Members: Login | Register | Feedback
GameDayRitual.com
btf_logo
Baseball for the Thinking Fan
You are here > Home > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion

Updated Blogs

Baseball Primer Newsblog
Last: Feb 17 3:16am
Community Blog
Last: Feb 17 12:04am
Primery Numbers
Last: Feb 16 4:00pm
Business of Baseball
Last: Feb 16 3:52pm
Baseball Centrist
Last: Feb 16 3:50pm
Gonfalon Cubs
Last: Feb 16 9:40am

Onlineseats.com is your
#1 Source for Cubs Tickets, Red Sox Tickets
and all MLB Tickets.
Use discount Code THINK
for 10% off on your order

Ticket Specialists
Red Sox Schedule
All MLB Teams

--- adverts ---

Archives

February 2006
S M T W T F S
     1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28        

Syndicate

Contributors

Jim Furtado
Founder & Publisher
Dan Szymborski
Editor-in-Chief
Repoz
Editor - Baseball Primer
ABC sells tickets
to the
Philadelphia Phillies
New York Yankees
Boston Red Sox
and Chicago Cubs
as well as all MLB teams

--- advert ---

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— All the News That's Fit to Link

Wednesday, March 31, 2004

Redbird Nation: HOW MUCH WOULD YOU PAY EDGAR RENTERIA?

or as penguinmobile said “Who Wants Edgar Renteria to Be More of a Millionaire?”

Brian Gunn received this email yesterday from Jeff Luhnow, the Vice President of Baseball Development for the St. Louis Cardinals.

I thought it might be interesting to start a discussion about signing Renteria. We all know what he brings to this team and we all know his contact is up at the end of this year. I’d be very interested to hear from you and your fellow bloggers [about] what kind of contract you think would be most appropriate for the Cardinals and Renteria. Clearly we all want him here, that’s not the issue. The issue is what would be a good contract for both sides, one that the fans would support and is “doable” based on other deals out there, his likely demands, etc. Years and money is the question.

Unfortunately, this will have to be a one way conversation—you all talking, me listening, for obvious reasons, but I would like you to have a voice.

Thanks to Nigel Mellish

Repoz  Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 06:41 PM
  Read Related:
63 comment(s)

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

    Page 1 of 1 pages
  1. First - Yay! Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 06:49 PM (#486105)
    Easy -- $1 to $2 million per win share above replacement, right? Not that I know what that is.

    From the "most similar players," maybe they can sign Renteria to Granny Hamner-like money. Not adjusted for inflation. That would be a steal.
  2. tr Sparkles Peterson Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 06:53 PM (#486106)
    Most Cardinals fans seem to want Edgar signed as soon as humanly possible before he goes out and drives his price up a bit more. Personally, I would rather see them wait a month or so into the season before they sign him to $10M plus per season. Last year sure didn't look like a fluke, and if it wasn't Edgar is quite likely the best shortstop remaining on the planet, but he had never looked like a $10M man before--and hadn't looked like someone who might develop into one since his rookie year--and his downside going into the season is bigger than his upside IMO. With his skillset, I can't imagine him improving significantly on last year so I really don't see what the big rush is. He wants to stay in St. Louis, his price is as high right now as it's ever going to be, and there is a chance it could drop. I say wait it out.
  3. Pops Freshenmeyer Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 06:58 PM (#486107)
    An interesting development that a front office would solicit opinions.

    His 1st and 4th best comps through age 27 are Trammell and Roberto Alomar. Pretty high praise. That being said, last season was by far his best and expecting him to continue a line of .330/.394/.480 is wishful thinking. Right now, I would take him over Tejada in a second. Baltimore probably had to pay Miguel more than anyone else would (and 6 years is pretty risky) which balances out the equation.

    Three years 30-35 million sounds pretty close to the going market rate.
  4. tr Sparkles Peterson Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 07:00 PM (#486108)
    BTW, love that line about Leno down the blog just a bit.
  5. SG Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 07:05 PM (#486109)
    You probably need to factor in what teams will be looking for shortstops next year. I doubt St. Louis wants to get in a bidding war with Boston if Nomar walks, so it probably behooves them to sign him now. I'd probably go with 5 years, $55 million or so. Put it this way, which shortstop would you rather have for the next 5 years? Tejada? Jeter? Nomar? I won't count Rodriguez.
  6. cmr Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 07:06 PM (#486110)
    I think it's a bit disingenuous to compare entertainers to ballplayers. If CBS outbids NBC for Jay Leno's services, who cares? People who like Leno would just change the channel and watch him on CBS.

