December 5, 2019 at 3:12 pm #116039CariocaCardinalParticipantPaid - Monthly
What do people think would have happened with the Carpenter option and contract if he had not been extended prior to the season. Would the Cards have picked up the option? Signed him to a multi year deal? Let him become a FA?December 5, 2019 at 3:39 pm #116046
Mo and DeWitt said confidence in Carp was high and it’s obvious he will bounce back next year. So, of course, Carp would’ve gotten a similar multi-year deal anyway.December 5, 2019 at 3:52 pm #116049Brian WaltonKeymasterPaid - Annual
My guess is they would have negotiated another two year deal with a third year team option. I think they would have lowered their offer to something like 2/$32 MM. $14.5/$15.5 and $2MM buyout or $16.5 MM for 2022.
$14.5 MM was his 2019 salary, so no raise for this year based on last year. Compared to his current contract, they would save $7 MM in years 1-2 and the potential for another $2 MM savings in year 3 – if Carpenter accepted the offer, of course!December 5, 2019 at 4:08 pm #116053CardsFanInChiTownParticipantFree
Any word on what he’s working on this offseason? Drills to speed up his bat, multiple visits to the eye doctor, etc?December 5, 2019 at 5:17 pm #116067CariocaCardinalParticipantPaid - Monthly
My guess is that he would have hit the open market. However the Cards would have eventually signed him for about 1/$14 with a 2021 option for $18 with a $1 million buyout.January 1, 2020 at 3:07 am #117970
I know it’s hindsight, but outside of declining his 2020 option this winter, I wished they had deleted his 2020 option, and make it a 2 year deal ending in 2021.September 21, 2020 at 2:05 pm #141152
It’s looking more and more that Carpenter should be relegated to the bench. His once mighty OBP, along with his average, have come crashing down. His bat seems very slow. And the biggest reason for benching him is to not let his contract vest for 2022.October 7, 2020 at 8:39 pm #143945
Any specifics on how many PAs Carpenter will need for vesting in 2021 season? It’s more than obvious the Cards need to upgrade both outfield and third base production. Another question is whether to bring back Miller. If he was more than a DH only, it would be an easy answer.October 7, 2020 at 8:49 pm #143947stlcard25ParticipantPaid - Annual
C27, Carp needs 628 plate appearances next year for the option to vest. It’s not likely to happen.October 7, 2020 at 9:30 pm #1439511964cardsParticipantPaid - Annual
In the “Cardinals Offseason Needs” Topic I outlined my concerns with Carpenters ability to compete effectively moving forward as well as the how to deal with his contract. Brian pointed out that DeWitt is not willing to eat contracts and I would agree with that point. I also do not believe there will be any takers for Matt via the trade route. So I fully expect Carpenter to be a Cardinal in 2021, see some playing time (but not enough for his contract option to vest) and the Cards declining his option for 2022.
As I said in that post, I am kinda hoping Matt elects to retire. There is nothing worse than watching one of your baseball hero’s play way below their good years as they try to hang on or play out a contract.October 8, 2020 at 12:04 am #143964gscottarParticipantPaid - Annual
I still think his vesting target is less than 628 but regardless it is unlikely to happen.
And the chances of him retiring and walking away from $18.5 million and an option are probably zero.October 8, 2020 at 2:28 am #143969
Will normalization calculations for Cardinals’ players be based on 60 or 58 games? Seems like it might be 60. If it were a normal season and a team didn’t make up a rain out or two, would they change the calculation for that? Seems like no to me, but I don’t know.
Without knowing the above, the multiplier to normalize for this year would be either 162/60 or 162/58. That translates Carp’s 169 PAs this year to 456.3 (based on 60) or 472.03 (based on 58). That means to vest, Carp will need either 643.7 (based on 60) or 627.97 (based on 58) PAs next year.
Wonder if they round up/down or truncate? 😉October 8, 2020 at 8:33 am #143981gscottarParticipantPaid - Annual
The way I calculate it is different.
60 games out of 162 is 37%. 58 games out of 162 is 35%.
37% of 550 is 203. 35% of 550 is 192.
So if you add 2020 and 2021 together he would need either 753 or 742 combined.
He received 169 PA’s in 2020 so he would need either 584 or 573 in 2021.
At least that is the method I used. I could be wrong.October 8, 2020 at 9:01 am #143995jj-cf-stlParticipantPaid - Annual
Euro, I answer the 58 games or 60 games question by looking at the objective at the end. We want the multiplier to get us to the 162 game equivalent, so I use 58 games, as I expect DET to also.October 8, 2020 at 9:37 am #144013
At least that is the method I used. I could be wrong.
I see why your method gives different numbers.
On a small point, your numbers are off a little due to rounding. Just use the rational number for precision instead of your percentage approximations. The percentages are non-terminating decimals so you are introducing rounding error. In other words, 60/162 is 37.037% to five significant digits. 58/162 is 35.802% Using the exact percentages will give you PA credits of 203.70 and 196.91 respectively.
However, that doesn’t explain the majority of the difference. Your approach is looking at it from the angle of how many PAs short of 550 was Carp this season. The other approaches I’ve seen used look at how many PAs does Carp get credit for this season. Just using the 60 game prorated factor (162/60), each PA in 2020 is worth 2.613 PAs. Likewise, if you’re truly prorating the numbers, each PA short of 550 is worth 2.613 PAs. Your approach is not taking that into account. It gives 2.613 multiplier credit from one angle, but doesn’t cost him the 2.613 multiplier from the other angle. That would be an inconsistent application, but obviously we will have to wait and see how they really calculate it.October 8, 2020 at 9:41 am #144015
jj, yep I understand your point. Just not sure how they’ll really do it. That’s why I brought up the example of in a “normal” season, would they change the multiplier if a team played only 161 or 160 games due to rainouts? Even that small difference could change whether or not a player meets a contract incentive. Just not sure what they do in that case.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.