Viva El Birdos: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Last Jannero Pargo Post Bar-right-arrows

A Question for Those Who Hate the Piniero Signing

100_0005_tiny by kindred on

I understand the frustration with the Piniero signing. I share some of it. But I've been trained as an economist, and we have in rule in that profession: when asked whether a given economic decision is wise, the first response should always be "compared to what?"

This seems to be the most pressing question. If the Cards didn't sign Piniero (at a below-market rate, no less), what would you have liked to see? The other options seem to be:

  1. Hope for the best with Mulder, and give 60+ starts to Reyes/Thompson/Wellemeyer/Maroth.
  2. Hope for the best with Mulder, and sign somebody else, like Carlos Silva (presumably for a lot more money and years than Piniero, plus foregone draft picks), plus give 30+ starts to Reyes/Thompson/Wellemeyer/Maroth
  3. Assume the worst for Mulder, and be prepared to give 90+ starts to Reyes/Thompson/Wellemeyer/Maroth.
  4. Assume the worst for Mulder, sign somebody like Silva, and give 60+ starts to Reyes/Thompson/Wellemeyer/Maroth.
  5. Throw '08 away, and hope for the best in '09.
  6. Trade Duncan for a pitcher (e.g. Noah Lowry), who may not be appreciably better than Piniero, but will be cheaper.
As we should have learned by now, counting on Mulder to be healthy and/or good is a fool's game. It seems equally dubious to assume that Reyes will suddenly materialize into a quality MLB pitcher (at least in StL), that Thompson will out-perform his peripherals, Wellemeyer will be able to pitch into (much less through) the 5th inning, or that Maroth can get anybody out at all.

This also disregards the likelihood of injury, which is a strong possibility. Mulder is an obvious candidate, but Looper's arm may have taken on extra strain this year, Wellemeyer was injured for part of last season, and Wainwright has never thrown as many innings as he did in '07. This staff looks very fragile to me, and has no in-house replacement options.

There is another option, of course: converting Franklin into a starter. he might provide similar production to Piniero at a lower cost. This is, by the way, still an option; he would simply take 30 starts away from Reyes/Thompson/Wellemeyer/Maroth.  We could certainly use both, if they could each provide 180 league-average innings (or something close to it). we'd have a very-average starting staff, but there are certainly worse fates.

Not only that, but signing Piniero does not preclude a trade or other signing. It is still possible that Duncan could be traded. Several teams, like SanFran, have a need for OBP and power in the OF position, and some young pitching to trade. if such a move could be followed by trading Reyes + mid-level prospect to Philly for Bourne (or a 3-team trade with Tor.?), then several birds are killed. the Piniero trade doesn't make this impossible. in fact, it makes it more likely, since Reyes becomes a bit more expendable.

it is still possible for the Cards to contend in '08 in the NL Central, esp. if Rolen rebounds, we get any production out of 2B, Ankiel contributes at least 80% of his Aug./Sept.'07 level, we get something approaching league-average pitching, and we stay relatively healthy (i.e. no long DL stint for Pujols).

in my opinion, Piniero moves us closer to that goal, not further away. and his signing doesn't mortgage the future. yes, it's an uninspired signing, but that doesn't mean its impact won't be positive.

so I ask: what should the Cardinals have done, rather than signing Piniero? Or, if you prefer, what should they do now that they have signed him?

0 recs | Comment 59 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

I would
have moved Franklin to the rotation, sign someone to a 1 year contract, and filled out the rotation w/ some combination of Reyes, Thompson, Wellemeyer, minor leaguers who emerge during the course of the season.  The major point would be to prepare for '09, however.  We need to put together as competitive a team as possible in '08 w/o sacrificing anything in '09.

This team needs to be built w/ a long-term purpose.  A 1 year signing of Pineiro (or some other, Pineiro-like pitcher) would be just fine.  Who knows?  Maybe we could hang close enough to contend when Carp returns late next year or Mulder becomes healthy or something.  But we can't really count on either next year (as you said).  

So '09 (and beyond) should've been the goal and the Pineiro signing indicates that it isn't.  My solution would NOT have made the Cards better in '08 and that's perfectly fine.  W/o Carp (and w/ major holes in CF and in the rotation), we're going to struggle anyway.  But this organization needs a long-term perspective -- not a short-term, win-now perspective.  The time for that has passed (and it worked, I should add; but the time has still come and gone).

by houstoncardinal on Oct 16, 2007 11:21 PM EDT   0 recs

i agree...
... the focus should be for '09. but i don't see how signing Piniero works against that. we didn't sacrifice anything but money for Piniero, so our chances in '09 haven't taken a hit (unless, of course, you believe that a better pitcher will be available for less than $6.5mn AAV next offseason).

after all, in '09 we won't have Mulder or Looper, and it's questionable what sort of pitcher Carp will be then. It's highly doubtful that three or four ML-ready starters will emerge from the minors by then (somewhat doubtful that any will be ready), and it's doubtful that top-line FA starters will be available at a price we can pay (plus the draft picks).