    But when A-Rod took a higher bid from Texas to leave Seattle, Mariners fans didn't suddenly put on Rangers caps and move to Texas.

    Does Rodriguez have the right to take whatever bid he wants when he's a free agent? Of course. But he shouldn't expect the fans of his old team to be excited about it (not to say that he did expect that).
  7. J-Ho Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 07:08 PM (#486111)
    I think it's a bit disingenuous to compare entertainers to ballplayers.

    I don't. Jay Leno makes a ton of money for his employer, and so does A-Rod. They should both be paid accordingly.
  8. Floyd Thursby Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 07:11 PM (#486112)
    I think the idea of teams getting input from bloggers is dangerous. For the blogger, I mean. How crushing if you ended up quasi-responsible for the minor league free agent who blows a playoff game. Or the albatross contract crippling the team in 2009.

    I do have a lot of ideas, though. If Paul DePodesta could email me, that would be outstanding. Robin Ventura needs to be secured, and quickly.
  9. Pops Freshenmeyer Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 07:11 PM (#486113)
    The comps I used were BBRef not the BPro ones the author used in his article.
  10. cmr Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 07:13 PM (#486114)
    I don't. Jay Leno makes a ton of money for his employer, and so does A-Rod. They should both be paid accordingly.

    Okay, maybe I didn't make myself clear. There's a reason people get upset over A-Rod's contract, and not over Jay Leno's contract. People root for the Seattle Mariners - not many people root for NBC.

    The reason that people don't care about Jay Leno's contract isn't that they think that Jay Leno is worth more than Alex Rodriguez - it's because the vast majority of people don't care if Jay Leno is working for NBC or CBS or ABC or FOX. People do care who Alex Rodriguez is working for.
  11. The Artist Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 07:14 PM (#486115)
    Floyd, as long you don't let them know the Neifi was the secret of our success and don't let them steal him for.. I don't know- Edwin Jackson, we should be good... ;)
  12. JHo Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 07:22 PM (#486116)
    cmr, I disagree. For that to be true, most of the complaint's over A-Rod's salary would have to be coming from Mariner fans or Ranger fans. I think most people don't care who A-Rod plays for, they think he's not worth $25MM/year because he's playing a game, or some such nonsense. I think team loyalty has little or nothing to do with it.
  13. Rob H Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 07:31 PM (#486117)
    An interesting development that a front office would solicit opinions.

    As a Cardinals fan it scares the hell out of me. Brian Gunn is a bright guy and he gave a great response, but this isn't his full-time job and he's not paid millions of dollars to make those decisions. This suggests some front offices, even some competent front offices -- in spite of stuff like the recent Womack idiocy, the Cardinals have won four division titles in eight years -- really aren't that much further ahead than the Typical Primate. I guess recognizing that would be a good thing on the part of a not-so-cutting-edge front office, but it seems there should be better ways to respond to that recognition.
  14. cmr Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 07:31 PM (#486118)
    I think ultimately it does boil down to team loyalty. You don't hear many Yankees or Red Sox fans complaining about a player's salary. People might say that someone playing a game doesn't deserve that kind of money, but what they really mean is that they want their favorite team to be able to afford to hire a player of Rodriguez' caliber. People get upset when they see that their favorite team has been priced out of the market for the best players. It's natural and understandable.
  15. Dr. Evil Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 07:32 PM (#486119)
    I would pay him one MILLION dollars.
  16. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 07:34 PM (#486120)
    I think JHo is right (post 12). You hear people all the time complaining that major leaguers make so much for playing a game, whereas doctors and teachers, etc. and so on.

    If a general manager were to make a move suggested by a blogger or any other fan, the responsibility still must lay 100% with the GM. Fred Claire makes this point repeatedly in an excellent (free) interview at BPro today.
  17. cmr Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 07:43 PM (#486121)
    I think JHo is right (post 12). You hear people all the time complaining that major leaguers make so much for playing a game, whereas doctors and teachers, etc. and so on.

    If people really felt that way, you'd hear complaints from outside baseball on the issue. Instead, only baseball fans (and baseball writers) say stuff like that. I think it's just because they want their team to get good players, and it just doesn't sound right to say "Alex Rodriguez should take less money because then my team could sign him".

    Well, it doesn't sound right if you're not a Red Sox fan :).
  18. Dan Werr Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 07:49 PM (#486122)
    This suggests some front offices...aren't that much further ahead than the Typical Primate.

    Instead of light years behind, like we'd all thought?
  19. Rob H Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 07:51 PM (#486123)
    Well, you're a Mariners fan, Dan. Your team would be better off taking advice from a Magic Eightball.
  20. kevin Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 07:53 PM (#486124)
    Jeff,

    Trade Renteria to the Red Sox immediately for Garciaparra.

