eckstein: stay or go?
a lot of you might have missed the plug for the World Record Baseball Game, which went down over the weekend in o'fallon and culminated in a new standard --- longest baseball game ever played. they're still taking donations toward the goal of $100,000, and the money supports a good cause. derrick goold was a player in this game and blogged about it at Birdland. congratulations, fellahs.
special post today: azruavatar and i are doing a point-counterpoint-style exchange about david eckstein. he's presenting the case for re-signing eck; i'm playing the villainous "let him walk" part. thanks a lot to azru for coming up w/ the research that inspired this post. hope you enjoy it. here's azruavatar:
The Case for Re-signing Eckstein
Inspired by lboros' post on Milton Bradley and Brian Gunn's evaluation of Edgar Renteria's worth back in 2004, I decided to assess how much the Cardinals' current free-agent shortstop, David Eckstein, is worth. Rumors of negotiations between the Cards and Eck have begun to pop up, so it seems like a good time to try this.
I've previously been an advocate of handing Brendan Ryan the starting job at shortstop and finding another high-upside youngster in the hopes that one of them may turn into a cheap league-average regular player. I went into this mini-project of projecting Eckstein's value with the idea that it would show him to be exceedingly overvalued and further the cause for letting him walk. Without spoiling the conclusion, I wanted to take my subjective opinion out of the rationale so I set about to try and evaluate what his worth is going forward.
Here's my quick-n-easy 3 step recipe to arriving at David Eckstein's market value this offseason:
- Make a list of shortstops that signed recent free agent contracts or extensions as they were approaching free agency.
- Evaluate the overall run contribution of each player using a weighted three-year average.
- Averaging the cost of each shortstop per run produced, calculate Eckstein's value based his run value.
I used Value Over Replacement Player (VORP) as my offensive metric for runs. It's a Baseball Prospectus stat that tabulates the number of runs a player has produced over the course of the year. I normalized every player's VORP totals to 600 plate appearances (approximately a full seasons worth) to avoid concerns about playing time. To account for run prevention, former Cardinal advisor's Mitchel Lichtman's Ultimate Zone Rating (UZR) is one of the best and most reliable defensive statistics available. MGL normalizes the defensive value of each player to 150 games, which is convenient for my purposes. He released updated stats for the year around the All-Star break, which is what I used for the 2007 defense. Ideally, I'd have a full season of defensive data to call on, but that isn't the case.
I'm also using three years' worth of data (2005-2007) for both metrics. It's a mistake to attempt to project a player using just their most recent season's statistics, and using data older than 3 years isn't really going to reflect their current skillset. With that in mind, I weighted each season in an approximation of what the Marcel projection system does. The defensive weights are different, and there really isn't any science behind those. At this point we now have a weighted average of each player's performance both offensively and defensively. You can download the complete spreadsheet here if you'd like.
| Name | Oruns/600PA | DRuns/150G | Total Runs |
| Orlando Cabrera | 23.1 | -0.6 | 22.5 |
| John McDonald | -8.9 | 9.3 | 0.4 |
| Edgar Renteria | 37.1 | -1.1 | 36.0 |
| Rafael Furcal | 26.4 | 8.3 | 34.7 |
| Omar Vizquel | 7.7 | 13.9 | 21.6 |
| Miguel Tejada | 45.6 | -1.8 | 43.7 |
| Jimmy Rollins | 41.6 | 1.1 | 42.7 |
| Alex Gonzalez | 14.5 | 3.3 | 17.9 |
| Julio Lugo | 27.3 | 0.7 | 28.0 |
Using the dollar figures from Cot's contracts, I took the yearly average value of the contract to then find how many runs each player is producing per million dollars that they make. We can average those rates to get the number of runs produced by a shortstop per million dollars and use this as our predicting baseline for David Eckstein. That calculation yields a product of 3.4 runs per million dollars. That's an average amount for a shortstop.
Eckstein averages 20 runs offensively and around 9 runs defensively from the last 3 years. If Eckstein were to maintain these averages for the next few years, then --- using the multiplier of 3.4 runs per million dollars --- he would be worth around 8.5M on a yearly basis. Given his injury problems the last few seasons and the fact that he is getting older, let's be conservative and say that each subsequent year he produces 90% of what he did the previous year. If the Cardinals were to offer him a 2 year contract, a reasonable dollar figure would be around 14.75M based on what his peers make. If they made a 3-year offer, $21 million is a good ballpark for negotiations. (For a sanity check, PECOTA estimates before this season pegged Eckstein at 15.35M for 2008-2009 and another 5.6M for 2010 -- which is extremely close to the figures I've presented.)