But even if we do get a top-line starter plus one pitcher from the minors, there's still at least one big hole in the rotation. So, if Piniero can manage to be league-average, or even somewhat close to it, he will be a positive asset in '09. league-average pitching is going for $10mn+yr now; in two years it might be substantively more than that. it's a distinct -- and realistic -- possibility that we'll be paying Piniero roughly half his market value over '08'09.

that's Piniero's realistic upside: Suppan-like performance at below-market price (like Suppan was from '04-'06), which could help us contend in '08 and '09. the potential downside is... we spent $13mn during rebuilding years on a subpar pitcher. since it ain't my money, and it likely isn't going to a more productive use (since there isn't one available), it seems a worthwhile gamble to me.

by kindred on Oct 16, 2007 11:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

re #6 in the main post
kindred, i'm glad you mentioned the duncan-for-noah lowry proposal. i think that idea makes an interesting compare-contrast to the joel pineiro re-signing.

first of all, the idea wasn't duncan for lowry straight up; the idea was duncan and (say) reyes for lowry and a young pitcher with upside --- correia, sanchez, somebody like that.

second, if we just compare lowry to pineiro even up, i think lowry is definitely a better option. he has a much better recent track record than pineiro --- he has been better than league-average for 3 of the last 4 years, while pineiro has been well below average for the last 4 years except one 11-start stretch. ZIPs projects lowry to have a 4.32 era next year; it projects pineiro to 5.28. lowry is also (as you acknowledge) a lot cheaper than pineiro --- inked for two years at $6.8m guaranteed (or less than pineiro's 2d year alone), with an option for a 3d year at $6.5m. basically, the cards could have lowry for 3 years at the same price that it costs to hire pineiro for 2. lowry has a better track record, a better projection, and costs way less money; no-brainer. lowry's a better option.

but more important, my scenario included the addition of a second pitcher, who is young and cost-controlled. this guy would replace reyes (also young and cost-controlled, but a washout in st louis) with somebody who might fit better into our system, and address the lack of a ready-for-prime-time starter at triple A. the cards' rotation would no longer be a patchwork affair that's rebuilt every off-season with expensive scrap-heapers (and rebuilt again every summer with DFAs). it would have year-to-year continuity and depth for several years into the future, by which time (we hope) the farm system will be ready to supplement the major-league roster. and because the rotation is affordable, there'd be plenty of $$$ left over to hire a free-agent replacement for duncan.

now, perhaps the giants wouldn't have agreed to the trade i proposed. but that's the type of trade the cardinals ought to be looking for. i urge folks to re-read that post and ask themselves if that option would be better than just shrugging and re-signing pineiro.

unfortunately, a trade of that type is less likely to happen now that the team has committed to pineiro --- and that's where opportunity cost comes in. at the very least, the cards should have explored the trade market before committing to a bad pitcher.

by lboros on Oct 17, 2007 9:03 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

clarification re lowry's salary
his inked for the next two years at a combined $6.8m ---- $2.3m in 2008, and $4.5m in 2009.

by lboros on Oct 17, 2007 9:04 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Preach!
My feelings exactly, lboros.  Its not necessarily the Pineiro contract per se -- its that the Pineiro contract is evidence of the direction the team is heading, ("stay the course") as opposed to where it should be heading.

by Ray Lankford on Oct 17, 2007 11:18 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

counter-point...
... No, you wouldn't be getting Lowry for the price of Piniero's second year; you'd be getting Lowry for the price of Piniero's second year + several years of Chris Duncan making the minimum or close to it. Also, as you've mentioned, Lowry's isn't a very good pitcher. his peripherals are all in noticeable decline, he's got injury concerns, and he pitches in an extreme pitcher's park. Sounds kinda like Mike Maroth to me. IF we could get another valuable MLB-ready pitcher, then the scales might tip for me. but i tossed onto my post because he's probably available; no other young pitchers who are any good are. It's highly doubtful to me that the Cards could get Lowry + Coreia/Sanchez for Duncan, even if they tossed Reyes in too (can't trade Ryan, 'cos he's our starting SS now). you acknowledged in your previous post that this scenario isn't particularly likely. but i'll ignore that, for now.

so let's suppose that happens, and we didn't sign Piniero. in that scenario, the situation has reversed, and we're back to the '05 off-season: we have a hole in the outfield, and nobody ready to fill it. our rotation is now Wainwright/Looper/Lowry/Correia/Thompson for '08, plus we've got $13mn extra over the next two years available for a corner outfielder with OBP and SLG skills (fielding optional, but recommended). who could that be? well, back in '05 we signed Encarnacion and everybody hated it. this year, it doesn't look there are any better short-term options. so, that $6.5mn/year would like go to somebody like Encarnacion (or worse; Jose Guillen is expected to get 4/$40), because the Cards don't want to go the 5-6 years it'll take to get Rowand or Hunter.

or, of course, we could do both: trade Duncan, and  give 60+ starts to Coreia/Lowry, sign Piniero and give him Thompson's 30 starts, sign a somebody approximate to Encarnacion in FA (or just stick with Ludwick/Edmonds/Ankiel).

does this improve the team? well... maybe. Lowry might be better than Piniero (he's got a better longer-term track record, but Piniero is healthy; Lowry might not be), but it's going to be a marginal difference. Coreia/Sanchez will be an upgrade over Thompson or whoever. but now you've lost Duncan, and don't have a replacement for him. You also are completely depending on Ankiel to actually be an ML OF, and you don't have a LF at all.

in short, i'm not sure you're proposal is any better, even if your caveats (Lowry stays at average, Coreia/Sanchez pitch effectively for a full season in a rotation, Sabean agrees to this deal) hold true.

