Viva El Birdos: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: The Boxing Bulletin for Boxing Fans!

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:

  1. Make a list of shortstops that signed recent free agent contracts or extensions as they were approaching free agency.
  2. Evaluate the overall run contribution of each player using a weighted three-year average.
  3. Averaging the cost of each shortstop per run produced, calculate Eckstein's value based his run value.
I found 9 shortstops that were in the midst of recent contracts: Orlando Cabrera, Angels; John McDonald, Blue Jays; Edgar Renteria, Braves; Rafael Furcal, Dodgers; Omar Vizquel, Giants; Miguel Tejada, Orioles; Jimmy Rollins, Phillies; Alex Gonzalez, Reds; Julio Lugo, Red Sox. Without exploring the wisdom of each of these contracts, I used these players as the comparison pool for David Eckstein. There isn't anyone here that's a great individual comparison for Eckstein. As a contact hitter, he relies on his batting average to compensate for his modest walk rates and lack of power. Defensively he's neither a particular asset nor liability at shortstop, despite his small stature and unconventional throwing style. And, of course, no one touches his grit and hustle quotient. Using the entire pool of players though, we should capture some rough baseline for how much each run produced or saved is worth at shortstop.

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.

Star-divide

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:

[F]or me, the highlight was getting familiar with David Eckstein. After the signing, Cardinal fans were told we'd love his hustle and dedication and all that other bullshit, and I was fully prepared to reject the guy along with the l'il-scrapper storyline. I gradually learned from watching him play that he wasn't just some souped-up version of Rex Hudler. . . . .This guy could actually play, and the vaunted "hustle" was really a misnomer for intelligence and composure. In late July he executed a walkoff squeeze to beat the Cubs; about a week later he hit a walkoff grand slam to beat the Braves. A real winner; a champ.
i also sung eckstein's praises in a guest turn at Amazin Avenue (SB Nation's ny mets blog) last october, right before the 2006 nlcs. so you don't need to accuse me of trashing the guy, and you don't need to explain to me that eckstein's been a good player. i know he's been good. but i don't think he'll be as good in 2008-09 as he was in 2005-07. i also don't think he will outperform the immediately available alternative --- brendan ryan --- by enough of a margin to justify the cost of keeping him here.

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:

A .660 ops might be the best Ryan can muster in the big leagues, but he's already better than Eckstein with the glove -- much better, judging from what I saw. So if he can just come close to matching Eckstein's performance at the plate, his superior glove might make up most or all of the difference. And that's not even accounting for salary.

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.

ryan did, indeed, put up a.740 ops in the 2d half --- in the big leagues. so i'm standing by my assessment. now, to be clear, i don't take ryan's 2007 line at st louis (.289 / .347 / .406) as a true indicator of his abilities; i'm well aware that he played over his head, so no need to point that out to me. his minor-league translations suggest that he's capable of hitting about .260 in the majors, without much pop or on-base ability. a bit of context:
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  |  Comment 82 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Wow
I love this site.  You both just summed up the internal struggle I have been having.  Eckstein isn't "bad" but is he worth it?  I love the guy but is that enough?  If Kennedy doesn't turn it on next year will we just return the same bad offense?  I just don't know what to do offensively with this team right now.

by StLHugo on Oct 15, 2007 9:15 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Ditto the Wow.
Amazing info and perspective.  It leads me to conclude that the opinion I offered the other day is valid - one more year of Eck as a stopgap would be fine but any more than that and say "No thanks."  But as I already stated, his agent will probably go for a multi-year deal for the security it provides for David.  If that is the case, then the future cost for the Cards outweighs the marginal benefit in '08.  One year of Eckstein or give BRyan a shot.  

by cardsgirl95 on Oct 15, 2007 9:32 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

If
Eckstein will cost the Cards 8.5 million a season then he should not be resigned.

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
No way the Cards should pay Eckstein $8.5 mil/year.  I like the guy and all, but he isn't THAT much better than Ryan.  I would much rather see that money invested in a starting pitcher.

by Irishman on Oct 15, 2007 9:33 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

6 mill seems more likely
I understand how to derived that value but I see two flaws with your logic.  1. most of the shortstops were a younger than Eckstein by several years or coming off much better seasons in their contract years 2. Eckstein only made 4.5 million last year.
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.
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 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Bravo
to the both of you.  Wonderful analysis and debate.  That being said, I have to go with Lboros here.  Eckstein may not be a terrible value for what he's going to get paid; I still think there are much better options for this particular team at this particular time.  Ryan's skill set may be limited, but playing him presents enough opportunities that I would prefer to see him out there in 08.  

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.)  

