Get Straight to the Arbitraysh
by DanUpBaby on Dec 1, 2008 10:15 AM EST
Email
PrintHey, everybody! There's a real baseball deadline today! At 11 PM we will have the non-tenders and non-non-tenders to talk about, and Russ Springer and Braden Looper to discuss in particular. Trever Miller still hangs in the balance.
Matthew Leach's summary of the Cardinals' arbitration situation is a good take on what seems like a fairly straightforward situation. Isringhausen: absolutely not. Looper: absolutely. Springer: Er, ah, we'll see about it.
The downside to offering arbitration to Springer seems pretty low, to me, but the upside is lower than it seems if the Cardinals really don't think they need him next year. It seems almost absurd to say that, since he was far and away their best reliever in 2007 and 2008 and he stands to get only a minor raise if he accepts arbitration, but the Cardinals have a lot of right-handed relievers coming down the pike and Springer, even more than most really good relief pitchers, comes with a lot of built-in uncertainty. To recap:
- He is really old
- He wasn't very good for most of his career
- He is a relief pitcher
170 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Catch 22 with Springer
I think other teams are waiting for the arb deadline to find out their true costs of signing Springer. A team might want him, but not at the cost of their first round pick since there is a high likelihood Springer will retire after next year.
IMO, if we don’t offer him arbitration, we stand a good chance of losing him and not getting any picks. If we offer him arbitration, he most likely ends up back with us and we don’t get any additional picks. I don’t think we’ll see the situation where Springer signs elsewhere and we end up with draft picks. With that, I would offer him arbritration just in case there is some team out there willing to throw a two year contract at him.
No arby
I really doubt a team wants to lose its first rounder (or second rounder if the first rounder is protected) for one year of Russ Springer. Offering arby “just in case some team is willing to sign him” is a $3.5M gamble made with the odds against the Cardinals.
With the new arbitration rules, though, the Cardinals could not offer him arby, but then still try to sign him. I think this is what they’ll do.
by Hal Lanier's Pants on Dec 1, 2008 11:18 AM EST up reply actions
I agree
I think they should offer him exactly what he made in 2008. He’ll would then accept it and avoid arbitration all together.
I think that we have to bring him back if they are not going to go sign a free agent closer like Hoffman, Saito, and the like. This team needs as much depth as possible in the bullpen, and Springer has been awfully good for the Cardinals the last couple of years.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
I kinda slow on these types of things
like the draft, but does the team lose a first round pick or do the cards just get a sandwich first round pick?
http://www.redbirdramblings.wordpress.com
Mo, please go get Nick Punto!
waiting for the 2009 season to begin and colby rasmus to patrol centerfield!
Springer is a Type A
so the signing team loses a pick (1st round if not protected, 2nd round otherwise,) AND the Cards get a sandwich pick.
by Hal Lanier's Pants on Dec 1, 2008 12:35 PM EST up reply actions
Depends on the rest of the pen.....
If they aren’t likely to move Motte/Perez this offseason, and they want both to have the opportunity to start the season on the big league roster, I’m not sure you can offer Springer.
"Stats are for losers," Muschamp said after last week's victory. "I like winning games."
but offering Springer
helps make it easier to sign him and, thus, gives Mo the flexibility to trade one if the opportunity presents itself at the winter meetings (or McClellan, btw). That’s why I believe they should, and will, offer Springer. Worst case, later on you could trade Springer.
However...
offering Springer arbitration likely results in a raise for Springer – as there is NO chance Springer declines arbitration. The only risk in not offering arb is that Springer could sign elsewhere, but Springer has been very public that he wants to stay in STL. Not offering arby would likely result in the same salary as 2008 for STL, a higher salary elsewhere or retirement.
Instead of offering him though...
Couldn’t you just sign him to a deal for exactly what he made in 2008 and forgo the arbitration proceedings where he might get a raise?
He wants to play next year and wants to stay in St. Louis, so it makes the most sense to just pay him what he made last season and be done with it, rather than offer him arbitration and then get it settled while paying him $1.5M more next year.
Crap, bub just pointed this out as I was writing this up….
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
And you could still sign him
prior to the hearing. Probably, he should’ve been signed by now. I guess we could decline but I think he’ll play next year, whether or not the Cards resign him. Maybe the Cards will not offer and call his bluff. If so, I hope they’re right. What’s the downside to offering — an extra $1/2 million? Small price to pay. It’s much less than the value of the 2 draft picks if he signs elsewhere.
I think the downside could be...
as much as $1.5mil like fourstick said.
You’re right…he probably already should’ve been signed IF we’re going to resign him. The fact that he hasn’t been resigned makes me think they are waiting out other options…Hoffman, Izzy, Saito. The ONLY reason to offer arb is to keep him from going to another team, something that’s not likely to happen unless we aren’t interested in him.
one sided
“it makes the most sense to just pay him what he made last season and be done with it, rather than offer him arbitration and then get it settled while paying him $1.5M more next year.”
It certainly does, if you’re the Cardinals. If you’re Russ Springer, there’s no reason to accept that deal before the arbitration deadline.
by Hal Lanier's Pants on Dec 1, 2008 1:14 PM EST up reply actions
That's true
Unless you’ve publicly stated that you’d like to stay in St. Louis and have family concerns that would keep your family there.
Springer is in the same dilemma as the club if you want to talk about things from both sides. If he wants to play next year, and wants to play in St. Louis, then it would behoove him to take the same pay as last year and sign before the arbitration deadline. If the club doesn’t offer him arbitration, he might be able to sign elsewhere, but there isn’t a large market for 40 year old right handers that aren’t closers who have only been successful playing in one division. Hell, he might end up like David Eckstein: taking whatever offer he could get just so he can play next year, and ending up in Seattle or Washington on a shitty ballclub and a thousand miles away from his family, when he could have just signed before the arb deadline for what he made last year and have come back to a comfortable situation at home.
Again, I’m assuming that the offer is out there from the club, but you make it sound like someone is just going to pony up $5M for a 40 year old right hander because he was good the last couple of years. I don’t see that happening, and even if it did I’m not sure he’d take it, so why would we offer him arbitration?
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
with only a few misgivings
i agree with the decision to not offer arb to springer. though it could mean traditional cheapness running the show, i prefer to believe it is more likely that this reflects a dedication to making next year’s team truly competitive. that said, i’d like to see springer back, but not at the 4-5M he could have gotten in arbitration. now, mo just has to spend these dollars effectively.
"No matter where you go, there you are" Buckeroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension
I disagree...
That $4-5 million for Springer won’t affect the shortstop situation. Piss away 4 million here, 2.5 million there and pretty soon you’re talking real money. I’m opposed to most free agent signings in this price range, because much of the time all you are paying for with that 3-4 million is that McVeteran goodness of “proven performance”. Do without 3 of these signings a year and all of a sudden you have enough money to go get Furcal.
HA! real money
sorry dude, but i found that really funny. i guess we do kind of treat the Cards cash like Monopoly money sometimes. but it’s all real.
i doubt if Russ comes back that means the Cards can’t go get Raffy. he’s got a lot of west coast teams bidding on his services, and the Cards always come up on the short end of things when they get in a bidding war with other teams.
i still think they should offer the arb to Russ & not screw around. the astros still could sweep in & sign him if they don’t. they are really the only other team he’ll play for except the Cards. or am i wrong? chuck you live down there, isn’t that a good possibility? anyway, he likes it here, he was good & probably won’t be horrible next year. plus the best part? TLR can’t over use him & he knows it. all things considered, i don’t really see any downside to offering him arb or bringing him back.