meanwhile, while waiting for this trade to get hammered out (or not), Piniero has hit the open market, realized he can get 3/$25 or 4/$40, and has spun out of our range, so we get nothing. so that's another upside to Piniero: we now know we've got him. nothing else is guaranteed, but this now is.

by kindred on Oct 17, 2007 11:37 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree, but....
One thing to consider is that pitching costs more than hitting generally, so needing to go out and get an outfield bat may cost us some money, but comparing a league-average hitter to the league-average pitcher, I'm guessing we're talking a big difference between the two in favor of the hitter being cheaper.

by mtalken on Oct 17, 2007 5:48 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

we're not...
... we're talking about a league-average pitcher vs. an above-league-average hitter.

by kindred on Oct 17, 2007 8:07 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

kindred
first of all, we have an honest diff'nce of opinion about pineiro / lowry. neither one is a world-beater, but i think lowry's success rests on a far more solid foundation than pineiro's --- and that includes the peripherals, which (aside from k/bb) strongly favor lowry. noah's got a better opp avg and opp slg, a far lower hr rate, a more favorable strand rate, a more even home/road split (pineiro's era was more than a run higher on the road than at home). his stats bear no similarity to mike maroth's. i don't think that comparison's meaningful.

second, i think your speculation that pineiro had a chance of getting 3/$25m or 4/$40m contract is off base. if he did have a chance to make that much, then why on earth would he settle for 2/$13.5m?? his agent can't be that incompetent. if the sort of market you're describing had even a modest chance of developing, pineiro wouldn't have taken this deal. he and his agent must have believed it was close to the best offer he could get, so he took it.

duncan will be eligible for arbitration in 2009 and will be making well beyond the minimum. he'll still be a great value, but "close to to the minimum" isn't right. i don't think replacing him will be as difficult as you do. there are loads of outfielders on the market this year, and not a whole lot of teams who will be looking. a good crop of minor-leaguers has arrived throughout baseball, which drives down the value of the veterans. if the cardinals are patient and wait it out, they will probably get a good player for way below market. remember what happened to ronnie belliard last year? he lost the game of musical chairs and had to sign for $500K. there's gonna be one or more outfielders in that position this winter.

re the trade scenario, i never said it was unlikely; i think you misread the post. and if you think lowry is so terrible and duncan is such a steal . . . why wouldn't the giants make that trade? you seem to be saying the trade would be highly advantageous for the giants, but the giants would never make it.

since the disagreement is basically over pineiro's ability relative to lowry's, i don't think we've got much chance of reconciling our views. but whatever the merits of this particular option (ie, duncan-for-lowry), i don't accept the premise of the diary, which is basically that every other available option was worse than re-signing pineiro. i don't think the cardinals have even begun to explore their options, and that's why i'm not wild about the signing.

by lboros on Oct 17, 2007 6:36 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

i don't think we're so far apart...
... i think that Lowry's performance over two of the past three years was far better than Piniero's. the difference comes when we look forward.

Piniero's ERA+ this season, including his time in Boston, was 102, which isn't much worse than Lowry's career 108. Lowry's WHIP has increased every year he's been in the bigs, and was more than 15 base points higher than Piniero's this season (again, including his numbers with Boston). Piniero's league-adjusted ERA this year was actually slightly lower than Lowry's. In an 8-year career, Piniero has had two truly bad seasons, and he was playing for a last-place team in the AL during that time. the other 6 seasons, he's ranged from exceptionally-good to slightly-below average. his track record isn't noticeably worse than Lowry's. their career stats (WHIP, ERA+) are almost identical.

as for Piniero's value... i'll guess we'll have to see what Lohse gets. but you think 3/$25 is unreasonable? Marquis got 3/$21 last year, and he has never been the pitcher that Piniero has been in the past, and was coming off a much, much, much worse season.

but my main point was that signing Piniero doesn't preclude trading for Lowry. the two actions may be taken simultaneously. nothing about Piniero's contract makes it more difficult to acquire Lowry, unless you think the Cards have decided that they're done improving the rotation this year and will stick with Reyes/Thompson. this doesn't seem true, judging by the recent comments coming out of the front office. they are clearly still in the market for another pitcher.

later, i think you've somehow misconstrued my words. perhaps i wasn't clear. i was agreeing with you when you wrote "i think duncan's worth more than that, and i wouldn't make that deal --- but if they'd accept ankiel plus a sweetener or two instead, i would pull the trigger. i don't think the giants will have to sell lowry that cheap, however. they'll surely get a better offer." you then proposed that, to make the deal more even, the Giants add Correia/Sanchez and the Cards toss in Reyes. But why would the Giants want to do that (assuming that Correia and Sanchez have as much potential value as you make out)? If they are trying to get rid of Lowry, what use could they have for Reyes? why not just trade Lowry to another team for an OF straight up (i'm sure takers are out there), and use Correia/Sanchez in the rotation?

what i was meaning to say, was that despite the fact that SanFran might get the better of the Cards in a Duncan-for-Lowry trade (which you wrote first), they might still be able to attract more than that from other teams. Lowry and Willis look like the two youngish pitchers most likely to be traded this offseason. if the Marlins demand a huge ransom for Willis (which seems likely), then teams may go towards Lowry instead, which would drive up his price. Duncan is just about the only player on our roster with any significant positive trade value, but other teams have much fuller cupboards. it's possible that Duncan is "worth more" than Lowry alone, at least to the Cardinals, but that Lowry could fetch more from other teams. Tampa Bay has a surplus of young OFs; so does AZ, and a few other teams. these guys will all be looking for low-cost pitching and could have more to offer.