The 2007 offseason: Butter? Or Steel?

by the red baron on Oct 15, 2007 9:24 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

All?
I would offer it only to those classified as type A or B, Kip Wells will probably not be an A or B and I wouldn't want to risk offering him arbitration.

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
but if he did, i'd be happy to have him back for 1 year --- even if the cost is $7.5m. my primary objective is to preserve opportunities and not make short-term decisions that gum up the roster long-term. a 1-year deal for eck would be a good short-term decision --- it would preserve the opportunities for 2009 and beyond.

by lboros on Oct 15, 2007 9:55 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's Why I Said "Most"
The 2007 offseason: Butter? Or Steel?

by the red baron on Oct 15, 2007 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Vaya Con Dios Eckstein
Thank you, David, and here's a nice parting gift for wearing the Birds on the Bat.  I think your potential for having another injury that funnels more cash to the DL for extended periods of time over the next 2 years is just too great.  Carrying Edmonds as our resident injury project is already enough of a drain.
"Requiescat In Pace - 2007 Zombie Cardinals"

by AustinBOB on Oct 15, 2007 9:25 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I agree
I feel there's a very real possibility we could pay the free agent money, but end up with the Ryan scenario anyway.

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
This is an example where the facts support the gut feeling. I think most of the comments here at VEB have been that it is not worth signing David. This in depth look has shown it ti be true.

 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
ESPN may be cursing the Rockies but they are on a "great nickname hunt" looking for the name to use to describe the Rockies akin to "The Big Red Machine".  http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs2007/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3064010

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
or, The Holy Rollers.

by Phyrkrakr on Oct 15, 2007 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Denver Disciples
or, for a non-religious theme, the Purple Avalanche.

Since the Av's are the hockey team...maybe not.

"The only thing you know about pitching is that you can't hit it." Bob Gibson to Tim McCarver

by player2bnamedl8r on Oct 15, 2007 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

as a christian
i take exception to that sort of remark...i know they have said some stuff even i personally find sort of flaky, but can we not mock their beliefs?

by erik on Oct 15, 2007 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Thank you
for saying that, erik.

by cardsgirl95 on Oct 15, 2007 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

+1
yes, thank you erik.  I too am a Christian and am un-appreciative of those remarks/views.
Somewhere the real Cardinals front office is being held hostage.

by yer dog first on Oct 15, 2007 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

agreed
please be respectful, folks.

by lboros on Oct 15, 2007 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

+1
thanks erik
When cheese gets its picture taken, what does it say?

by RosevilleRedbird on Oct 15, 2007 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

This is an awful suggestion but
to inspire someone to come up with one that doesn't bite:
The Unstoppable Purple Boulder
"Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals." --Churchill

by lordsummer on Oct 15, 2007 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Since they are underdogs..
Can't we just call them

Rocky 7 ?

by RedbirdRay on Oct 15, 2007 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

How
bout Rocky 6 since we all pretend that abortion of a movie Rocky 5 never existed.
"How depressing is it being you? Would you equate it to being a lifelong Cubs fan?"

by rocKStark5 on Oct 15, 2007 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

the yo adrians
Hello, playoff watching

by nycbirdo on Oct 15, 2007 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

"The Purple Storm"
You know, sort of a play on The Perfect Storm.

by Edbird on Oct 15, 2007 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

best one so far
they did come out of no where. Sorta like the lake effect white outs around here. how about The Purple Blizzard?

by nybirdfan on Oct 15, 2007 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yup. Lake effect north of the Thruway.
Liverpool - Oswego express every day.  Many a white-knuckler during those white outs!  How funny that a fellow CNYer responded.

by Edbird on Oct 16, 2007 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I like that one best
it just fits if you've ever been caught up in those storms.

by nycardfan on Oct 16, 2007 1:53 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

How about
just calling them the Rockies?

by cardsrul on Oct 15, 2007 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

How 'bout
the Purple Pennant Eaters?

by spants on Oct 15, 2007 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

just wait a week
and you can call them the purple indian eaters....hopefully.

by ridgesee on Oct 16, 2007 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

now
why didn't I think of that.

by ridgesee on Oct 16, 2007 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Arbitration...
That seems the best route.  While Eck may be worth 7M a year, given the current state of the club, I think those funds are better spent elsewhere.

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.

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

by bobbyballgame1 on Oct 15, 2007 10:12 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Not even arbitration
     Even arbitration would lessen the ability of the team to spend where it needs to spend- pitching and defense. The lesson of the Edmonds contract (along with many other lesser contracts wasted on declining veterans, e.g. Spivey, P. Wilson, et.al.) needs to be learned. Ryan may be the shortstop even if Eckstein is signed.
     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 offering arbitration, don't we?

by sdrone on Oct 15, 2007 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I believe that's correct...
Unless there was a change with the recent newer collective bargaining agreement, that's the model that's been in effect for years.

