- This topic has 25 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Matt Carpenter gets $39 million for ‘20 and ‘21 combined and another $18.5m for ‘22 if he gets 1,100 plate appearances over the first two years, per source.
— Mark Saxon (@markasaxon) April 10, 2019
Okay, I do not get this one, at all.
The Cards already have first base locked up for half a decade. Now the same for 3rd base — with (perhaps) the system’s top 3 position players all 3rd-sackers.
Carp is off to a relatively poor start this year, and he can’t possibly move to the outfield in the future. He’ll be 36 years old for the 2022 season. I love the guy, but there’s an 80-90% chance that he will NOT be the best choice for 3rd base in 2022. And probably not 2021 either, in my unhumble opinion. (Yes the DH might be coming to the Senior Circuit, and then again it might not. But either way, do you want an old, $20M designated hitter? I don’t think I do.)
This continues a trend that began with Waino’s $97M extension several years ago. Since then there’s been Yadi, Fowler, Goldy, now Carp. You can kinda throw Cecil, Holland, and Miller in there, too. It’s a bad trend, paying big bucks for guys on the wrong side of 30. In fact I think it may be a terrible trend.
To put it most simply: when any given MLB team exceeds reasonable expectations, is it usually because young emerging players/pitchers provide a significant unanticipated boost to the organization? Or is it usually because some old players or pitchers have surprisingly big seasons? I would guess the former happens about ten times more often than the latter.
As I note in the article, I’ve seen no indication that Carpenter has been given no-trade protection.
At the age of 36 Carp will be a bench caliber player getting starting caliber time. And lets say he agrees to a bench role, he’s going to be making $19,500,000 as a bench player? Wow…
My thought is the club is not looking at this from simply and ROI basis, or you guys would be correct to criticize management for making investments that will likely not pay off. The organization must have the resources to do this, and they are rewarding their tenured players with nice deals as the ride into the sunset in their careers.
It is a nice gesture. Let’s just hope they still have the ability to bring on players to fill needs when they arise over the next 5-6 years.
A team used sometimes in fantasy baseball is “stars and scrubs”. The thought is a handful of players who make a lot and the rest of the roster are low-salaried players (in this case under six-year players).
As more and more potential free agents sign extensions, there will be fewer and fewer free agents to buy on the open market in the upcoming years. It will be interesting to watch this dynamic over time.
“The organization must have the resources to do this, and they are rewarding their tenured players with nice deals as the ride into the sunset in their careers.”
I think we’re debating at cross purposes, BikeMike.
I’m not concerned about whether ownership has sufficient resources to cover the tab. The hazard here isn’t that the club will get a poor return on its investment. That’s not what worries me.
The profound hazard is that there’ll be a yet another repeat of what we’ve seen over the past few years with Fowler, Holland, Cecil, Gregerson, and to a certain extent Wainwright — that a contract commitment dictates who plays and who doesn’t, who starts and who sits on the bench, who remains on the 40-man roster and who gets rightfully released.
If Fowler for example were making $6M a year instead of $16M, not only would he not be starting, he likely wouldn’t even be on the team anymore. He’d have been released last year before Mike Shildt had a chance to inexplicably re-insert him in the starting lineup. Which of course would make this year’s outfield Ozuna, Bader, and Pham, with O’Neill waiting in the wings to take over for Ozuna in 2020. (In other words, with Fowler gone there would’ve been no need to trade Pham last year. Pham was traded to get Bader back into the starting lineup where he belonged, but from which he was pulled by Shildt in deference to Delicate Dexter.)
The terrible hazard with a contract extension like this is that at some point in the future — and for an extended period of time — the team actively hurts itself by using players who are markedly inferior to other available options.
I’ll say it once more. For the first 7-8 years of his tenure, Mo was as shrewd as any GM in the sport. I would not have exchanged him straight-up for anyone. But over the past 2-3 years he’s been a C- or D+ general manager. Maybe straight D, really, if you give him a meaningful demerit for the bizarre and highly idiosyncratic mishandling of Jordan Hicks’ formerly promising career. Of course Mozeliak has gotten some things right in recent years; even a .150 batter gets a hit now and then. But on balance Mo has declined precipitously as a decisionmaker, and this wholly unnecessary and potentially very counterproductive Carpenter contract is the latest in a long line of gaffes.
Is there ANYONE on this forum who does not think the team could have gotten this same deal with Carpenter in the off season?
Miklasz weighs in…
“Matt Carpenter is 33, but Cardinals’ extension of his contract is a wise investment” (The Athletic)
Craig Edwards at Fangraphs concludes:
“This deal fits in with the Cardinals preferred mode of operation, though it changes little for their long term future.”