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
The importance of not signing free agents
Exhibit A: The Houston Astros.
Going into the current economic climate, MLB player contracts are not seeing the same downward trend that every other part of the economy is seeing. Contracts signed today will be backloaded. If you sign a player to a 4 year/$48 M contract, years 2011 and 2012 will likely be in the $15 M each year range. For the first time in like…ever, $15 M in 2011 will be more of a burden on a team than it was the day the contract was signed.
The Houston Astros, despised as they may be have been a perennial contender in their division for over a decade. Yet, they find themselves in a payroll ‘contraction’. Their owner, Drayton “I’m the stupid you’re with” McClain has ordered payroll to be $100 M, same as last year.
The problem for the Astros is that in order to do that, they will have to cut $20 M in payroll before they sign a single FA. What do they lack? Talented, cost controlled players in their farm system to replace some big contracts they might try to dump. But, even if they did, they can’t dump them. Berkman and Oswalt are untouchable, Lee and Tejada are both old, owed a ton of money and have NTC.
So, next time we think about moving Colby Rasmus or packing David Freese up somewhere to be bring back a position player or soon to be FA pitcher, think about where the Cardinals payroll will be in 3 years. Will it be more? No. How much of it will be devoted to Albert Pujols? Is this our ‘window’ to win?
The whole point of 2007/2008 was so that the Cardinals could transition to building a bigger, cheaper window to win in. It wasn’t to free up money to spend in 2009 as some people believe. It was so that the Colby Rasmus, David Freese, etc of the system could afford the Cardinals the luxury of being in a better financial situation as everyone else.
The Cubs and their infinite payroll isn’t going to last forever. They’ve blitzed their farm system to try to win in this current window because they too, like the Astros the last two season, have seen that they’ve spent themselves into a bad situation that will become untenable soon enough. They are mortgaging the future for now.
Don’t do that, St. Louis.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 1, 2008 3:01 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Clarification
If you sign a player to a 4 year/$48 M contract, years 2011 and 2012 will likely be in the $15 M each year range. For the first time in like…ever, $15 M in 2011 will be more of a burden on a team than it was the day the contract was signed.
Are you saying that there’s going to be a reverse time value of money in the next 3 years?
Kosuke Fukudome: $48 million .257 .359 .379
Skip Schumaker: $Free .302 .359 .406
Skippy needs a new publicist, but I heart Ben Zobrist
With the way the economy is going
yes. Baseball has been in a boon of cash over the last 15 years and for the first time in a long time they are having trouble selling luxury boxes in places like New York and LA.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 1, 2008 4:55 PM EST up reply actions
geez...
… you’re awfully pessimistic about the economy if you expect real interest rates to be negative for the next three years.
Since January 2008
the US Gov’t has been paying other countries to take our money off our hands, thus negative interest rates.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 1, 2008 10:09 PM EST up reply actions
Also, you are looking at it as
what $15 M is worth to the average American (a whole hell of a lot-ZING!) in 2008 and what it would be worth to them in 2011. Yes, it will likely be worth more based on the government fighting like hell to keep real interest rates from going negative (although in reality interest rates are damn near there).
But, in the economy of baseball, $15 M (in my mind) will be more imposing on a team in 2011 than it is today. By 2011, the value of MLB franchises will likely decrease instead of the constant increase they’ve seen over the last 15 years. In those terms, the Houston Astros are worth $600 M according to MLB auditors this past year. They had a revenue of $200 M during the 2008 season. What is believed to be happening in the future is that yearly revenue will dwindle. Teams that are pulling in $200 M in 2008 could be pulling in $185 M in 2011, or worse. So, a contract signed in 2008 that pays a player $15 M in 2011 was under the assumption that with 0 growth, it took up 7.5% of the teams revenue. In 2011, that number would go up 8.1%.
That’s a loss for the team, cutting both into profits and reducing their payroll flexibility. If payroll isn’t increasing because revenue is decreasing, that’s a loss.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 1, 2008 10:21 PM EST up reply actions
If you are interested in Economics
I highly recommend Mish’s Global Economics Trend Analysis
He has been far ahead of the curve for awhile now. If you like data than you will like this site.
Stat Whore
by FlimtotheFlam on Dec 2, 2008 12:15 AM EST up reply actions
wait, what?...
… what team projected 0% growth in the past? what team is projecting that now?
i’m not saying that teams aren’t responding to the economic crisis. i’m just saying that there’s a big difference between carrying a lower discount rate and carrying a negative discount rate.
yes?
No team projected 0 growth.
I almost feel you are purposefully trying to be obtuse about this.
The 0 growth statement was in reference to team planning. A team expects revenue to increase, as it has in MLB for ~15 years. I was creating an instance in which even if a team expected 0 % growth in their forecasts in 2011, they’d be losing money. In that situation, that $15 M would mean more.
But if they had signed that player to a 6 year deal instead, in 2006 they may have been forecasting growth of 5% for 2011 over 2009 or so. Well, in most cases teams are going to see reduced growth rates in revenue and team value. In fact, some of them may even see negative value and most will see decreased revenue over the next 3 years.
Now, with that in mind, the team forecast was growth OVER 0 (meaning revenue/value increases each year) but the reality over the next 3 years will likely be UNDER 0 (decrease in value/revenue).
These owners run these teams as side ventures. They are most likely taking baths as it is in their other financial areas. They aren’t going to want to run their teams as a charity case. Maybe if the economy was booming, they could afford to cut into profit to ‘build themselves a winner’. Not now. Now they’ve got to a) make money for themselves and b) keep the teams above water.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 2, 2008 2:53 AM EST up reply actions
If you're predicting three years of deflation
you’re basically predicting another great depression.
Which I guess might come if the big three go down.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
Even if the Big 3 go down (which won't happen)
I don’t see unemployment hitting 30% anytime soon — we might see half of that. We also probably won’t see all of the small local banks and credit unions closing their doors from lack of funds. Most of these smaller banks are leveraged much better than these investment banks and have held onto their own loans and sold their bad ones to the investment banks who were looking for high risk/high reward investments.
The Feds should be looking to make loans to GM and Ford to allow them to reorganize themselves over the next 18 months, with a repayment period to be set up and overseen by federal regulators. Chrysler is a private company, owned by private equity fund Cerberus, and should be forced to go through Chapter 11 — they wanted the debt when they acquired the company, now they can pay the creditors before they reorganize.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
Extended deflation will create more foreclosures
As people will have to pay loans back with much smaller wages. If we really get extended deflation, even good loans will turn bad.
we have the FDIC, which will certainly help qualified banks survive.
I doubt we’ll get 30% unemployment nationally if the big 3 go down (which I agree is unlikely, but I’ll feel a lot better when the loan happens), but we’ll definitely see it in huge chunks of the Midwest by the time the ripple effects play out. Which would probably cause a lot of migration, more downward pressure on wages, more deflation, etc.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
Don't look now
But that would only be a 8% increase at the present, and things haven’t started running downhill yet either.
I could see 10-15% for a short period of time, especially as the Detroit Three begin to restructure.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
I see Chrysler and GM going down
They need to fail and restructure their debts. It is the only solution. The country as a whole needs to purge a lot of bad debt. Home prices will go down even more in the next 3 years as they should. Lower home values equals lower personal property taxes. Than higher local taxes because of dwindling resources. I think it is going to just snow ball.
Stat Whore
by FlimtotheFlam on Dec 2, 2008 12:37 AM EST up reply actions
If GM goes down, so does ford
There are enough parts suppliers that ship to both GM and Ford, but are dependent on GM’s business that Ford will not be able to survive the collapse of GM.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
I don't think they go out of business
They just need to go Bankrupt to restructure their debts. They are worth negative $60 million right now. I think Ford will pull through this but all manufactures will be hit hard. Chysler is a worthless company and should be sold off into parts.