i also disagree that replacing Duncan via the FA market will be relatively easy. getting some OF will be relatively easy, perhaps even getting one at below-market prices. but not a guy who has OPS+ of 126 thus far in his career. there aren't that many of those out there. as i mentioned, most people seem to assume that Jose Guillen will be getting 4/$40, or something to that effect. his OPS+ this year was 118, which is well above his career average. even Encarnacion got $5mn/year two years ago, despite having a slightly below-average OPS+. Having Duncan for the minimum in '08, plus an arb-contract in '09 saves the team a lot of money. So, in this discussion, it does seem proper to plug the cost of replacing him into the equation, if you even could. Hell, even Hunter and Rowand have lower OPS+ over their careers. i understand that their fielding give them a lot more value, but we need offense, not CF defense. there aren't a lot of pure offensive OFs out there who can match Duncan's level of production. unless you want to sign Bonds, that is.

and i'd flip the question around to you: if you think Duncan's equivalent can be easily (and cheaply) found in the FA market, then why wouldn't the Giants just go that route, instead of giving up Lowry?

i'm not trying to start anything. i think a Duncan-for-Lowry trade (or something similar) could still be in the Cardinals interest. but i don't see how that is made less likely by signing Piniero.  

by kindred on Oct 17, 2007 8:06 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

oh, forgot...
... you mentioned that his agent must be an idiot to take this deal if Piniero truly could get more. well, perhaps, but that doesn't make it not so. remember Jeff Weaver the past two seasons? he took a "showcase" contract in the hopes of getting a bigger deal later. so did Kip Wells last year. it may not be a wise strategy, but it still happens. a two-year deal for Piniero kinda of hedges his bets: if he performs well, he'll get a big deal at the end of it. if not, he's guaranteed two years with a decent payday.

but i certainly believe that Piniero could've at least gotten a 3rd year at $6.5mn. at least that much.

by kindred on Oct 17, 2007 8:12 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

i'm glad you mentioned weaver
because all the same arguments being made about pineiro today were being made about weaver at this time last year ---- he's a league-average starter, good innings eater, etc etc. if the cards had signed him for 2/$13.5m, everybody would have applauded that as a wise move ---- a bargain in a crazy market.

and here's the kicker --- his signing probably would have sent wainwright back to the bullpen.

so we'd be entering this season with jeff weaver returning in our rotation at $8m, and without wainwright entrenched in the rotation.

fortunately, they avoided making that mistake w/ weaver (who went 7-13, 6.20). the pineiro signing? we'll see how it turns out.

by lboros on Oct 17, 2007 8:21 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Gotta call you on one thing:
I'm not sure I'm buying the bringing up of Wainwright for relevance issues.  I agree that it might have done all that you just said.

However, unless someone in AAA or on the current roster is someone like Wainwright, a prospect who would be blocked by the signing of a league-average (or worse) veteran, then the Weaver comparison isn't good on that level.

You can still compare their contracts, performance, and about anything else, but the Wainwright comparison doesn't really work, unless of course you think Hawksworth has a good chance to make the rotation next year.  Obviously if that's the case, then it's a much better comparison.

by mtalken on Oct 17, 2007 10:32 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

it's relevant because
the contract runs for two years. by the spring of 2009, when pineiro enters the 2d year of the deal (owed $8m), there's a high likelihood the farm system will have at least one major-league-ready pitcher who's better than joel, but is squeezed off the roster / out of the rotation because of him. prime candidates including boggs, hawksworth, pj walter, and garcia.  

and there's a not-insignificant chance that one of them might be better than joel as soon as midseason this year. they've all mastered double A; if any one of them has a strong first half, he might be a superior option to joel.

by lboros on Oct 17, 2007 11:02 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Pineiro, a bad pitcher?
Larry,
  I accept that the trade with the Giants you have proposed would be a better alternative than the re-signing of Pineiro, taken in isolation.  However, you admit that you have no idea whether the Giants would be interested in such a deal. Moreover, for all you know, that or a similar deal might already have been proposed and rejected.  You simply assume that the possibility was overlooked or in the mad rush to sign Pineiro.  What seems obvious to me, on the other hand, is that the Cardinals, thinking more of Pineiro than you do, took advantage of the opportunity to lock him up rather than risk losing him on the open market.  I see no reason why that move would preclude your deal with the Giants, or a similar deal, if there really is an opprtunity along those lines.  I do think that concluding such a deal should be left to the new general manager, while the Pineiro signing simply couldn't wait because of the time frame involved.  You may disagree.  It's disappointing, however, to see you reverting to denigrating Pineiro as a "bad pitcher" once again, instead of the more enlighted stance you took more recently: that your problem was not with the Pineiro signing per se so much as with what it suggested about the team's lack of long-term vision.  If Pineiro is really a bad pitcher, I hate to think what that makes Maroth, Wells, and, dare I say it, Reyes.  After watching those guys get pounded all year, Peineiro was a breath of fresh air, and I, for one, am delighted to have him back.  They can start working on your trade in a week or two!

by MikeG on Oct 17, 2007 6:36 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

mike, he was a bad pitcher
from 2004 through mid 2007 --- would you agree with that?
  1. 4.67 era, 92 era+
  2. 5.62 era, 77 era+
  3. 6.36 era, 68 era+
2007 (bosox only): 5.03 era, 91 era+

at which point he was DFA'd --- which usually only happens to bad pitchers.

those stats cover 3 1/2 seasons and more than 500 innings. in his most recent 64 innings, he put up a decent era --- 3.96. those 64 innings clearly made a very powerful impression on you, and you consider them to be a more accurate indicator of pineiro's abilities than the 500+ innings that came before. i don't feel that way. to me, he's a #5 starter until proven otherwise.

i don't know if that's an "enlightened" view or not. i think it's a realistic view.

by lboros on Oct 17, 2007 8:11 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Repeat of 07 Rotation
Didn't the Cards do the one year signing (Wells), plug-in reliever (Looper) and throw in a AAA pitcher (Reyes) last off season with Wells?