Given the team's reluctance to play Brendan Ryan on an everyday basis, even when Adam Kennedy had season ending knee surgery, there are still question marks about whether he can handle the position as a regular. I looked at his numbers back in August and noted that they were very much out of line with what we saw from him throughout the minors. He finished the year with an OPS just over .750 as his batting average (and consequently his OBP) came back down. While Ryan is probably a better defender than Eckstein, I'm not sure that he's a good bet to contribute 20 runs offensively. Ryan had an OPS of .669 during his time in Memphis this past year. In 2006, he battled injuries throughout the year. Eckstein had a reasonably productive year despite dealing with some oblique strains. He's a known commodity, and provided there's no bidding war a 2-year contract at 15M doesn't seem wildly unreasonable. A short-term contract for a player that we can expect to be around average doesn't seem like such a bad idea after looking around the league.
The Case for Letting Eckstein Walk
first of all, my thanks to AZ for this excellent piece of work. he's made me think long and hard about the question "well, why not eckstein?" clearly, there is a legitimate case to re-sign him; he's been about as valuable as any shortstop in the league over the past few years. a $7.5m contract might very well be consistent with the market, as azru suggests, but that's only when viewed in the abstract. when i place eckstein within the specific context of the cardinals' present and future, i can't justify that contract for this player.
click "read more" to read the remainder of the post.
before i go on, a disclaimer: i've been a big fan of eckstein's throughout his run here. in 2005, mourning stl's playoff defeat, i named eckstein as the best thing about the cards' season --- and this in a year where albert pujols won the league mvp. here's what i wrote:
at this point in his career, eckstein only has one reliable skill left --- he can get on base. it's such an important skill that as long as he was able to make the routine plays at shortstop, eckstein's high obps made him at least a league-average player. alas, he can no longer make the routine plays reliably; moreover, his on-base skills are eroding quickly. he'll be 33 next year, and we understand player-aging curves well enough by now to know that eckstein has entered high-risk territory: he could suffer a jim edmonds-like collapse any year now. and even if that doesn't happen, he's overwhelmingly likely to suffer a slow but steady decline in performance. indeed, that process is already underway.
let's start with the defense, because his dropoff here is easy to document. every major fielding metric shows eckstein's performance in sharp decline in 2007. the two heavyweights in this field, john dewan and mgl, both had eckstein as one of the three worst shortstops in the league; dewan had him at 15 runs below average, mgl at 10 runs below. (mgl hasn't released his entire set of end-of-season UZR figures, but he did reveal the best and worst at each position.) the two enhanced-zone-rating metrics (by Chone Smith and the Hardball Times) both had eckstein at 5 runs below average, about a dozen runs worse than in 2006; and Baseball Prospectus' FRAA had him 15 runs below, a 14-run drop over the previous season. even the hoary old range factor metric had eckstein dropping off by a quarter of a play per game.
all those metrics are in agreement --- not only with each other, but also with the consensus of naked-eye observers. at least once a series, it seemed, there'd be a discussion in a VEB game thread about eckstein's limited range, his weak arm, his error-proneness. there are going be those who write off the down year with the glove, citing eckstein's injuries. i would counter that the injuries weren't bad enough to impede his hitting or baserunning; he had a banner year with the bat and stole 10 bags in 11 tries. it seems illogical to me that his injuries selectively affected his fielding; i think what we're seeing is part of an irreversible aging process. when you lose half a step at age 33, you ain't getting it back.
projecting eck's offense is a lot less certain a task. we'd expect it to drop off next year no matter what --- besides being 33, he's coming off an abberantly (for him) good season in which he batted 23 points above his career avg and set a new personal best in that category, 15 points higher than any previous single-season mark. not coincidentally, eckstein also had a career-high BABIP of .320, which is 15 points above his career mark. for a player of his age, those don't represent real gains in ability; they're random blips in the data (i won't call them "luck," 'cause it makes people mad). the strong likelihood is that he'll regress to the mean next season.
