Being competitive or being status quo?
So the Cardinals have re-signed Joel Pineiro to a two-year, $13 million deal. When we noted yesterday that the proof of the Cardinals’ post-Jocketty direction will be in the first multi-year deal the Cardinals make, that wasn’t exactly the one we we hoping for.
It’s one thing to put off the rebuilding work for a year. It’s another to continue making the same mistakes in an attempt to be competitive. To be fair, Pineiro wasn’t the problem in 2007. But his Jeff Weaver-like stint doesn’t strike us as a big-enough sample to feel bullish about a 2008 improvement, much less 2009. Let’s review his Cardinal numbers, and not the ones that the P-Ds’ Joe Strauss and the AP’s RB Fallstrom noted — a 6-4 record and 3.96 ERA in 11 starts (we hope that John Mozeliak is looking deeper than the newspaper stats):
- Pineiro’s Fielding-Independent ERA (4.87) was almost a full point higher than his ERA.
- His HR/G was 1.63. The only pitchers with a worse rate were guys who shouldn’t have pitched in the big leagues last year: Cavazos, Maroth, Mulder, Dove …and Miles. To put it in perspective, Brad Thompson had a better HR/G rate (1.54). Granted, Pineiro’s 17.4% HR/F rate was higher than normal (11-12% is average), which means he was probably a bit unlucky with the long flies, so his expected FIP — 4.30 — was actually lower than his actual FIP but still worse than his ERA (3.96).
Actually, Pineiro’s case aptly parallels Weaver’s. Both had some modicum of success in the AL, then nearly washed out with new clubs before being plucked out of the mire by the Cardinals, where they had just small-enough samples to appear to have turned things around. Whereas each improved his ERA with the Cardinals, each had his Fielding-Independent ERA actually worsen:
| ERA | FIP ERA | DER | ||||
| non-STL | STL | non-STL | STL | non-STL | STL | |
| Weaver 2006 | 6.29 | 5.18 | 5.35 | 5.75 | .671 | .704 |
| Pineiro 2007 | 5.03 | 3.96 | 4.67 | 4.87 | .681 | .707 |
The key, of course, was that each pitcher came to a Cardinal team that offered a better defense than his previous team, or at least pitched “luckier” for a short period of time (check out the Defense-Efficiency Ratio).
Perhaps management sees Pineiro in the same light that they viewed Kip Wells last year: a guy with some potential on whom they can take a chance. The problem with that mentality is twofold, and perhaps threefold: First, the Wells flyer cost them peanuts compared to the Pineiro one; with a one-year, $4-million contract, the risk was nominal. Second, as any Cardinal fan who spent the better part of the summer with access to an internet connection knows, the Wells experiment didn’t work out so well. True, Wells is not Pineiro, and the latter’s success is completely unrelated to the former’s. But that brings us to a third problem: Wells was Dave Duncan’s experiment, and, while Duncan has many success stories on his resume, Kip Wells is not one of them (though we still contend that Wells was not as bad as conventionally believed). Further, Duncan may not even be around in 2008, anyway, so the idea of Pineiro as hopeful project may not even see the light of Duncan’s tutelage.
While we’re on the subject of Wells, it’s perhaps instructive to compare him with Pineiro. Since we’re dealing with two post-surgery pitchers trying to resurrect their careers, we should probably look at their Stuff, which, according to BPro is “a rough indicator of the pitcher’s overall dominance, based on normalized strikeout rates, walk rates, home run rates, runs allowed, and innings per game.”
Fascinatingly, Pineiro’s and Wells’s Stuff numbers track each other almost identically the last six seasons. Where they’ll be in 2008 is anyone’s guess, but it’s certainly not a forgone conclusion that Pineiro will be better than Wells, given their respective career trajectories. Why spend the money on Pineiro, then? Now, it’s possible that Wells will ultimately garner a better contract than Pineiro, but for $13 million, we would’ve been as inclined to see the Cardinals re-sign Wells, who shows more potential, at least in a relief role, which is how we’re betting Pineiro will spend the majority of his outings in 2008. It’s starting to seem like “being competitive” is confused with “being status quo.”
October 16th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
While Piniero doesn’t get me excited, I am not as negative about this signing as you are. I still think that Wells was the right move to make last year and that Piniero is a decent bet to make this offseason. The market for starting pitching is insane these days. The Cardinals got skewered by fans for most of the year for not signing one or more quality starters during last offseason, but they would have had to severely overpay to get Schmidt, Zito, Meche, Lilly, Marquis, Weaver, Eaton, Wolf or Suppan. And of those, only Meche and Lilly performed to expectations.