Stat Whore
by FlimtotheFlam on Dec 2, 2008 12:50 AM EST up reply actions
no disagreement there.
and yeah, I don’t really think chrysler is going to survive this. Someone will take over the Jeep brand, and probably keep a couple of the dodge models, and that will be the end of them.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
Chrysler Whored the Shit out of Jeep
Their should be like 3 Jeep Models tops. They build a bunch of Jeeps that all look the same.
Stat Whore
by FlimtotheFlam on Dec 2, 2008 1:11 AM EST up reply actions
"They are worth negative $60 million right now"
that’s not even a bad starting pitcher contract. Maybe CC should buy GM, onc ehe gets paid… heck, even Kyle Lohse could give it a shot ;) He could probably make more as a CEO than as a starting pitcher, anyway, and if he buys the company he can pay himself whatever he wants, right?
- big long rant about bailouts deleted -
god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs
The auto industry was bailed out 20 years ago
and while Toyota and Honda adjusted their business model and have been able to succeed, Detroit has continued to cling to the same outdated models they’ve had for 40 years.
Perhaps they shouldn’t be given a bailout this time and be forced to reorganize like just about every other US industry.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 2, 2008 12:59 AM EST up reply actions
It's a loan and not a bailout (though I guess this is partially semantics to the extent of the loan terms)
and Toyota and Honda get huge subsidies from the Japanese government that the US automakers don’t.
If the financial sector gets a $700B gift, I don’t see why a manufacturing sector on which a lot more people depend shoudln’t be able to get a $35M loan.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
The financial sector shouldn't have
gotten a $700 B gift, in my opinion. However, even with that horse out of the barn, they shouldn’t compound it by spreading tax dollar handout, government ownership plans to other areas of the economy.
Toyota and Honda also cost more than most Detroit products and yet outsell them annually. That isn’t because of Japanese subsidies.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 2, 2008 1:13 AM EST up reply actions
Honestly, I'd rather that some of the $700B just go to the auto industry
But Bush and Paulson seem unwilling to do that for mysterious reasons. Perhaps Obama plans on doing that. I really hope so.
And as far as the rest, it’s very difficult to compare the profitiability of an American company to a Japanese one, and that was really my main point. The systems are just wildly different, and the Japanese compaines get a lot of institutional support that their American counterparts don’t. And the quality gap between GM and Ford and Honda and toyota is much smaller than perception would indicate it to be.
But I do agree that any deal needs to have a ton of punishment for the executives who caused this crisis in the first place. I disagree that the companies should be allowed to fail or declare bankruptcy.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
The problem was the Yen was artifically low
Making Toyota’s and Honda’s cheaper than they should be. The Yen value will increase soon since Japanese will stop investing in the US and put money back in the Yen raising it. That will than raise the cost’s of Toyota’s and Honda’s.
Stat Whore
by FlimtotheFlam on Dec 2, 2008 1:31 AM EST up reply actions
Punish the executives?
Detroit autoworkers: $73 /hour on average
Alabama autoworkers: $48 /hour on average
There is plenty of punishment to go around. The rich white guys are a lot to blame, but not the only ones.
I’d like to hear more about the Japanese subsidies to Toyota. There were rumors of them receiving such to build new-fuel type cars, but the US automakers have received the same cash handouts.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 2, 2008 2:58 AM EST up reply actions
Punishment/blame around
I tend to side with letting existing mechanisms, i.e. Chpt7 (liquidation )or at least Chpt11 (reorganization) bankruptcy run it’s course first before considering a more severe solution (e.g. bailout). The airline industry offers a good example where several airlines were struggling after deregulation and some still are. Some went out of business, I am sure we all recall our beloved TWA hub at STL, but also Eastern and Pan Am. But many reorganized and are doing better. Also, the market forced airlines to adapt and Low Cost Carriers like Southwest, Airtran, and Jet Blue have completely changed the model for the Full Service Carriers. So despite the growing pains, I thought, all in all, the industry is failry vibrant and healthy, even though it looked gloom for a long while. So to me, a balout, would be jumping the gun. Why not try to re-organize first and see if that works? The government can step in if Chpt. 11 doesn’t work and it looks like Chapt. 7 might be coming. To me, the creditors have no incentive to play ball if it is outside the bankruptcy process. The bankruptcy court and trustee have some termendous powers for avoiding bad debt and re-prioritizing debts.
I guess one party that’s definitely interested in the bailout is the creditors. I guess the large pension plans fall into this category. They definitely don’t’ want to see their liability restructured. So I agree with HL that there is plenty of blame to go around.
born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red
You know
the government has let the US auto industry dictate fuel standards and whatnot for decades. If the Congress had done the right things, and made the right laws, and not allowed itself to be run by auto-industry lobbyists, this wouldn’t be happening. We could’ve forced these companies into a better business model, but we didn’t because congressmen want to keep their friends rich so they can make bank when they retire to the public sector. Basically, what I am saying is that the government is partially to blame for the problems of the big three. Sure, they did what the big three wanted, but that’s why everything is fucked.
Wait.
A better business model? I think that their business model is fine — they just need to restructure their debts and learn to market more effectively. They still make a good product, otherwise they would be in far worse shape than they are.
As far as dictating fuel standards, I can count on one hand the number of friends of mine who own a car that has higher than 30 MPG. I don’t have the fingers or toes to count how many friends of mine have SUV’s and heavy duty trucks. Who’s the bigger problem here? Ford and Chevy would be a lot worse off without their truck business, and Toyota is making and end-run at truck and SUV owners with the re-designing of their RAV4, Highlander, Tundra, and 4Runner lines. The car companies make what we buy, not the other way around. If there was no market for Hummers they wouldn’t get made — but there is a market for those vehicles.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
They have the
technology to make larger vehicles even more fuel efficient. You’re not denying that the auto industry has written the laws on fuel standards.
We have a market for those vehicles because fuel has been so cheap, especially compared to other industrialized nations. When fuel started sky-rocketing, guess which cars suddenly dropped in value and hit the used-car market? Hummers, large SUVs, and trucks.
Sales for the Big Three have not been that great. For years and years they couldn’t compete with the quality of Japanese vehicles. Companies like Ford are just now putting out good quality vehicles again.
"I'm as nauseous as I've ever been. I have a terrible headache. My head is pounding. I feel like throwing up and I'm having trouble swallowing. And the beauty of it is, you want to feel like this every day." - Tony LaRussa
No one cool says +1 any more
it’s all about recs
Furcal
by JI on Dec 1, 2008 5:20 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
-1
I think that +1 is a way of agreeing with someone’s comment. A rec is a recommendation to read a comment or a FanPost or whatever. Totally different.
by spants on Dec 1, 2008 10:44 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
I really wish that SBNATION recs were more prominent than an integer next to “Flag”
by astrostl on Dec 1, 2008 5:37 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
its cool
if there’s a picture of pujols by it.
"I'm as nauseous as I've ever been. I have a terrible headache. My head is pounding. I feel like throwing up and I'm having trouble swallowing. And the beauty of it is, you want to feel like this every day." - Tony LaRussa
If Springer returns
It wouldn’t be the worst thing that could happen. Assuming Perez, Motte, and Kinney are in the pen next year as well, I would prefer we move Franklin to the long reliever spot. He was a starter at one point, so it shouldn’t be too much of a problem. We’d have to DFA Puppy Kicker, but that shouldn’t make a big difference.