for eckstein, the mean as a national league player has been about .290 --- not bad, right? well, here's the problem: eckstein's walk rate has been in a freefall the last two years. and that leaves his core skill, ie on-base ability, more dependent than ever on a high batting average. compare his batting avgs and obps for the last three years:
| avg | obp | bb % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | .294 | .363 | 8.4 |
| 2006 | .292 | .350 | 5.8 |
| 2005 | .309 | .356 | 5.2 |
david raised his batting avg 17 points this year, but he only raised his obp by 6 points --- and his obp was actually higher in 2005, even though his avg was 15 points lower. if eck's avg regresses to .292 and his walk rate stays in the 5.5 percent range, we're looking at an on-base percentage of .335 to .340 and an ops of about .710 --- which would be about 30 points lower than last year (.739) and almost right on his career mark (.713). the first 2008 projection we have for eckstein, ZIPS, projects him to be even worse than that --- .676 --- and eckstein's pre-2007 PECOTA projection has him at exactly the same figure. i think those are ungenerous estimates, although they're not impossible --- just last year (ie 2006) eckstein posted a .694 ops, and he has been below the .700 mark 3 times in a 7-year career; at some point he's gonna drop below that line for good. but it won't necessarily happen in 2008. let's just use .710 as a working projection; that's in keeping with azruavatar's suggestion that eckstein in his mid 30s will retain about 90 percent of his offensive performance from year to year. even if we allow a .710 ops, eckstein profiles as a below-average defender at a key defensive position, whose signature offensive skill (on-base ability) is fading. he's been a fine player, but his best years are behind him.
let's turn now to brendan ryan. here's what i wrote about him after watching him play back in may 2007:
If Ryan finishes strong and can put up, say, a .740 ops over the last 80 games of the triple A schedule, I would consider him to be at least as good an option for 2008 as the incumbent shortstop in St. Louis.
| avg | obp | slg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 MLE | .255 | .302 | .320 |
| 2007 mlb | .289 | .347 | .406 |
| 2008 ZIPS proj | .265 | .315 | .351 |
if ryan were to meet his 2008 ZIPS projection over 500 at-bats, he'd create about 54 runs, which is 11 fewer than eckstein would create given a .710 ops. with a projected .315 obp, ryan wouldn't be able to bat leadoff; he have to slot in 8th (or 9th, if tony comes back). that'd leave the cards needing a new leadoff hitter, for whom they would probably have to trade (reyes for bourn, anyone?). whatever he cost the cardinals on offense, ryan would more than make up for on the defensive side. the same fielding metrics that universally panned david eckstein assessed ryan as a league-average fielder at ss in 2007. and, as with eckstein, the cold hard numbers matched the direct impressions of most fans; i don't see anybody predicting a gold glove for this kid, but he's clearly a step quicker than eckstein and has a vastly stronger arm. he can get to a ball in the hole and throw a man out, something eck can't do anymore. i think a convervative estimate is that ryan is 10 runs better than eck with the glove --- and if that's true, that wipes out most of the 11-run advantage we're projecting for eckstein with the bat. it makes the players pretty much dead even in terms of bottom-line run contribution.
i know many of you will find that conclusion hard to swallow. and i'll acknowledge there's a high degree of short-term risk involved; ryan has a much higher chance than eckstein of being utterly useless in 2008, a complete washout. so based on eckstein's provenness, i'll artibtrarily assign him a 2-game advantage over ryan for 2008. but carry it one year further down the road, to 2009 --- which player is more likely to be utterly useless that year, 27-year-old brendan ryan or 34-year-old david eckstein? we spent last year watching injury-plagued 30somethings jim edmonds and scott rolen lose huge chunks of their value; eckstein has struggled w/ injuries for the last year and a half, and he might very well be next. and he's starting from a much lower elevation than either of those two. by 2009, i think the odds are very high that ryan will be a better player than eckstein --- and $7m cheaper.
but even if brendan ryan disappoints or flat-out flops, here's another reason not to re-sign eckstein to a multiyear deal: if the cards make that commitment, they won't be in a position to pursue the crop of younger, better shortstops (furcal, renteria, uribe, cabrera) who will hit free-agency next off-season. a classic opportunity-cost lesson --- even if ryan doesn't pan out in 2008, at least the cards will have preserved the opportunity to upgrade in 2009. and here's a final thing to think about: eckstein will be a type A free agent this off-season, so if the cards let him walk they'll pick up a couple of top-100 draft picks. that alone might be the best reason not to re-sign him --- they're essentially trading him for two very good prospects if they let him walk. under the most favorable scenario, re-signing eckstein might yield a one-year benefit of a couple of games in the win column --- but it will probably cost the cardinals a lot more games than that in 2009 and beyond, and they'll come out behind on the deal.