The 2 year signing isn't blocking the way for home grown talent because the contract to my knowledge didn't include a no trade clause.  If Pineiro continues to be average in 08 and the Cards need to make room for a budding star in 09, trade Pineiro by eating some of his salary for more talent to develop.

by ubeddie on Oct 17, 2007 12:03 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I hate to keep doing this
and maybe it's nitpicking, but Pineiro is not an average pitcher.  He is below average.  

As to him being tradeable, b/c of the backloaded contract, he's owed $7.5 M in 2009 which makes it more difficult to trade him.  If he could be traded in '09, that would be great but it's tough for me to fathom trading a below-average pitcher who is owed $7.5 M on his contract.  If we had frontloaded it ($7.5 this year and $5.5 next year), he would have been much more tradeable.  He'd have been overpaid this year, yes, but tradeable next year.  Now he's overpaid next year (and probably this year also, though less so) and nearly untradeable.

by houstoncardinal on Oct 17, 2007 8:12 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

this is the crux of it
think "jeff weaver." after weaver's performance last october, there were people willing to give him carte blanche --- like, how could the cards survive without him? it turned out october was a small sample size and not illustrative of his true skill level; the cards were wise to set a price and stick to it. i wish they'd used similar wisdom w/ pineiro.

by lboros on Oct 17, 2007 9:07 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Tale of two pitchers...
Weaver's April, May, Sept..

Gms ERA W/L WHIP K/9 K/BB
12 7.69 1-9 1.47 3.2 2.2

June, July, August

Gms ERA W/L WHIP K/9 K/BB
15 3.60 6-4 1.23 5.1 2.7

by cardzfanbub on Oct 17, 2007 9:36 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

you could do the same sort of split
for wells or reyes

reyes first 11 starts: 0-9, 6.64 era
reyes last 9 starts: 2-5, 4.47 era

wells first 14 starts: 2-11, 6.93 era
wells next 11 starts: 3-5, 4.57 era

by lboros on Oct 17, 2007 10:21 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

yeah, but
they're nowhere near as drastic as Weaver.  I know ERA isn't the best evidence of performance, but when one three month stretch is half of the ERA from the other three months you just gotta wonder.

I'm not trying to make a point or anything, I just found this interesting.

As far as the Piniero signing goes I can be counted with the on the fence group.  There are probably better signings to be made than this, but I don't think it hampers us in any major way.  I do think he'll pitch somewhere between what he did for us last year and what he's done the last few...just over .500 w/ 4.50 or less ERA.  Of course, I'm also in the crowd that thinks Reyes could still be a #2-3 pitcher if his injury's not too serious.  Maybe I'm blindly optimistic.

by cardzfanbub on Oct 17, 2007 11:30 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Nobody knows how Weaver would have performed
if he had stayed with the Cards.  Many of Duncan's successful reclamation projects have not done as well when they've gone elsewhere:  Weaver, Suppan, MattyMo, etc.

Weaver's not a good example because you have to throw into the equation a move to another team and working with a new pitching coach--the same team Pineiro did not do well with in the last couple of years.  You are simply supposing that working with Duncan made no difference to Weaver's or Pineiro's effective performances while with the Cards.

by nycardfan on Oct 17, 2007 12:48 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Jeff Weaver
2006 -- LAA   88.2 IP  11.57 H/9  2.13 BB/9  6.29 K/9  1.83 HR/9  6.29 ERA  70 ERA+
2006 -- STL  83.3 IP   10.69 H/9   2.81 BB/9   4.86 K/9   1.73 HR/9  5.18 ERA  85 ERA+  (in a worse league)
2007 -- SEA  146.2 IP  11.46 H/9  2.15 BB/9  4.91 K/9  1.41 HR/9  6.20 ERA  69 ERA+

Can we dispense with the notion that Weaver was significantly better under Duncan?  If anything, the difference was negligible and he was pitching in the weaker league and facing pitcher rather than DH's.  Your statement implies that he stunk w/ the Angels and the M's, but was quite good w/ the Cards and if he'd only had Duncan to tutor him this year, he'd be good again.

It's not Duncan's fault Weaver stinks.  But he stinks, w/ Duncan or w/o him.  