"I'm as nauseous as I've ever been. I have a terrible headache. My head is pounding. I feel like throwing up and I'm having trouble swallowing. And the beauty of it is, you want to feel like this every day." - Tony LaRussa
As this is the arb deadline,
why haven’t they announced what they’re going to do yet? Is there any reason to wait until 11 p.m. (CST) to announce?
Not sure what there is to announce.
I think that if the Cards were going to offer arbitration to Springer, they’d probably have done it by now. MLB.com had a short article this afternoon that discussed the new-changed landscape of this particular free agency period. (article here)
The interesting announcements will likely start tomorrow.
Baseball Fever.... Catch it!
-1
For Mo. Why no arb for Looper? Seriously, are we planning on going with a rotation of Waino, Welley, Lohse, Piniero, and Boggs? What if one of them gets hurt? Or two? I imagine that any other SP we pick up will be of the bargain basement variety. Looper would have been a decent priced 4ish starter for a year or draft compensation. If our rotations struggles this year, rememer this non-move.
Two goldfish are in a tank. One of them turns to the other and says, "You man the guns, I'll drive!"
yeah, that's flat out strange.
Terrible decision there (unless Looper has an unreported injury, or they plan on re-signing him).
god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs
Does this mean they have done the nerve test
on Carpenter and he passed? I can’t think of any other reason (and I’m not sure that one is good enough) to not offer arb to Looper.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
yeah i just read that article, and i'm lost.
MO says they want to maintain flexibility. OKKKK, but then he says they were scarred the players would have accepted & have to have been paid more money. so why didnt they just work something out where they’d agreed to a salary range that they’d pay the players. and if another team came in & blew the player away, the Cards would at least get the pics to protect themselves? its not like the team would lie to the players. or would they?
i just don’t understand why MO wouldn’t protect the Cards unless he knows something we don’t.
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
+1
Two goldfish are in a tank. One of them turns to the other and says, "You man the guns, I'll drive!"
I'll see you -1 and add a 0 to it = -10
i don’t understand this at all. Our rotation needs help. Looper was an effective pitcher and won’t break the bank and he probably wouldn’t have accepted the arbitration offer anyway. Very strange and it prevents the Cardinals from netting another draft choice—much like the Eckstein situation last year.
i agreed with eck
but not with this. eck i think would have been a detriment to this team due to his lack of defense. Looper on the other hand would have been a addition and having him on a one year contract would have been a bonus. there has to be some injury issues here.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
Disagree with the "won't break the bank" part
He’s gonna be expensive in arbitration, without necessarily being all that good.
The more I think about it, the more I like the non-offers. They are unlikely to get another steal like Lohse this off season, but relative steals are more likely late in the winter, assuming the economy continues to tank. Waiting for them is high-risk, but also potentially high-reward, and with the farm system looking the best it has in years, this is as good a time as any to take that risk. Offering arb is also high-risk (in terms of impact to payroll in a time of economic trouble) without comparable rewards (Loop, Springer, etc., are never going to be better than they were last year).
by StanTheManFan on Dec 2, 2008 8:56 AM EST up reply actions
Looper should've been a no-brainer
maybe they’re more optimistic on Carpenter than I am but I wonder even more if this says something about the direction the Cards’ payroll is headed. I’m not one of those “DeWitt is a cheapskate” compainers but there has been some curiosity about how the economy would affect teams this offseason. It’s been noted that Houston’s going to pare a ton of payroll (or try to) this offseason and I wonder if DeWitt isn’t a little concerned about the economy and the impact it’s going to have on revenue. Is it likely that we’ll see Boggs as our 5th starter next April?
Maybe...
But I think this is more about how the Cardinals feel about Looper than how they feel about Carpenter. Personally, Looper not getting arbitration tells me two things:
1. The slow free agent market this year and the last worried the Cardinals. Looper is not a no-brainer for a multi-year deal for any team (league average SP recently converted from relief, with a 2007 shoulder injury), which means he may turn into this year’s Lohse—teams wait on him to see if they can get a bargain. That would increase the likelihood of Looper returning on an arbitration deal. Which brings me to…
2. The Cardinals are probably set on an upgrade from Looper, whether that means a healthy Carpenter or a free agent. They don’t want to take a chance they get stuck with Looper, especially if they decide to pursue another starter like Garland or Pettite. That would throw the payroll off and limit the amount of money they could spend elsewhere. Looper simply isn’t in their plans anymore, with or without Carp, and they’re making sure that any chance he has to return is gone.
I am not sure that Garland is an upgrade from Looper
Stat Whore
by FlimtotheFlam on Dec 1, 2008 10:01 PM EST up reply actions
Garland is most certainly
NOT an upgrade from Looper. He’ll end up being (probably) the most overpaid free agent starter from this offseason.
However
he is five years younger than Loop, and considerably less likely to fall off a cliff from plain old wear and tear.
by StanTheManFan on Dec 2, 2008 8:58 AM EST up reply actions
Agreed, and did you notice
that the Angels DID offer Garland arbitration!!!??? Both he and Loop were type B’s and Garland made 10 million last year. He’s offered arbitration on a one year deal at 11/12 million a year to be their 5th starter. They have pretty good farm arms too, and are in the market for Sabathia. I’m not saying we need to do everything like the angels, but as a team that has also perennially contended (in a weak division yes) moves like this seem to make sense with what appears to be logical, intelligent baseball minds.
While I think about the non-offer to Loop, two scenarios pop into my mind. the first, is that the FO told Mo that he is not going to get spendy this year, he’s going to compete with what he has, pick up a few 2-4million dollar types and fill the remaining 3/4 spots on the 40man. OR, that they are going to make a serious play at a Hudson, Furcal, Fuentes, or some other 10-12 million a year type player and do little else (Loogy and maybe one other FA). I’d like to think the second is true, but my gut does tell me that the first scenario is the more likely of the two.
by timmycardinals on Dec 2, 2008 10:34 AM EST up reply actions
Again
If they are scared of Looper on a one year deal, why give Lohse 4 years? These seem like mutually exclusive positions. The Lohse deal in and of itself isn’t as bad as it’s made out to be but it doesn’t make sense in conjunction with a move like this.
Not to mention if they sign someone else
Say the Cards acquire SP John Doe. He is a 4-5 type starter and costs $8M on a one year deal. Obviously this exact deal won’t happen, but if it does, it will make the Looper non-move even more strange. Looper would be the same type of pitcher as just about anyone we’d sign, for a similar price (or less), and he may net us draft compensation if he doesn’t accept.
Two goldfish are in a tank. One of them turns to the other and says, "You man the guns, I'll drive!"
by thegodfather on Dec 1, 2008 10:47 PM EST up reply actions
Unless their scouting and coaching thinks that they can turn Lohse into something special
in 2004, Carp was good but not great, and had a late season injury. Then he turned into Zeus in 2005. Perhaps they think that they can work with Lohse in such a way that his 2009 season will look more like his first half than his second half.
Similarly, they might be projecting Looper to just decline.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
4 year age difference (maybe)
Looper (34) is a hair under 4 years older than Lohse (30). Maybe the Cards compared a one year deal to Looper in 09 to giving Lohse an extra year on his contract. This doesn’t make sense so who knows what they are thinking.
Maybe replacement level economics are starting to impact the front office more. Pay Boggs $450k or pay Looper $7M.
Not to mention...
Lohse (and Garland) have been durable starting pitchers for most of their careers (Garland has 7 seasons in a row of 190 innings or more). Looper has been a starter for two seasons after spending his career as a reliever and experienced a shoulder injury during both of those years. The two are no where near the same level of pitcher.