let's put this all into a table:
| keep eckstein | let him walk | |
|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 2 marginal wins | $7m in marginal payroll opportunity to establish young cheap player two top-100 draft picks |
| 2009 | 0 marginal wins | $7m in marginal payroll OR opportunity to upgrade via free agency two prospects |
| 2010 | n/a | ryan / renteria / furcal / etc two prospects |
if the cardinals are willing to accept ryan's limitations for a year and spend the $7m wisely to make upgrades elsewhere on the roster, they probably will do no worse than break even in 2008 if they let eckstein walk. beyond 2008, they'll be way ahead. re-signing eckstein is a "win-now" strategy, something you do if you think adding a just-past-peak veteran can give you an immediate shot at a championship. if you're the detroit tigers, you want eckstein badly. if you're the cubs, you take a hard look at him. but if you're the cardinals? i don't think the cards have a realistic shot at a championship in 2008 with or without eckstein. but i think their shot at winning a championship in 2009 and beyond will be vastly better if they thank him for his contributions and let him sign elsewhere.
0 recs |
82 comments
Comments
Wow
by StLHugo on Oct 15, 2007 9:15 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Ditto the Wow.
by cardsgirl95 on Oct 15, 2007 9:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If
Looking at the mighty mites the Cards have on their roster (Ryan, Kennedy, Hoffpauir, and Miles) it seems to me that a 3 man rotation of Ryan, Kennedy and Hoffpauir could propbably replicate or better the middle infield production the Cards seek without the cost.
by JMedwick on Oct 15, 2007 9:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree
by Irishman on Oct 15, 2007 9:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
6 mill seems more likely
Yes, Eckstein has been a relative bargain but he is not likely to improve so his bargaining power is limited. Alex Gonzalez (two years younger) was only able to leverage a 3y-14 mil contract with a 6 mil mutual option. Vizquel a 3y-12.25 mil at his advanced age. The market for shortstops is very weak but I just think any contract over 3y-18 mil is highly unlikely.
by wannabeGedman on Oct 15, 2007 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bravo
I would offer him arbitration, though. I think I would actually offer arbitration to most of the FA this season. I think they'll all get better offers, go somewhere else, and give the Cardinals much needed draft picks to use on safe, low upside college pitchers. (I kid because I love.)
by the red baron on Oct 15, 2007 9:24 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
All?
So if we Offer Eckstein 3M in arbitration and he wants 5, using AZ's case he wins arbitration we are stuck with him for 5M, not bad but do we want to risk that too? I think for Eck we do Arbitration and probably for any other A or B but we don't do it for Wells.
by StLHugo on Oct 15, 2007 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i doubt eckstein would accept arbitration
by lboros on Oct 15, 2007 9:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's Why I Said "Most"
by the red baron on Oct 15, 2007 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Vaya Con Dios Eckstein
by AustinBOB on Oct 15, 2007 9:25 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree
Eck's stature is catching up with him. He seems to be having more and more injuries and a harder time healing. Injury rating metrics haven't really impressed me but I think he's rated high risk?
It seems a little too much money for a gamble on a small marginal win boost. Even when projecting Eck you have to guess him at 450 PAs and cross your fingers.
by RedbirdRay on Oct 15, 2007 9:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great work
As much as we all like him it is time to let him go.
Kennedy and Rolen will have to bounce back next year at the plate, and the Cards pick up a couple of pitchers. This team will compete for the divison title next year.
by nybirdfan on Oct 15, 2007 9:55 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Rockies Nickname
I think because they are named after a mountain range a name that uses that somehow would be interesting. Any ideas? Mine are all still forming.
by StLHugo on Oct 15, 2007 10:00 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Purple Jesus
by Phyrkrakr on Oct 15, 2007 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Denver Disciples
Since the Av's are the hockey team...maybe not.
by player2bnamedl8r on Oct 15, 2007 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
as a christian
by erik on Oct 15, 2007 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you
by cardsgirl95 on Oct 15, 2007 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
by yer dog first on Oct 15, 2007 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
by RosevilleRedbird on Oct 15, 2007 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is an awful suggestion but
The Unstoppable Purple Boulder
by lordsummer on Oct 15, 2007 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Since they are underdogs..
Rocky 7 ?
by RedbirdRay on Oct 15, 2007 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How
by rocKStark5 on Oct 15, 2007 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the yo adrians
by nycbirdo on Oct 15, 2007 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"The Purple Storm"
by Edbird on Oct 15, 2007 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
best one so far
by nybirdfan on Oct 15, 2007 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yup. Lake effect north of the Thruway.
by Edbird on Oct 16, 2007 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like that one best
by nycardfan on Oct 16, 2007 1:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
just wait a week
by ridgesee on Oct 16, 2007 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Riders of the Purple Sage....
by Ignatius J Reilly on Oct 15, 2007 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Arbitration...