As for Suppan and Matty Mo -- they're older and Morris was regressing significantly while w/ the Cards.  That's why we didn't re-sign him.  Again, the idea that they'd be league-average or better under Duncan's tutelage just isn't the case.

by houstoncardinal on Oct 17, 2007 10:31 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

and "Hate" is strong
it's just a move in the wrong direction -- it's not the Carlos Lee signing!

by houstoncardinal on Oct 17, 2007 8:17 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

"Hate" will be the correct word
if Mozeliak does what he seems to be trying to do -- sign David Eckstein to a multi-year extension.  In fact, "hate" won't be strong enough.

by houstoncardinal on Oct 17, 2007 8:17 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Bernie
that's what I don't get about the Post.  Bernie loves to stir the pot with TLR.  And numerous times he's touted the "build from within" philosophy, noting that Jocketty can't wheel and deal like he used to due to the ever-changing economics of baseball.  

But then I hear him on the radio yesterday lauding Mo', most notably his signing of Piniero and his initiating talks with (and imminent signing of?) Eckstein.  I just don't get it...how in the world do you re-sign Eckstein, for the love of Pete?  

by silent_bob on Oct 17, 2007 10:24 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

One re-signs Eckstein...
if you think:

A.) Brendan Ryan is not an "everyday" player; (I'm of the opinion that he hasn't had enough ABs in either the minors or The Show to really tell from his statistics alone... so the Cards have no choice but to "go with the gut" on this question. Maybe "Boog" can play every day, and maybe he can't; reasonable people can disagree.)

B.) There are no more "attractive" options available! A-Rod is going to the highest bidder; I don't believe the Cardinals have the money to pay him. Who else is available? Omar Vizquel is even older than Eck... you might be able to pry Julio Lugo from the BoSox... but would you want to?

C.) You think it'll be 2010 before an "in-house" replacement is ready (no matter who that player turns out to be.) Eck's not "blocking" anybody in 2008 or 2009.

One goalie's opinion... a two-year deal for Eck wouldn't bother me in the least; a three-year deal would be one year too long.

I also don't "hate" signing Joel Piñiero for two years; I'm of the opinion that the Cardinals will have to find their #2 starter through the trade market... the FA pitchers available are (at best) only marginally better than Piñiero! Having spent his entire career in the DH League, Piñiero should benefit from pitching to "lesser" lineups; and he'll be in a "pitcher's park".

The question of who gets traded for whom will be decided by the new GM (whether that fellow is Mo or somebody else). Signing Piñiero is "small stuff" that shouldn't affect the Cardinals' ability to "re-tool" for the future.

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

by The Ol Goaler on Oct 17, 2007 11:28 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

1 year deal max
and Ryan is your utility guy - ok.  I won't be pissed.  But Eckstein is in serious decline.  With his limited skillset, his age will be much more evident.  

I don't like Visquel and I would love to trade for Renteria but I just don't think the price (aka the young talent it will take) will be right for a one-year rental with possible re-signing.  You can't trade for Edgar AND for a #2-#3 starter.  The prospects just aren't there.

by silent_bob on Oct 17, 2007 12:11 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

better yet....
Just offer arbitration.  If I understand this correctly, we have to do this anyway if we wanted to get draft picks should be sign elsewhere.  

If he accepts arbitration, it's not the worst thing in the world.  We get Eckstein for one more year, which doesn't really hurt the long-term plans for 09 and beyond, doesn't hamper our ability to go after a bigger star SS in 09 either, and if he doesn't accept and someone signs him, we get the picks and Ryan gets his chance.

by mtalken on Oct 17, 2007 5:52 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Franklin would cost 4.5 million
in '08 if we permanently moved him to the rotation (compared to 2.5 million as a reliever) so your salary savings is only $500,000 for next season.  Plus, Franklin has not been a starter since '05, was not a good starter prior to'05, and would have health and endurance questions because of his age (36 years old next season).  Plus, we know he has pitched well in his current position.  We'd be essentially risking 2 positions by making that move.

by nycardfan on Oct 17, 2007 12:57 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

wow, my response to Houston's first post
moved a long, long way down the page.

by nycardfan on Oct 17, 2007 12:58 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

finally...
a common sense approach to the issue. This doesn't cripple anything over the life of the contract. It's just a small part of the puzzle of constructing this team for next year and beyond.
go crazy folks..........

by wwbd on Oct 17, 2007 12:07 AM EDT   0 recs

well said
This diary makes a lot of sense.  I don't understand why everyone is down on this signing.  
Pineiro isn't Kip Wells.  
13 mil over two years is a good deal.  
The later into the off season we get the better this deal is going to look.  
And the Cardinals needed to add three starters this off-season anyway so any "I'd rather have..." talk doesn't hold a lot of water because there is still two empty spots left.  He wasn't signed to be the number 1 or 2 guy.

by abothebear on Oct 17, 2007 12:46 AM EDT   0 recs

PIneiro isn't Kip Wells
Kip was signed to be our number two starter.

Pineiro is our 3/4.

by liam on Oct 17, 2007 3:20 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

right
Wells has more physical talent but Pineiro isn't a head case.

Pineiro is signed, presumably, for the 4 or 5 spot.  Isn't he?  Whereas Wells was signed for the number 2 spot.  The Wells signing was a serious gamble, especially for a number 2.  He had ace potential but couldn't harness it.  Pineiro is basically a much cheaper Suppan (semi-reliable innings-eater, but with a higher upside than Sup). As long as this signing doesn't get in the way of filling the other two spots I see it as a solid signing at a reasonable price.  

