?

If so, wouldn't THAT be the appropriate comparison for this decision?

I'd much rather have him at 1/$4 than 2/$13. We might actually have some minors guys ready by 2009, we save overall $$, and we have even more flex going into 2009.

Seriously, did we have that option?

by siddfynch on Oct 16, 2007 9:56 AM EDT 0 recs

Pineiro's option didn't vest

I read it somewhere. Didn't pitch enough innings or something like that.

by jjray on Oct 16, 2007 10:09 AM EDT up 0 recs

No

we did not have that option. He did.

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 16, 2007 10:09 AM EDT up 0 recs

mutual option

A non-point to reply to but I'll bite. The option was mutual and it did not vest in any event.

http://www.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=4967285

http://fantasybaseball.usatoday.com/content/column.asp?sport=MLB&column=2&articleid=28806

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2007/03/04/pineiro_doesnt_bolster_his_case_for _closing/

by jjray on Oct 16, 2007 12:06 PM EDT up 0 recs

Thanks

That makes the 2yr deal make a little more sense.

by siddfynch on Oct 16, 2007 1:41 PM EDT up 0 recs

The Bottom Line!

We signed a 4/5 starter who is on the young side with good stuff and knock on wood healthy. He also has the potential to be a 2/3 starter. We all know he has good stuff he just needs coaching, enter dave duncan. If the cubs went after this guy what do you think they would pay after the money they chipped in for Marquis. Piniero (did I spell that right?) is worth the money they are paying him. I honestly think he could have got more. The market for pitching has been crazy lately. We need a veteran 4/5 starter to anchor the line-up and I think we paid what was needed to fill that role. If we were rebuilding why would they pay Piniero?

The Red Blazer

by Red Blazer on Oct 16, 2007 9:17 PM EDT 0 recs