I'd offer him arb...if he declines you get a pick, if not it's a one year deal. You really can't lose there.
If he declines I'd find a way to bring in Ben Zobrist (won't cost much in terms of talent) and throw him in the mix with Ryan and see who wins the job.
I certainly wouldn't be offering any kind of long term deal.
by bobbyballgame1 on Oct 15, 2007 10:12 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Not even arbitration
Many thanks to lboros and azruavatar for the statistical analysis.
by vinniefromjersey on Oct 15, 2007 11:09 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
We get additional draft picks
by sdrone on Oct 15, 2007 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe that's correct...
Diff question - what team would sign Eckstein knowing that they'd have to give up the 2 picks? I have to think that if we offered Eckstein arbitration, he'd end up back with us. Altogether, maybe not a bad idea.
by airhad on Oct 15, 2007 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Only one pick
I'd have to think that Eck's looking for a multi-year deal. He's had injury problems and would want to be assured multiple years.
If he agreed to one-year, though... That'd be great. We'd have another year to see what we have in Ryan and see what Martinez does at AAA, plus we'd be in play for the FA class of 09 shortstops.
by liam on Oct 15, 2007 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
IIRC
by airhad on Oct 15, 2007 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
compensation
Page 73 (page 85 of the PDF but labeled 73) describes the process.
A club only loses 1 draft pick if they sign a type A free agent but the club that loses the FA gains 2 draft picks. Also if the signing club is one of the worst 15 then their first pick is secured but they lose their second pick.
by StLHugo on Oct 15, 2007 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is this different
by airhad on Oct 15, 2007 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
by StLHugo on Oct 15, 2007 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow.
Still, what teams would actually be willing to give up a 1st rd pick for Eckstein? Or maybe a team would see Eck as a guy capable of helping with ticket sales...
by airhad on Oct 15, 2007 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
'08
by bobbyballgame1 on Oct 15, 2007 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
why is '08 a lost cause
This team will win 85-87 games next year.
by nybirdfan on Oct 15, 2007 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who's in control?
by lefty fan on Oct 15, 2007 11:13 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
in control
by yer dog first on Oct 15, 2007 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
great post
by cardsphan04 on Oct 15, 2007 11:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
My vote goes with lb
by ArkansasTravs on Oct 15, 2007 11:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
by cardsgirl95 on Oct 15, 2007 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, Suzuki in CF rated as -14 runs?
by sdrone on Oct 15, 2007 11:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He's one player that
by azruavatar on Oct 15, 2007 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's something
by plh903 on Oct 15, 2007 8:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My brain hurts...
by cardsrul on Oct 15, 2007 12:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It seems to me...
I'm trying to look at what Eckstein's options may be... what teams might see Eck as an upgrade? Faggedidaboud the Mets, Phils, Dodgers, Padres, Marlins, Rockies, D-Backs, and Buccos... all those teams either are set at short or are too far away from contending to consider signing Eck. (AL teams seem to go for power over all else, even at shortstop.)
Who's left? The Cubs? The Brewers? I could see Milwaukee wanting Eck as a backup for J.J. Hardy's inevitable injury in '08... but I don't see Eckstein wanting to take that option.
Offer him arbitration, or re-sign him to a one-year deal... that keeps your options open for seasons down the road.
by The Ol Goaler on Oct 15, 2007 12:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
the tigers need an ss badly
eckstein isn't a perfect fit for them, because fielding isn't his long suit and they'd like a good defender. but, as azru documented, he's still a league-avg player overall.
by lboros on Oct 15, 2007 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The White Sox
It seems to me that, by letting Eckstein go, we leave available the opportunity to add someone next year, while also providing $7 M more to use this year on pitching or a right-handed hitting OF. The cost of signing Eck is the lost draft picks, the lost opportunity to find out if Ryan can do it, and the lost player we could have added were it not for taking on his $7 M.
It should also be noted that our choices don't, necessarily, have to come down to Eckstein or Ryan. We could also try and see what kind of young SS is available on the trade market.
by chuckb on Oct 15, 2007 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
non-sabermetric hustlegrit aside,
by nycbirdo on Oct 15, 2007 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
An upgrade of 1 run?
by sdrone on Oct 15, 2007 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gotta come down..