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-cardinals-really-like-matt-carpenter/
Bob…. every word of your comment IMO is true. But it may be wise for you to tone down your words regarding Mozeliak. From someone who knows: you will surely get a slap on the hands with a ruler from Mr. Walton who is pro management and defends our FO unconditionally. That is if he is not biased.
Bob has been around here much longer than you, 14NyquisT, and has proven to be very capable of both presenting and defending his views. He offers supporting data and logic behind his points, and while we don’t always agree, we respect each others’ opinions because they are backed more by thought than emotion.
Now, let’s discuss Cardinals baseball and Matt Carpenter’s extension…
P.S. For those who want to discuss the job status of the front office, I will bump up the long-running thread on the topic.
I am somewhere in the middle on this extension. I am not quite as euphoric as Bernie but I’m not as pessimistic as our own Bob is. I think Carp is still a very valuable player and chances are he will be for the next year or two but I really really don’t want to block our young 3B stars coming up from the minors.
If the FO really believes Carp will productive the next 2-3years then they can justify this deal, however if it is just a lifetime achievement award, then that makes no sense. The Cardinals are notorious for valuing their current players way more than players from the outside (with a few unfortunate exceptions like Leake, Fowler, Cecil, Gregerson, etc..). This is why I refrain from saying the FO is cheap. They will spend money but usually it is only on INTERNAL players. Rarely are they willing to write big checks on the outside, which is why Mo may have been scolded by BDW for always being the bridesmaid.
Someone could make the argument that it is strange that they are willing to pay Carp $19M at age 36 but not willing to pay Bryce Harper $25M at age 26. Of course I understand the length of Harper’s contract is kind of scary and he was basically blocked by Fowler’s hideous contract.
First I will admit I am NOT a Matt Carpenter fan. But I will also admit he has his moments. Most of his moments come on offense but other than throws that look like they are designed to clear the arch his defense has improved to at least average. I don’t think Matt has done anything to make me think less of him. Rather it is the announcers who seem to fawn over everything he does and go crickets on his less than stellar points. Prominent among the fawning is how great his eye is – yet he is prone to argue with the HPUs on nearly every strikeout. Matty – is the the HPUs opinion that counts so do what all players have to do – adapt. I do agree with the poster who wonders if Matt’s 3B position will not be blocking several up and comers we have in the minors (ie – Gorman). In any case what’s done is done and the FO guys are a lot higher pay grade than me so I just sit back and enjoy the game (and keep Mr McCarver muted – ahhhh so nice and quiet).
Not a fan of this move.He is a 33 year old with shoulder issues.What happens if his shouder goes out again and he can
t throw at all? He is barely adequate throwing now.He is blocked at 1B and what good is a rag-armed guy who cant throw at 3B? I don`t like this at all.If he plays well this season then renew his option next season.But why extend him now?What is MO doing ..trying to have a senior player monopoly.The only way I see that Carp really blocks anyone is if one of the 3B really takes off in the next year. Gorman probably won’t be ready til 2021 at least and Montero may not be a 3B anyway. Nunez is so far away that he wouldn’t be likely to be here before 2022 at the very best.
Point is, they could always make a trade of one of the young guys is a world beater, or perhaps they’re banking on the DH coming. It’s a pretty neutral deal to me. Feel good for the front office and Marp.
I already had it as given that they would pick up the option. So to me it is really a one year extension and an option.
You have to take Bernie with a grain of salt until the wind blows the other way.
Again, anyone not think.that Carpenter would sign the same deal in the off season? Why would the team assume the extra injury/performance risk? Makes no sense to me. But not my money!
When I first heard that he was signed to an extension, I thought that it would be good, depending on the terms. Hearing that it was only 2 years and a reasonable amount, I was feeling pretty good.
Then I started thinking about the prospects coming up and whether the team had just blocked some talent that could potentially outperform Carpenter. I had to rethink everything in depth.
In 2020, Mendoza (24) and Montero (21) look to be the only 2 who might have a reasonable chance to be ready to appear in the majors. I don’t see either one outperforming Carpenter, however. In 2021, Mendoza (25), Montero (22) and Gorman (21) could all have a chance to make the majors. However, I think Carp could still outperform all of them unless Gorman continues his impressive start to this year over the remainder of this season and all of next season. The 2022 season would be the year that he might finally block someone that he shouldn’t.
If things for the prospects work out the way they could, Montero could be a big trade chip. Also, Carpenter might be a super sub in that last year. He could play 3B, 2B, 1B, DH and maybe some OF. Maybe he would only play a little over 100 games. We could ease the prospects in rather than forcing them into the lineup too early.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.