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
If it's a top 15 team (finish in 2007), they lose their first rounder; if it's a bottom 15 team they give up their second round pick. We'd also get an extra pick in the supplementary round.

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
The Giants go against the grain and usually prefer to give up the draft picks. Otherwise, teams these days are savvy enough (usually) to make better FA decisions. That said, we'll still see the occasional bad FA deal. So maybe someone would go after Eckstein for a multi year deal. The Tigers were mentioned by Lboros as a possibility. Dombrowski has shown no fear in locking up veterans past their prime (Irod, Magglio, Sheffield), so maybe he'd be willing to do it.

by airhad on Oct 15, 2007 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

We agree
I wouldn't be at all surprised if another team offers him multiple years. We should offer arbitration and a one-year contract and see whether he'd rather play here for another year. If he leaves, fine; if he stays, fine.

by liam on Oct 15, 2007 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

compensation
http://mlbplayers.mlb.com/pa/pdf/cba_english.pdf
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
than it used to be? Because this system actually makes sense.

by airhad on Oct 15, 2007 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yes
it was changed last offseason when the new bargaining agreement was signed, really this new agreement made a lot of positive changes.

by StLHugo on Oct 15, 2007 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wow.
Kudos to whomever was responsible for that change. That's a significant improvement in the compensation system.

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
'08 is probably a lost cause anyway.  A 1 year deal wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, and getting a supplemental draft pick would certainly help.
"I'm hungry. Not for food. Just for baseball" Amaury Cazana Marti

by bobbyballgame1 on Oct 15, 2007 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

why is '08 a lost cause
I do not buy it for a minute. The outfield will be stronger, and so will the infield defense. The bull pen is a damn good one. The offense will pick up some. The division will still be week. All we need to do is sure up the pitching.

 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?
If Eckstein is given a multi-year deal, then this tells me there are a lot more problems with the Cardinals management than we have already seen this off season. Resigning Eck smacks of a Walt/Tony move that is short-sided. If Dewitt has a clear vision on building from within, then I can't see how he would let this happen. I agree with lboros, this team might compete in 2008 but it needs to save its resources and plan on being a real contender in 2009.

by lefty fan on Oct 15, 2007 11:13 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

in control
I'm not exactly sure who is running this club, but for some reason, they decided to give Joel P. a 13 mil, two yr contract.  That is a bit more than I would have offered.  gah!
Somewhere the real Cardinals front office is being held hostage.

by yer dog first on Oct 15, 2007 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

great post
I love eck but its time to go.  The idea of getting more prospects alone makes me think he needs to move on. I appreciate everything he has done for us but we need to rebuild.  I understand that we would get more draft picks but does anyone have any more details on that?  I never understood the class A thing and so forth.  Anyways to win in 08' would be great but I would rather have consecutive winning seasons starting in 09'
2/3rd's of the earth is covered by water, the other third is coverd by Jim Edmonds

by cardsphan04 on Oct 15, 2007 11:14 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

My vote goes with lb
Offer Eckstein arbitration to preserve the draft picks and you either have him back for one year only, thus still letting us go after a FA SS for 2009, or he walks, we get the draft picks, and BRyan is the starting SS.  If he struggles, we've always got Miles! <ducking for cover>.

by ArkansasTravs on Oct 15, 2007 11:31 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Agreed
One more year of Eck OR the draft picks is a good way to go.  

by cardsgirl95 on Oct 15, 2007 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wow, Suzuki in CF rated as -14 runs?
I certainly wouldn't have guess that.  But I've never watched him play.  Just listened to ESPN rave about him.

by sdrone on Oct 15, 2007 11:56 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

He's one player that
the defensive metrics don't get along on.

by azruavatar on Oct 15, 2007 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's something
with Stats and BIS data. One loves him, and the other doesn't. I forget which systems use which off the top of my head though.

by plh903 on Oct 15, 2007 8:54 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

My brain hurts...
my eyes, too. As Yoda would say, "sign or sign not, just do."

by cardsrul on Oct 15, 2007 12:36 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

It seems to me...
that a legitimate sub-set of the "Deal Or No Deal" scenario with Eckstein would be... sign him for how long? Would Eck take a one-year deal, or would somebody else be willing to sweeten the pot?

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.

"In this game, don't nobody know nuthin' about nuthin'." -- attributed to Lawrence Peter "Yogi" Berra

by The Ol Goaler on Oct 15, 2007 12:47 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

the tigers need an ss badly
carlos guillen can't play the position anymore. they pursued jack wilson aggressively at the deadline, but the deal fell apart.