My point is that comparing Wells and Pineiro in effort to besmirch the Pineiro signing doesn't make sense since their is no comparison (unless the Cards try to make him the number two pitcher, which wouldn't surprise me).

by abothebear on Oct 17, 2007 5:37 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Exactly
I share your opinion.  The Pineiro signing is a good thing, and for those who oppose, let's see how much an equivalent pitcher gets in the coming months.  Perhaps there will be some changes of opinion.  The argument I've been hearing is that he'll cripple the chances for '09.  There's a lot of payroll coming off the books after next season, and a few million for a guy like Pineiro isn't going to hurt any...

by qwikimport on Oct 17, 2007 3:48 AM EDT   0 recs

Its not really just about Piniero
Its about the contract.  Even I would have liked Piniero at maybe $8 over two year, but many feel that $13M/ 2 years is too much for a guy who is just over replacement level.  The Cardinals probably could have waited for the market to settle ot, searched the scrap heap or signed a few AAAA guys (Chris Narveson?) to get the same performance at ~$7-10M lower cost.

The signing would make more sense if we were just "a player or two" away from being competitive, but in a rebuilding year its a waste of resources and roster space.

The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!

by Zubin on Oct 17, 2007 7:35 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

and it's still
an extra $7.5 M we WON'T have to be able to spend on other players.  People keep saying, "but we'll have all this money so Pineiro's $7.5 in '09 won't matter."  Of course, it matters.  It would give us an extra $7.5 M to spend on players better than Joel Pineiro.

by houstoncardinal on Oct 17, 2007 8:15 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The Markets
I sorry people but I don't think the markets are ever going to settle down again.  I'm betting will just see more and more players go for more then there worth now.  I mean Andrew Jones is good, but he's not 20 mil a year.  That's jus the tip of the iceberg.  Baseball has changed and now you've got to spend alot to get a little.
Save the Kipper don't make him go back out there.

by gibbyfan on Oct 17, 2007 11:33 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

any body wanna hear what Joel
has to say about all of this? if so, click the link below.

http://www.insidestl.com/morningafter/audio/101607PineiroReturnsDuncanLaRussaEmailOfTheDay.mp3

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

by gdm426 on Oct 17, 2007 7:37 AM EDT   0 recs

nice interview
Joel P. gives credit for his resurrection in STL to Duncan.  We'll see how it works out.  I don't have  a big problem about the Pineiro signing per se.  As stated in another thread, I'm more concerned about what it says about the direction of the organization.  For instance, following Pineiro for $13M / 2 years with Eckstein @ about the same deal would be a huge blow to what I see as the way forward for the club.  The problem is the Pineiro signing probably indicates that Cards are going into vet replacement level overpay mode.  Pineiro really doesn't even block Reyes in that there will be one starter slot open until Mulder comes back and there are sure to be injuries.  But Eckstein?  Go with Ryan for league minimum.  A replacement for Juan E who is another Juan E?  I can just feel it coming.  

by jjray on Oct 17, 2007 8:35 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

It does seem to be all about the money
...and I wonder if it will be another deal where after the winter meetings, we reconsider how bad the contract was - similar to the Edmonds option picked up last season. After we saw what outfielders were getting on the free-agent market, we changed our tune and thought the contract wasn't as bad as initially thought.

That said, I think we should reevaluate just what kind of talent Joel P. is - after all, Franklin was the same kind of "washed up" player coming in. He couldn't stick in other teams' rotations and was very shaky, yet now people want him in our rotation since he's had a resurgence with our team. I tend to think Joel P. has gone through something very similar (as had Suppan, Williams, etc.).

Looking at this past season, the guy threw 554 pitches as a reliever before August and coming to St. Louis. He threw 65% of those pitches for strikes and had a 1.4 to 1 K/BB ratio. I realize this is all out of the pen, but I see improvement when pitching off the mound because during August and September, he threw 987 pitches and 64% of those were for strikes, but he had a 3.3 to 1 K/BB ratio (40 K to 12 BB).

Honestly, barring that September game at Chicago, he spent 2 half-decent months in the Cardinal rotation - when considering we're reviewing a #4/#5 type starting-pitcher. His ERA in August was 3.71 and 4.25 in September (again, mostly due to the crummy Chicago game). As with Kindred's perception on this, when comparing to what else could be, I don't see his existence on the team to be a bad thing. However, if it's about the money, let me know if the money still looks like a waste after we see what other free agents get this off-season and if this money spent REALLY precludes the types of signings you hope to see happen for other areas of our team.

by jomfa on Oct 17, 2007 9:37 AM EDT   0 recs

Build for the future...
I think at sometime you need to be diverting some of the resources devoted to the big club into development.  This year we had the opportunity to draft and sign Porcello, who has true ace potential, for about just a little more than one year of Pineiro's contract.  We also had the chance to sign Kyle Russel, a little more high risk / but also high reward, for 1.5 million.  People will argue that Porcello is a high risk venture, but every player in the draft is very high risk--it is the nature of the draft.  So why not take players that have a chance of producing high rewards.  