What we really need more than anything is a GM, and preferably one who won't inflict 2007 Part II on us...
by guayzimi on Oct 15, 2007 1:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Pineiro Signed
STLTODAY.COM SPORTS
10/15/2007
The Cardinals signed free-agent pitcher Joel Pineiro to a two-year contract today. Financial terms of the deal were not immediately disclosed.
Pineiro gets 2-year deal from Cardinals
STLTODAY.COM SPORTS
10/15/2007
Pineiro, 29, was acquired from Boston at the July trading deadline for a player to be named later.
After six seasons as a starter for Seattle, Pineiro signed as a free agent with Boston but had been used exclusively by the Red Sox out of the bullpen (31 games, 1-1, 5.03 ERA) before being demoted to Class AAA Pawtucket.
The righthander made 11 starts for the Cardinals in August and September, going 6-4 with a 3.96 earned-run average in 63 innings pitched.
Pineiro has a career record of 65-60 with a 4.47 ERA.
by meat on Oct 15, 2007 1:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Hire a GM now...
This Mozeliak is the second coming of Dal Maxvill.
by guayzimi on Oct 15, 2007 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I put a diary up
by Hardcore Legend on Oct 15, 2007 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Depending on money
But from http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/B0CEC1C1A5F2934386257375005B923E ?OpenDocument
"Terms of the pending deal were not disclosed as Pineiro traveled to St. Louis to undergo the physical; however, the contract's annual average value is expected to exceed the one-year $4 million contract he signed with the Boston Red Sox last winter."
by StLHugo on Oct 15, 2007 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anything over $3.5M
by Zubin on Oct 15, 2007 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It the Pineiro deal is for anything more than
by JMedwick on Oct 15, 2007 2:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Supposedly
by Robb on Oct 15, 2007 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good Lord, I hope that is a typo.
by Zubin on Oct 15, 2007 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Open Letter to Mozeliak
by Zubin on Oct 15, 2007 3:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Every year...
At least we made Mariners fans happy...
http://ussmariner.com/stupidity-never-goes-out-of-style/
by Yellow Dog on Oct 15, 2007 4:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
right back at 'em
by 10worldchamps on Oct 15, 2007 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I found my own answer
by 10worldchamps on Oct 15, 2007 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OUTSTANDING work, az and lb
You each present your case very well, but I agree that the data really seems to support offering arbitration to Eck, after which it's mostly win/win. If he accepts one year, we're okay. If he walks, we're even better off. (And I'm sure some team's GM out there will offer him a 3-year deal based upon his 2 WS rings and 1 WS MVP...)
Personally, I'd prefer the draft picks and giving Ryan a crack at it, with an eye on the FA market after the 2008 season.
God help us if Mo give Eck a multi-year deal as a result of the current negotiations...
by Mr Clean on Oct 15, 2007 4:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd take Eckstein as a 2B
by JI on Oct 15, 2007 5:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Larry,
Any inside knowledge on whether it's a) their assessment of his ability, b) their assessment of his attitude, or c) none of the above?
Thanks, as usual,
Dave
by Sydney dave on Oct 15, 2007 6:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
dave, i agree w/ your assessment of
i'll see if i can find anything out. . . . .
by lboros on Oct 15, 2007 9:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Players are like stocks
Money invested in him will not provide a return.
Understand he is a fan favorite...but look, he throws like an OF as a SS, has a bad back, and doesn't get on base like a leadoff hitter should...
SELL.
Gordon Gecko for GM.
by bukowski on Oct 15, 2007 8:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Excellent work gentlemen
Especially with the potential for having a new crop of young'ns infusing the team in Rasmus, Perez and Hawksworth by then hopefully. 2009 could be a good mixture of veterans and youth that could give us the chance to make a real run then, not to mention bolster the farm system with some extra picks for 2010 and beyond.
by mtalken on Oct 15, 2007 8:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Great Eckstein analysis
I think the Cardinals will re-sign Eck at market value, but I don't think the primary motivation will be a lack of confidence in Brendan Ryan's abilities, or for that matter a bullish outlook on Eckstein's. In the wake of what has already been a tumultuous year and offseason, I simply think this organization will want to keep one of its most popular ballplayers on the team. Eckstein has been a core marketing vehicle; next to Pujols he's arguably the face of the Cardinals. That has value beyond wins and losses. I'd like to see us spend elsewhere, but I think we are looking at more Eck.
by jeftzuck on Oct 15, 2007 9:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Guys, outstanding.
by kwhiteside on Oct 15, 2007 11:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Eck should stay
'Nuff said!
by cdavis2488 on Oct 17, 2007 12:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs




