The same scenario will play out this offseason, except that prices have probably increased with another year’s inflation. It was speculated that Kyle Lohse might get $10M+ for 4 or 5 years, which is crazy talk. Taking a flier on a guy with some upside (moreso than Lohse, I would argue) like Piniero is what the Cardinals should be doing to pin down the back end of the rotation – and $6.5M/year is basically the cost of that commodity right now (as sickening as that may be).
If I were GM (and I haven’t been called for an interview yet), I would make a deal like this and try and trade Reyes while he’s got some value for another underperforming, but talented SP (Reyes and Chris Duncan to Anaheim for Ervin Santana and Nick Adenhart?) and then hope that Mulder and/or Carpenter can bolster the rotation at some point in 2008. I’d much rather take that avenue than overspend on some middling starter this offseason and regret it for the next five years.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:19 am
And they were really close to getting Schmidt, which would have done nothing for the lost season of 2007 and severely crippled them in 2008.
I agree, Wells wasn’t as bad as most thought. I’m not sure I’d want him back (listening to the screams of the faithful would be agonizing) but I appreciate your argument.
Does anyone now think the Cards will hire a young up and coming GM? That there’s any chance Mo won’t get the job?
October 17th, 2007 at 9:56 am
As Schmidt, Zito, Mulder et al indicate, signing older pitchers to multi-year deals is just a bad way of doing business (the scaly, dinosaur way). Pitchers are largely crapshoots, and those who are past their prime are even moreso, and throwing lots of money at them only doubles the problem. Better to take a risk with a younger pitcher who has some upside and costs a great deal less. That’s why keeping Reyes, even if he never improves, is still a much smarter decision than signing a Pineiro to two years. Iron Cap has more upside than Pineiro, and he’s a fraction of the cost. Look at the Rockies, Diamondbacks and Indians this season — one “ace,” then several young or also-ran pitchers (Josh Fogg is making $3,625,000 this year).
As for the GM job, it’s anyone’s guess. I’ll solicit some opinions from some people I know and let you know.
October 17th, 2007 at 11:38 am
I actually agree with everything you say, up to whether Pineiro should have been signed. Though some decry the lost “opportunity cost” of the Pineiro signing, I would suggest that there has to be opportunity to have it cost you. We can start with some givens:
1. Someone has to pitch
2. Trades are theoretical, rather than an actual option, because it is dependent on too many variables
3. Young, inexpensive pitchers are rarely free agents
Given all that, what are the options? I agree that spending large sums on pitchers is generally a waste of money. So what free agent do we pursue?
Personally, my vote is to sign some serious sluggers (A-Rod, anyone?), try to outslug everyone for the next couple of years, and hope the farm system eventually yields pitching talent. Hitters on average bring a better return on the dollar than pitchers.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
But, Pip, I think what I’m trying to say is that the Cardinals signing of Piniero is essentially the same thing as the Rockies paying Fogg this year or the Cardinals signing Wells last year, except that the market is going to be inflated even further this year.
Piniero vs. Iron Cap isn’t an either/or scenario, either. We will need production from both in order to fill the rotation. My suggestion of trading Reyes was mainly because it is apparent that he and Duncan are having trouble co-existing. If we could make a lateral move with him – getting another young, cheap, and talented pitcher that needs a change of scenery – it might be the best for everyone.
I agree with you regarding the notion of signing older pitchers to multi-year deals, but this is only two years and Piniero isn’t that old (
October 17th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
knieriemd:
You make good points. I concur that rather than signing FA pitchers, the Cardinals would be spending their money more reliably on a hitter, whose performance is generally more predictable.
October 17th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
roarke, you may be right regarding the adjustment for inflation. It should be interesting to see what happens. Ironically, the Cardinals in signing Pineiro may have created a self-fulfilling prophecy about the “volatile” pitching market. FA pitchers all winter will point to Pineiro’s deal!
October 18th, 2007 at 7:57 am
That’s an interesting point that I hadn’t thought of yet: if the Cardinals are truly going to be in the market for another starting pitcher this offseason, then how will they ever get one cheaply when any team they try to trade with or free agent they try to sign will use Piniero as a baseline. If Piniero is worth $13M for 2 years to the Cardinals, what is Jon Garland worth to us in trade (for example – and not an example I hope comes true, just one you hear a lot)?