Also, the Cardinals have only 4 spots open on their 40-man roster, with negotations apparently ongoing with two relievers. Giving Looper arbitration would have cut that down to 3 spots.
That's a scary thought
Boggs should be a fill in starter. You know, “pitcher X’s shoulder/elbow/middle finger hurts so Boggs needs to start.” We simply need another starter because counting on Carp is just a terrible idea.
And on the revenue, I’m sure they’ll be fine this year. People will still go to games, plus you have the All Star Game to add to revenue. Dropping payroll this year after a 4th place finish would be kind of like slapping the fans in the face, right? Not to mention that while fans will show up to games to see a good team, I’m sure I’m not alone in saying that watching a rotation of Waino, Welley, Lohse, Joe-L, and Boggs makes me want to sell my tickets rather than come out to games.
Two goldfish are in a tank. One of them turns to the other and says, "You man the guns, I'll drive!"
Anytime Albert's in the lineup I'll pay to watch
by Walking Underwear on Dec 1, 2008 9:31 PM EST up reply actions
Sure it's great to watch him
And I’m not planning on getting rid of my tickets, but I’ll tell you right now that if that rotation (which has the potential to be something from a crappy horror movie) is what I’m paying to see, I’m going to be using StubHub quite a bit more often. By what you’re saying, can I assume you will go see a 75 win team with Albert just as many times as a 95 win team with Albert? I’m not trying to be a fair-weather fan, I am a Cards fan through and through, but I’m not going to take the time to go to quite as many games if the team isn’t winning. Obviously there is still a lot of time, and I don’t expect the team to lose this year so its a moot point, but not offering Looper arbitration was, at least in my opinion, a step in the wrong direction.
Two goldfish are in a tank. One of them turns to the other and says, "You man the guns, I'll drive!"
by thegodfather on Dec 1, 2008 10:43 PM EST up reply actions
Eckstein
Last season, is not offered arbitration, and we assume the cardinals do not want the risk of him returning, however later Mo states that he had called Eck’s agent and inquired if he could bring him back on a one year deal. Eck’s agent states he is looking for multiple years, and Mo signs Izturis. I’m concerned the organization does not value supplemental draft picks.
Acquire Boof Bonser. I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
Here's what Bernie had to say at the time
The day they signed Izturis, Mozeliak called Eckstein’s agent and asked again: we just want to make sure. Would you consider a 1-year, or 2-year deal. The answer: No.
That’s why.
Eckstein’s agent completely misread the market and botched it for his client. I don’t think playing in Toronto on a 1-year deal was David’s ultimate goal.
But when you go around asking for 4 years, 36 million … if you are so far out of touch from reality, I guess this is what happens.
the cardinals did offer the guy 3 and 21 in the spring.
There is no blame to put on the cardinals on this one. None.
—B
Even in hind sight I still don’t see why we didn’t offer eck arb, and I’m suspicious looper is the same scenerio
Acquire Boof Bonser. I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
Oh No What Does Mo Know?
Why not offer arb to looper? can’t figure that one out. just saw the yankees did not offer arb to any of theirs, either? what gives?
victim of the sixties
by victim of the sixties on Dec 1, 2008 8:12 PM EST reply actions
really?
not Abreu?
In other news, the Miller signing’s being held up by some sort of health concern. Not good. The Cards also have no interest in Randy Johnson — a decision I find more than a little perplexing. But they might be interested in Andy Pettitte — a guy who, we all know, has about as much chance of taking the mound for the Cards in 2009 as my 69 year old mother does. Troubling.
Other bad news — the Astros have solved all their pitching woes. They signed Mike Hampton today!
so
your mother has no options left?
stros sign hampton, can we then get wolfie?
"No matter where you go, there you are" Buckeroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension
beats me
but the net seems to say we have no interest in rj, though i’d like to see it myself
"No matter where you go, there you are" Buckeroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension
why the hell would they want Pettitte?
if he doesn’t retire he’s going to the Dodgers. MO can’t be this stupid can he?
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
Pettite is still a 3 win pitcher
Bloggers often talk about discounting a long term contract but in my mind the opposite is also true. I’d be willing to pay a premium on a 1 year contract. Petitte is worth 13~15M on a 1 year deal. I’d go as high as 16 provided it wasn’t an inhibitor for other contracts at more necessary positions.
Will Carroll
wrote something interesting on “rumors” yesterday at BP. It bears significantly on the “net seems to say” part of this.
by StanTheManFan on Dec 2, 2008 9:09 AM EST up reply actions
Because
Some people want to do the Wolfpack and wear werewolf masks to the game.
born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red
I just hope we get the "Michael J. Fox" Randy Wolf and not the "Jason Bateman" one.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
teen wolf has really let himself go
"I'm as nauseous as I've ever been. I have a terrible headache. My head is pounding. I feel like throwing up and I'm having trouble swallowing. And the beauty of it is, you want to feel like this every day." - Tony LaRussa
it isn't exactly bad either
the Miller hold up that is. At least they caught the health concern early, and there just has to be better options than Trevor Miller out there anyway.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
A couple Rule 5er's
I think if you find a spot anywhere on a roster for Rule 5 the 2nd LOOGY seem’s like a good spot. I like the idea of signing one good LOOGY guy and than which ever guy has the best spring signing for the 2nd spot.
Stat Whore
by FlimtotheFlam on Dec 1, 2008 9:11 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah that kinda sucks about Looper... unless
What if this is a real clue into what they’re planning on the free agent front? If Mr Mozeliak was truly worried about being on the hook for 1 year say ~7 mil for Loop then he must have another use in mind for the ~7mil right? Personally I hope its for a serious offer to Rafael Furcal. I realize thats widely considered a long shot but one can dream. The point is I’ll reserve my judgement when I see who the ~7mil goes to in the long run. though a supplemental pick would’ve been nice as i believe loop would’ve declined, I think it shows that Mo looks at that ~7mil as important for someone potentially more difference makey. Please note I say 7mil only cuz he made 5.5 last year but I really dont have the knowledge to make solid guess at what he might’ve commended at arb. And no I dont expect furcal to take 7mil but the 7 mil would be a nice portion of a larger offer. Anyway, I think Mo knows WAY more than me and I find him so far to be quite shrewd so far so I’ll reserve judgement as stated before.
by Walking Underwear on Dec 1, 2008 9:26 PM EST reply actions
All these lack of arbitration offers
I wonder if the MLB owners really are going to ‘downgrade’ free agent contracts this year in anticipation of the economy over the next few years.
If that is the case, they won’t want to be stuck paying players next year based on 2008 rates, even if it is for one year.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 1, 2008 10:12 PM EST reply actions
You're talking
about blatant collusion on a large scale, and doesn’t account for Lohse’s bull market contract given in a bear market.
Acquire Boof Bonser. I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
The owners were already briefed by MLB Lawyers and accountants
and were told to not spend money because the economy is in the crapper, or at the very least to spend it very wisely.
Lohse was also signed on September 29th. That was the same day that the stock market plummeted 777 points.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 1, 2008 10:25 PM EST up reply actions
I'll buy that
It doesn’t make me feel any better about the situation, but it’s the best explanation I’ve heard thus far. I do have a hard time believing that the financial crisis was completely unpredictable, or unexpected or even impending.
Acquire Boof Bonser. I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
If it isn't coordinated
It isn’t really collusion. Teams may adjusting their forecasts for attendance and other revenue streams downward, independent of each other. In a lot of markets it’s probably the right business move.