We could have drafted potentially higher reward players and filled the back of the rotation with league min type guys: Pitchers from AAA, minor league free agents, etc.  I give odds that you could have signed three minor league free agents for under 1.5 million and one of them would have outperformed Piniero for the next two years.  By that time there is an outside shot that Porcello would have been ready to compete for a slot in the rotation.

by BigJawnMize on Oct 17, 2007 9:49 AM EDT   0 recs

I like the build for the future idea, also. .but
if the Cards had not signed Pineiro, I would have been dissapointed. Overall his performance was adequate and sometimes good after coming to the Cards. The contract seemed a little higher than I had anticipated, and as someone has already mentioned, I would rather have seen it front loaded than back loaded but with that said, who knows how to value players anymore... and more especially, pitchers. Last year I was shocked at the money shelled out for Weaver, Suppan, Woody Williams etc. Obivously, there was evidence that it would be the same for Pineiro. Pineiro, appeared last year to be healthy and strong armed, and now days that is enough for GM's to start slinging money around. One thing to hope for in this signing: every year since baseball has been played, some old veteran with five or six years of league average or below, puts it together for three or four great years. Just looking at that one game Pineiro pitched against the Mets told me he could be on the verge and if any GM's saw it they probably started making notes too.

by ridgesee on Oct 17, 2007 11:45 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

My question to you
Would anyone have noticed if we had just Pineiro walk?

We picked up Pineiro at a garage sale. No I don't know who we could have gone after but give me a day and access to a good minor league stat sorter and contract status of said players and I bet I could come up with a list.

Based on what other teams will pay for the same types of players no we didn't over pay...but just because your neighbors overpaid for something doesn't mean you should as well.

by Harknights on Oct 17, 2007 12:09 PM EDT   0 recs

No, I don't know if anybody
other than me would have noticed at all. I can't speak for everybody. I just said that I would have been disappointed. Just because you can search the minor leagues and come up with a list doesn't mean anything. If you find one that's a worthwhile gamble, 27 other teams have done looked at him and you will pay a premium price in your own talent to get him. After all you can't just buy prospects, you have to trade equal value. Where does the Cards get equal value. But if the Pineiro signing takes away from money projected for the upcoming draft, then I agree: it was a bad move.

by ridgesee on Oct 17, 2007 2:37 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

13 Million
$13 million will make zero difference in next years draft.  Trust me, if they are that short on cash they would not have signed Pinero, upped Izzy, Franklin, and Springers contract.

In the grand scheme of things those deals were chickenfeed.

Don't make this Pinero signing more than it is.  People have spent way too much time getting worked up over nothing.

by ICbirdfan on Oct 17, 2007 2:45 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The crux of the matter
The crux of the matter is this:

I believe the Cards are trying to build for the future while trying to stay as competitive as possible for the "now".  

They are going through the same things that the Yanks experienced for the last couple of years. The Yanks refused to trade any of their top-flight talent for an opportunity to make (or succeed) in the playoffs.  They suffered somewhat for it.  However, now they are starting to see some great benefits for the new generation of in-house talent that they have hoarded.  

The one advantage that the Yanks had over STL is that they could afford to inflate payroll for 2 or 3 years to bridge the gap to the new guys.  I think we will start to see the Yanks payroll decline in the next few years, as they develop more in-house talent.  

The Cards don't have this luxury.  They can't sign the Jason Schmidts of the world while they wait for their young talent to develop.  They can only afford the Kip Wellses and the Joel Pineiros and the Sydney Ponsons of the world while they wait for the new guys (if there are any new guys, that is).  That leaves us fans in the lurch for a while, bemoaning the fact that we are wasting the big Poo's prime while we trot out retreads to play as is supporting cast.  

I'm a man, a manly, manly, man. Unknown

by Eckstreem on Oct 17, 2007 12:18 PM EDT   0 recs

The Cardinals are putting themselves into a hole..
By constantly overspending on mediocre and/or washed up veterans, they are wasting money they could spend either on players who are actually good, or sink into player development.

This just ensures mediocrity.  Which is often enough to win in the NL Central, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing, either.

by DiscoJer on Oct 17, 2007 5:49 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yes. That's been well argued, but
what about answering Kindred's question:  Who do you put in that rotation spot?

by nycardfan on Oct 17, 2007 6:01 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

i should have said
that's been argued for extensively in various threads--i personally don't think it's persuasive.

by nycardfan on Oct 17, 2007 6:03 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Mediocre
Well the cardinals have no young arms ready at this point.  So they need to go get pitching.
Well there are zero good free agent pitchers.  All are mediocre.  I guess Schilling or Glavine are available but neither would come to STL so don't even bring up their names. Also both are on the downhill side and if we are going to get mediocre why not spend as little as possible.

Put is this way anyone on the open market at this point is mediocre.  If they were good they would be re-signed by their current team.

We have zero ability to trade at this point because we just don't have very much on our side.  We could trade but to get an above mediocre pitcher we would have to give up a lot and I don't think STL fans are ready to do that quite yet with our young talent.  

So get used to seeing a lot of transactions for mediocre players around the league.  A lot "a change in scenery may help __ (fill in the blank).

by ICbirdfan on Oct 17, 2007 6:29 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Great practical analysis and questions
I find it kind of ironic that some people who are so pessimistic about the possibility of Pineiro improving or retrieving his skills with Duncan, have very rosy expectations about minor leaguers who either did not perform consistently last year or who have no experience above AA.  Many also seem to have little concern about possible injuries that could further decimate our in-house candidates and the need for a "pitching safety net".  

This rosiness extends to Franklin as an option--people mention him alongside Thompson, but no one is discussing the fact that, unlike Thompson, his salary is guaranted to increase if he is moved to the rotation.  I believe he'd make 4.5 million next year as a permanent starter.  So we're really talking about a $500,000 salary difference in going with Franklin next season.  Plus we'd lose a tested set-up man who we would then have to replace.  And what would be the performative or monetary cost of that?

Pouring fuel on the fire of debates l