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
are supposed to be interested in Eck as well.  And there always seems to be someone who pops up.  

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,
the red sox might be willing to take a flier on eck's obp as an upgrade over julio lugo.
Hello, playoff watching

by nycbirdo on Oct 15, 2007 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

An upgrade of 1 run?
at perhaps $500k less?  Then they'd have to figure out how to dump Lugo.

by sdrone on Oct 15, 2007 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Gotta come down..
on lboros' side. Even if Ryan isn't ready, Eck isn't going to make the difference in '08 and he might bring a draft choice or two if we let him walk...

What we really need more than anything is a GM, and preferably one who won't inflict 2007 Part II on us...

Ease LaDunketty out gently, thank him profusely, and... Hire Antonetti!!!

by guayzimi on Oct 15, 2007 1:09 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Pineiro Signed
Pineiro gets 2-year deal from Cardinals
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.

youneverknow

by meat on Oct 15, 2007 1:16 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Hire a GM now...
now now now...

This Mozeliak is the second coming of Dal Maxvill.

Ease LaDunketty out gently, thank him profusely, and... Hire Antonetti!!!

by guayzimi on Oct 15, 2007 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I put a diary up
I like the signing.
"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 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Depending on money
This could be a great deal.

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
is a bad deal.  I don't like this much.
The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!

by Zubin on Oct 15, 2007 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

It the Pineiro deal is for anything more than
5 or 6 million a season, then it is a waste of money.

by JMedwick on Oct 15, 2007 2:24 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Supposedly
$13 million over 2 years.  Seams like a steep price to me.

by Robb on Oct 15, 2007 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good Lord, I hope that is a typo.
I was thinking $6M total for 2 years... Yikes!
The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!

by Zubin on Oct 15, 2007 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Open Letter to Mozeliak
Please for the love of all that is red-feathered and baseball in this world, read this before you ink Eckstein to a ridiculous deal.
The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!

by Zubin on Oct 15, 2007 3:36 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Every year...
The price of mediocre pitching goes up. Makes we want to hang on to Reyes.  This club needs to figure out how to internally develop pitchers.

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
To this I respond: JEFF WEAVER made how much for them last year?

by 10worldchamps on Oct 15, 2007 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I found my own answer
$8.3 million to go 7-13 with a 6.20 ERA.  

by 10worldchamps on Oct 15, 2007 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

OUTSTANDING work, az and lb
Awesome stuff.

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...

There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

by Mr Clean on Oct 15, 2007 4:19 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I'd take Eckstein as a 2B
but not as a SS, his defense at short is awful.
Cardinal fan from Washington

by JI on Oct 15, 2007 5:58 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Larry,
Reading between the lines, the management (OK, who knows who that is know that Walt is gone) doesn't seem to think that Ryan can be a full time major leaguer.

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
the management's assessment . . . . . they seem pretty unconvinced he can play. and i don't know why, frankly. he's still got a lot to prove, but i didn't see anything that suggested to me he flat-out can't play.

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
and reading this post - I'm convinced the time to get out on Eckstein is now.

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.

there is no secret weapon...there is only Oquendo.

by bukowski on Oct 15, 2007 8:03 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Excellent work gentlemen
I think the two parts that are the tie-breaker in my mind are the two top 100 picks and the chance to go after someone for 2009 that will be much more of a difference maker.

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
Thanks for taking the time to break this issue down, it's one of the most important facing the Cardinals this offseason.

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.
This was excellent analysis on the part of both. Some of the best I've seen on my year at this site. Kudos, gents.

by kwhiteside on Oct 15, 2007 11:52 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Eck should stay
Eck should stay.

'Nuff said!

by cdavis2488 on Oct 17, 2007 12:51 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the Internet's #1 St. Louis Cardinals blog.
Start posting about the Cardinals »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Avatar_small
How to EASILY make tables for Fanposts
1753738656_110919ebe9_o_small
2010 Hot Stove Post #1: CHONE hitter projections

Recent FanPosts

Arch_small
Number 15
Small
Some thoughts on Holliday (and potential replacements)
Small
Ok let me try this again...
Knights-09_small
Disenchanted Blue Jays Fan Looking For A New Team
Painterlance_small
The Holliday Dilemma (Rocks Fan Perpsective)
375830-r1-025-11_011_small
Anybody read Bob Gibson's new book yet?
Flanders_small
Yadi2first
Small
40 Man Question..

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Jack_benny_small DanUpBaby

Editors

Bender1_small azruavatar

Adam1_small chuckb

Kid-a-bear_small the red baron