That Lohse move was questionable at best in my mind when it happened. It looks worse to me now. On the other hand, if things do dry up for a while then prospects will carry far greater value. That the Cardinals are in a better position prospect wise than in recent history is encouraging. I can see scenarios where the Andersons, Craigs, etc. start to carry a lot more value to other franchises if this turkey of an economy drags on and on.
by Merry CRasmus on Dec 1, 2008 10:30 PM EST up reply actions
But it doesn't
works negatively on an individual scale unless A.)You are confident the market trends will force others to participate in the same manner as yourself or B.) You have prior knowledge of others acting in this manner, such as in an agreement.
Acquire Boof Bonser. I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
that should read
but it does work negatively
Acquire Boof Bonser. I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
It doesn't have to be collusion...
if everyone is feeling the pinch at the same time. The economic ‘crisis’ we’re in right now means that big business doesn’t want to invest (and all MLB teams are owned by big business interests). I think that will translate into the FA markets as well, maybe into a potential lockout down the road as they try to recover lost revenue from the players’ salary- any lockout probably depends on more general labor trends (like whether big labor toes the business unionism line or actually fights for the little guy, or is compelled to fight by the little guy), but I digress.
I think that the current economic situation will compel A) businesses (including MLB franchises) to regain as much lost revenue from whatever source they can, ie wages and salaries, and B) it will be a generalized trend, easily mistaken for, but not collusion. Of course, I have been known to be wrong, and our beloved owners sure are known for collusion (reserve clause, ban on black players, and much more recently, the blackballing of the greatest hitter of the last half century). And there is always the chance that it is both an economic pullback AND collusion (especially when you have an agreed upon arbitrator- the commisioner- looking out for your common interests).
collusion = common reality
teams gain considerable revenue from business advertising (from in-stadium signs to commercial minutes on radio and tv). add to that the very important suite rentals at the ball park. all of these products are priced yearly and revenue will end up reflecting current economic conditions for at least the next 2 years (my guess). in short, agree with HCL on team valuations and contracts.
"No matter where you go, there you are" Buckeroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension
the truth is out there
HL may be onto something. or i’ve seen way to many x-files episodes.
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
here's an interesting quote from tony massarotti:
“Last month, commissioner Bud Selig summoned former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker to address teams during the winter meetings. Presumably, Volcker did not instruct the clubs to recklessly throw around money like a bunch of drunken sailors.”
Now, of course they didn’t put anything in writing, no memos or talking papers, but since then, teams have been very, very cautious… that may or may not be collusion, but it’s against the spirit of the free market, at the very least.
god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs
against the spirit of the free market
How so? To take financial advice that it might be in the best interest of teams to save money? So long as the talk wasn’t directly to drive down prices but simply to turn the largest profit, that’s 100% in the spirit of the free market. It just happens to be market contraction, which no one likes.
As an aside, not a huge Volcker fan but maybe they couldn’t get Greenspan.
good points.
Still, it’s a captive market, and when you get all of the buyers in one room and tell them that the sky is falling, it’s hard to tell prudence from collusion from the outside.
god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs
Why does everything that happens in tandem bring out the collusion talk?
Seriously — if you owned a big league franchise that was doing well financially, wouldn’t you take a look at your revenue projections and pre-season luxury box sales before deciding to sign some free agents, or offer to arbitrate salaries with players where you have no bearing on the salary outcome? Especially since you probably had some portion of your asset portfolio invested with a Wall Street investment bank? You’d be insane not to be a little concerned with the current market conditions, not to mention that the incoming President has vowed to hike your taxes by 5% next year.
Your franchise is probably not going to be worth what it was 3 months ago, because major league sports franchises are like Donald Trump’s golden comb: They’re only worth what someone would want to pay for them. You can say that the Yankees are worth $1.5B or that the Dallas Cowboys are worth $2.5B, but unless someone wants to buy them for that amount good luck making that sale.
I don’t quite understand how being wary of your financial situation ends up being “collusion”. I have a hard time believing that collusion exists when there are two players on this year’s free agent market that are going to make $20+M per season with their ensuing contracts. Perhaps the guys at the top are starting to put the squeeze on the older players (Randy Johnson, Bobby Abreu, Kerry Wood, Garrett Anderson) and the players that teams can simply do without (which is just about every Type B on the list).
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
Bonds was not colluded against
Period. We’re not having this discussion again. There’s no evidence and you have the burden of proof. Show me a memo circulated to all the owners in MLB that they were not to sign Barry Bonds and we can have this discussion. Otherwise it’s best left alone….
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
how could he not have been?
we’re never going to get a memo like you said, but the mere fact that a player with his numbers didn’t play last season has to mean someone, somewhere in the upper levels of MLB ordered that he not be signed. what other logical explanation is there?
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
What other logical explanation?
Here’s a few:
- He’s a prick and nobody wanted him in their clubhouse.
- Nobody wanted to deal with the media circus surrounding him over a full season.
- He’s 44 years old, unable to play on defense, and hasn’t played back to back night/day games in his last 2 seasons.
- He’s been indicted by a federal grand jury and faces a trial and possible prison time and nobody knew when that would start.
- He’s been booed everywhere he’s played except for San Fran, and even they didn’t want him back, Brian Sabean said as much.
- Instead of suiting up for and independent league team and proving that he was fit to play, like another HOF player I know, he simply sat at home and cried in his flaxseed about nobody wanting him.
Bonds wasn’t the only one on the Mitchell Report, there were plenty of others that were there that played this season, only they weren’t 44 years old, a major pain in the ass, and only liked by fans in one city in the country.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
A few of those.
- Jeff Kent.
- Sign him for half the season.
- is false. Everyone knew when his trial would start (ie, 2009).
- doesn’t matter in the AL. Being a DH would allow him to play everyday and his defense wouldn’t matter.
- ARod is boo’d EVERYWHERE he plays, even at home. That didn’t stop the Yankees from making him the highest paid player in baseball, again.
- Ricky Henderson is a sideshow. He only played in the Independent League because Ricky Henderson would do anything for a quick buck.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 2, 2008 11:46 AM EST up reply actions
Collusion doesn't necessarily have to occur in memos
Obviously nobody can prove it, and it’s all speculation, but I don’t think we can actually say that the circumstances indicate that Bond was not colluded against.
I mean, there’s no actual proof that Bonds used steroids, either. And yet…and yet.
he almost certainly was.
imho the choice is either to believe that he was colluded against, or that 30 GM’s simultaneously individually chose to not put the best players in the world on the field in 2008. Either way, the game is corrupt, because a historically great player was not allowed to play, but I’d rather believe the orders came from above than believe that 30 MLB GM’s were complete fools.
It doesn’t take a memo; all it takes is a wink wink, nudge nudge. Bonds’ OPS+ was better in 2007 than manny’s in 2008- in fact, manny has only had 3 seasons in his career better than Barry’s 2007, by OPS+- and yet Bonds couldn’t find a job despite being willing to play for the league minimum?
before you bring up “clubhouse cancer”, remember that Manny ramirez frigging assaulted a civilian in the clubhouse and gave up on his team, in effect throwing at least one game, probably more, and at the deadline the dodgers gave up enough prospects to get Jason Bay, rather than pick up Barry for free. And manny’s gonna get a deal for $20M+ for 3-5 years this off-season.
Despicable.
god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs
when did Bonds become better then Pujols?
The last time Bonds lead the league in OPS+ was 2004 as well, mainly because he isn’t qualifying to lead anymore due to less games. Also Bonds was charged with a federal crime during the last offseason. I think it was pretty freakin obvious that he was a high risk signing that also carried press and clubhouse baggage that the owners didn’t want to deal with.
