Comments on: Being competitive or being status quo?

By: roarke

roarke — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:57:31 +0000

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)?

By: Pip

Pip — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 04:57:56 +0000

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!

By: Pip

Pip — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 04:53:51 +0000

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.

By: roarke

roarke — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:30:21 +0000

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 (

By: knieriemd

knieriemd — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:38:16 +0000

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.

By: Pip

Pip — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:56:32 +0000

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.

By: Cardinal70

Cardinal70 — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:19:52 +0000

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?

By: roarke

roarke — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:48:38 +0000

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.