"People call me El Hombre," Pujols said. "But only Stan is the Man."
Bonds’ OPS+ was better in 2007 than manny’s in 2008-
Bonds 2007 — 126 Games at age 43
Manny 2008 — 153 Games at age 35
There’s 8 years of difference between them, and Manny played 27 more games than Bonds did in 2007. You really think Barry was going to play 130 games if he’d started the year out of the gate? I highly doubt it, he’s only done it once in the past 4 seasons. He’s one of the best hitters on the planet, when he’s not sitting on the bench, which he would do for about 1/3 of the season.
This is stupid — show me proof that he was colluded against that would hold up in a court hearing and I’ll agree with you. Otherwise there is too much circumstantial evidence to the contrary to prove anything. He is not Curt Flood, this isn’t the 1970’s, and he’s not in the prime of his career and being blackballed.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
“Otherwise there is too much circumstantial evidence to the contrary to prove anything.”
Personally, I believe that he was colluded against but I also acknowledge the necessity of the burden of proof for someone affirming something. Without it, society would constantly have to disprove minutiae.
That said, I don’t think the circumstantial evidence is in your favor. You cite age and . . . well, that’s really it. Age isn’t particularly persuasive when discussing someone who defies typical aging curves. He’s an outlier and just saying he’s 43 doesn’t mean much when he was worth a couple wins in 2007.
It's not just age...
- He’s a difficult personality who has trouble getting along with teammates, managers, and the media
- He’s under federal indictment for lying to a Grand Jury and faces prison time if convicted
- On top of being 43 he hasn’t played more than 130 games in any of the last 4 seasons, and missed all of 2006 with a bad knee that still isn’t completely healthy.
- If I was a GM and was considering signing a 43 year old, of injured outfielder to my squad I would want to know that he’s in playing shape. Bonds did nothing but give himself a pity party when he could have played in an independent league somewhere and shown that he could still hit and field his position. He didn’t. He also wanted $15M+ for one season prior to spring training, which probably prevented anyone from inviting him to camp. Only after the All-Star break did he come out and say he’d “play for the league minimum”.
- If it was just about Barry wanting to play baseball, there are ways that he could have done that (Independent Leagues, Japan, etc.). But this isn’t about Barry playing baseball, it’s about Barry feeling sorry for himself because he’s finally having to pay the pauper for all his years of being a jerk and thinking only of himself.
Again, he’s the only one that keeps coming up in this discussion. None of the other free agent Mitchell Report guys sat out the year because no team would tender them a contract. There are plenty of instances in every major sport where a player simply can’t get a contract from a team for whatever reason, even when they can still play.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
1) Show me proof. I’ve heard Steve Kline (after he left the giants) on the radio say that Bonds was no worse than any other teammate.
2) The trial was never going to take place in 2008 and this was widely known.
3) And. . . since he can’t play 162 games he therefore has no value? I guess no one would be interested in Milton Bradley or Rafeal Furcal then.
4) I’d want to know if he could hit the ball and stand in a batter’s box. Teams employed a variety of really shitty DHs this year.
5) Bonds being a baby doesn’t mean he wasn’t colluded against. The fact that he didn’t play in an independent league doesn’t mean he wasn’t colluded against. It may mean he’s an arrogrant prick but it does nothing to disprove collusion.
Again, I don’t think the burden of proof is met to say he was colluded against (although the MLB PA filing a grievance on his behalf was interesting) but the circumstantial evidence can be twisted anyway you want it to and hardly favors one side.
Well twist it whatever way you want -- You still have no evidence
- You provide one example, I provide one example: Jeff Kent. We could do this all day long couldn’t we?
- Actually, it wasn’t. The Feds said that the trial could start as soon as August when the indictment was handed down. Besides that, how many pro sports teams currently employ a person under federal indictment for any crime? The Falcons cut Michael Vick prior to him being convicted. It’s a public eyesore in an entertainment business.
- Are Rafael Furcal and Milton Bradley 43 years old? No, they aren’t. Do we have to have a debate about the effects of aging on recovering from injury too? The man is human after all.
- He still didn’t prove he could do either of those now did he?
Bonds being a baby doesn’t mean he wasn’t colluded against. The fact that he didn’t play in an independent league doesn’t mean he wasn’t colluded against. It may mean he’s an arrogrant prick but it does nothing to disprove collusion.
But those things do cast doubt on the fact that collusion could have taken place. They are all reasons not to employ someone.
We’re not going to agree on this: You believe collusion took place, I don’t believe that it did and I never will unless some evidence to the contrary is uncovered. Show me evidence — otherwise we’ll have to agree to disagree.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
Interesting
That said, I don’t think the circumstantial evidence is in your favor.
Then why hasn’t the union filed a grievance? They have every right to file one and have it heard, but they haven’t. I think the union lawyers know that there is no way for them to prove collusion in this case, and that their client won’t be doing himself any favors by filing.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
They were going to file a grievance but
agreed to delay that filling with MLB in another great example of the good ole boys club.
How is that an example of the "Good 'Ole Boys Club"?
Because they reached an “agreement” to delay the filing of the grievance? Perhaps it’s because the union knows that it doesn’t have a case that can win yet and needs more evidence — but was making the commissioner’s office aware that it will file a grievance. Also, grievances must be filed in a certain amount of time, there is a statute of limitations on them. It’s possible that the union was going to file before the statute ran out, didn’t have much of a case, then engaged the commissioner’s office to get a delay so that one could be filed later.
Nothing in this article says anything to me about a “Good ’Ole Boys Club” having anything to do with this.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
Until 2002, the MLBPA
was undefeated with no ties or losses.
They’ve since been brought to their knees everytime the owners ask for something. You didn’t see the MLB owners called before Congress. The players were scared into giving MLB what they wanted by the other rich white guys in society, politicians.
by Hardcore Legend on Dec 2, 2008 11:49 AM EST up reply actions
How much should the owners give up?
I mean, really? Without the owners, the player don’t have any place to play do they? Would they rather sell used cars or work hard for middle class wages like most of the rest of us Americans?
The minimum salary in the MLB for one season is more than I make in a decade’s worth of working my job. Not to mention that any player who has 3 years worth of service time in the league also qualifies for the best pension program in the world. Not to bad for playing a game at a skilled level. I’m sure that there are other athletes in other sports who would love to make that kind of coin.
They also have guaranteed contracts. I bet there are some steelworkers (or NFL football players) out there that would love to get paid full salary after they get hurt at work instead of a 60% disability benefit.
Should they be paid handsomely? Yes, they bring a lot of revenue to the owners, entertainment to fans, and they get paid very well for it. Have they been taken advantage of in the past? Absolutely, which is why the MLBPA has such a stellar record. But when is enough, enough?
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
You must not have followed the story when it came out.
The MLBPA said it would file a grievance. A few days later it stated that it had reached an agreement with MLB to delay the filing (potentially to avoid disrupting the WS). It wasn’t a unilateral decision becanse the MLBPA lacked evidence. It was something that they discussed and then agreed with MLB to delay.
Exactly
It wasn’t a unilateral decision becanse the MLBPA lacked evidence. It was something that they discussed and then agreed with MLB to delay.
They mutually agreed to delay it. So how is that “ol’ boys club” working in the favor of the “ol’ boys” again?
(potentially to avoid disrupting the WS).
That’s been over for a month…and they still haven’t filed anything. Hmmmmmmmm
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
Seriously
MLBPA says they will file grievance.
MLB talks with MLBPA
MLBPA decides not to file grievance til later date.
Are you really not seeing the back scratching going on there? Really?
You claimed that they were delaying the filing because they lacked evidence. I pointed out that it wasn’t a unilateral decision and it doesn’t seem to be a lack of evidence.
manny
played in 130 games in 2006 and 133 games in 2007. Bonds played in 130 games in 2006 and 126 games in 2007, and sat out of a number of road games in ’07 in order to ensure that he hit his record-breaker at home.
As a DH, Barry also could probably have played more games in ‘08 than he played in ’07, and even in ’07 he got 477 PA’s. That’s more PA’s than Rick ankiel, aaron miles, yadier molina or cesar izturis had in 2008. There was at least as much risk of Manny falling off a cliff as there was Bonds, after 2007.
477 PA’s at a .357 GPA is worth over 100 runs, offensively, out of one player who was willing to play for league minimum. I just can’t believe that none of the 30 teams felt they had a use for that, even as a pinch hitter.
god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs
None of these players is 43 years old either...
Rick ankiel, aaron miles, yadier molina or cesar izturis
Nobody would be signing any of those guys if they were 43 years old either would they?
That’s my point, you can’t count on him playing a full season and you’re taking a risk that he may get injured and not play at all.
Again, there are legit reasons NOT to sign him and they do not have anything to do with colluding against him.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
"and you’re taking a risk that he may get injured and not play at all."
If he was asking for $20M, then this would be a legitimate concern. But he was willing to play for the league minimum. That is a HUGE market inefficiency that I can’t believe went unnoticed by all 30 GM’s.
god, i love baseball. -roy hobbs
That's what he was saying publicly
But I’m not sure that anyone really believed that he would play for league minimum. The Giants probably would have let him come back for league minimum, but he wanted the same amount of money that he had made the previous year at that point. He was looking for a $15M deal during spring training. Only when it became obvious that nobody wanted him did he start saying publicly that he would play for the league minimum and donate it to charity.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
Owner's are just some rich guys
Even if they are taking a hit on the baseball side of things they probably took a much bigger hit on the rest of their investments. Causing them to be more conservative on all their investments. I would think the owner’s that took the largest financial hits would be the most conservative in their spending.
Stat Whore
wow, now that we've paid off Izzy and Mulder to go away,
the shocker of early December is that it looks like the biggest contractual millstone around Mo’s neck is not Kennedy or Piniero, but Franklin. Anybody think that if we weren’t paying already paying one veteran right-handed reliever a few mil too many that we wouldn’t be offering Springer arbitration? And who here wouldn’t rather have Springer than Franklin?
And not offering arbitration to Looper seems just inexplicable. One year at 7 or 8 M. Mo must have more faith in Carpenter (or KMac or Mitch Boggs) than I thought. Or maybe we really are going to try to give Furcal $12M this year.
Franklin earns $2.5 M this year
I think. It’s hard for me to stomach the idea that his $2.5 M is a bigger albatross than Pineiro’s $7.5 M or the $44.5 M still owed to Carpenter.
Looper
I think not offering Looper arbitration is a sign that they want to resign him. I doubt there is a huge demand for him, at least not a large enough one that he would get multiple years at 5-7M per. I think the Cards probably want to pay him 6-7M but not 8-10M, if I was Looper I would ask for 8.5M or so in Arbitration and probably win that case vs even 7M offered by the club. Not offering arbitration allows them to still sign him but not be worried about overpaying if they don’t want too. It is a risk that they are taking in that Looper could sign with someone else and they get nothing at all for it but I don’t see it as a bad risk whatsoever.
"People call me El Hombre," Pujols said. "But only Stan is the Man."
I'm thinking this front office took a day off and forgot to file the paperwork
because the more I think about this and the more I read quotes, the stupider they become.
They could have offered arb to Looper and still worked on a deal prior to the hearing. If he accepts arb and no deal beforehand, great! Average pitcher on 1 year deal that won’t break the bank — perfect. If he declines arb, great! Supplemental draft picks are your friend. There’s very little chance of Looper getting more than $10M next year. This just doesn’t make sense. The Springer decision is equally as frustrating unless they suspect he’d get more than $4M in arb (possible).
Part of the issue, however, is that the club was stupid in the past and it’s biting them in the ass now. Not having players like Pineiro and Franklin would help the roster crunch since both of those players are also not very good. Instead we’re saddled with $10M for those two for about 1 marginal win next season. Both of those contracts were glaring mistakes.
There’s still room for improvement in the front office decisions.
Hatred Level for Franklin
This isn’t directed at you, Mr. Roboto, you just sparked my interest.
What is so awful about Franklin’s $2.5M contract? Yes, he was a little less than reliable in the closer role, but he was versatile & effective otherwise. He could be abused by Tony (worked 2-3 days in a row, multiple inning outings, possibility to be used as a starter) and he doesn’t appear to have any issues with how he is being handled.
As was mentioned earlier wrt/Springer, his salary (by & of itself) is not going to make the difference of whether we sign a notable FA or not. Plus, the only people he is really holding back (assuming a bullpen of Perez, Motte, Franklin, McClellan, Kinney, & 2 lefties) is Thompson (a passable long-man/emergency starter) and Worrell (unfairly or not, he’ll never get a fair shot here anyway).
Add on to that with the thought that we have already planned on replacing 5 of the 7 bullpen guys from our 2008 Opening Day roster (Isringhausen, Springer, Reyes, Villone, Flores), leaving only McClellan & Franklin – LaRussa needs a security blanket somewhere. YP effectively takes over for Izzy (if he is allowed to), Motte pushes Ryan out of the setup role (same assumption), Kinney picks up Russ’ low leverage outs, & Kyle maintains his position from last year; Franklin is a huge improvement over the cast of misfits we utilized in the 5th-RHRP/long-man role last year. If the three new-ish guys can continue or add on to their performances of last year (realistically, that is asking for a lot), we can expect a lot more out of the bullpen next season.
Franklin is not the problem here.
That said, the Cubs do deserve my pity, but never my support.
What is so awful about Franklin’s $2.5M contract?
I don’t think it’s the contract in isolation. Franklin is a single bullet point in a list of players signed for a few million that really aren’t worth it. He was signed to a multiyear deal (why sign any marginal player for multiple years?) and was misused for much of last year because our manager has a hard time avoiding bullpen vets.
Combine him with guys like Pineiro, Izturis and Trever Miller and you’ve thrown away $10M with little to show for it. Now we’ve got Franklin serving as bullpen congestion for more talented pitchers in the minors and better vets like Springer. Franklin’s no better than Brad Thompson yet the possibility remains that we’ll carry both. I don’t get it and I don’t understand the front office rational for it.
Lumping In
I understand that Franklin isn’t that great of a pitcher, but I would think that he has pitched well enough to justify a $2.5M contract (2 WSAB in ‘08, 5 WSAB in ’07). It is also true that we have a few AA+ righthanders that could probably pitch as well right now (I don’t agree on Puppy Kicker), but LaRussa does have some say as to what the roster construction is. There is no way he is going to agree to start the season with no veteran presence in the pen; with Izzy & Springer gone, he’s going to need someone he can immediately trust. Maybe after a couple months we can move Ryan to let the AAA kids have their turn.
As for lumping him in with Pineiro, that’s a little unfair. Jo-el was significantly worse, both statistically & by eyeball, and makes a lot more money. That is not unlike saying, “What pair of brothers have the most career home runs – the Aaron brothers”, and trying to give Tommie equal credit. Pineiro did not earn his salary; Franklin did.
I’m not saying that having Franklin on the 25-man roster is particularly good use of resources or that he’s a great value. I’m just saying that it is realistic and not worth worrying about.
That said, the Cubs do deserve my pity, but never my support.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