    That Achilles thing is nothing. A mere bag of shells.
  21. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 07:57 PM (#486125)
    If people really felt that way, you'd hear complaints from outside baseball on the issue.

    I do hear complaints from outside baseball on the issue. Most people I know who aren't fans either don't understand why players make so much, or begrudge them for doing so.
  22. kevin Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 07:58 PM (#486126)
    I think Rob H is being a little unfair. I think part of Jeffs' motivation is to get an idea of the fan loyalty there is out there for Renteria. By discussing here, he is getting an informed opinion from a knowledgable fanbase with an idea of what a sound salary offer would look like. Part of the equation with releasing ro signing players has to do with fan approval. It's a marketing thing.
  23. Metal Shop Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 08:01 PM (#486127)
    This suggests some front offices, even some competent front offices -- in spite of stuff like the recent Womack idiocy, the Cardinals have won four division titles in eight years -- really aren't that much further ahead than the Typical Primate.

    I disagree completely. This suggests that the Cardinals don't think that Renteria is worth what he's asking for, and they're just looking to get some public opinion on their side. Teams routinely use the mainstream media to do that, and the interesting development is that they're using bloggers now.

    I don't think a team would make this suggestion to a blogger unless they were pretty confident that that blogger would be on "their side."
  24. cmr Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 08:02 PM (#486128)
    I do hear complaints from outside baseball on the issue. Most people I know who aren't fans either don't understand why players make so much, or begrudge them for doing so.

    Really? Well, in that case I guess the comparison to Jay Leno is apt.

    Why would someone who doesn't care about baseball care how much money a baseball player is making? That's like me caring how much money the CEO of McDonald's makes.
  25. JHo Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 08:04 PM (#486129)
    I think it's a bit disingenuous to compare entertainers to ballplayers.

    I think the complaints are from all over the place, and they're often from outside of baseball.
  26. JHo Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 08:04 PM (#486130)
    If people really felt that way, you'd hear complaints from outside baseball on the issue. Instead, only baseball fans (and baseball writers) say stuff like that.

    Woops. I meant to cut and paste this quote.
  27. JHo Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 08:07 PM (#486131)
    <i>That's like me caring how much money the CEO of McDonald's makes.
  28. cmr Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 08:13 PM (#486132)
    You're kidding, right? I hear almost as much complaining about CEO salaries and compensation packages as I do about ballplayers' salaries--and not just from employees.

    Are there just more Communists out there than I thought? I've only spoken to a radical few who believe that people should be compensated based purely on their contributions to society as a whole.

    I can understand anger over Congress giving themselves pay raises - their pay comes directly out of our pocket. But why should anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in a private corporation care how the corporation is run?
  29. JHo Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 08:16 PM (#486133)
    But why should anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in a private corporation care how the corporation is run?

    Hey, I agree. I'm not saying it's logical (in fact, I think it's illogical), just that I hear a lot of b*thing about it. Especially over the last five years or so (conventiently coinciding with an economic downturn).
  30. Rob H Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 08:20 PM (#486134)
    This suggests that the Cardinals don't think that Renteria is worth what he's asking for, and they're just looking to get some public opinion on their side. Teams routinely use the mainstream media to do that, and the interesting development is that they're using bloggers now.

    I don't think a team would make this suggestion to a blogger unless they were pretty confident that that blogger would be on "their side."


    I'd guess Gunn would be more likely to come out on Renteria's side than, say, Jeff Gordon or Bernie Miklasz. Really, can you see Walt Jocketty taking a blogger's Win Share analysis to Edgar Renteria's agent and saying "Behold!"?

    I think Rob H is being a little unfair. I think part of Jeffs' motivation is to get an idea of the fan loyalty there is out there for Renteria. By discussing here, he is getting an informed opinion from a knowledgable fanbase with an idea of what a sound salary offer would look like. Part of the equation with releasing or signing players has to do with fan approval. It's a marketing thing.

    Luhnow is sharp and articulate. If he wants to know how much Cardinals like Renteria beyond Win Shares and what-not, then I think he would say that, and not ask for "years and money." In fact, he made it clear in his additional comments he was looking precisely for what Brian Gunn provided, which was as coldly analytical and un-fan-ly as it gets.

    And I'm probably being a lot unfair after the Womack news.
  31. cmr Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 08:23 PM (#486135)
    Hey, I agree. I'm not saying it's logical (in fact, I think it's illogical), just that I hear a lot of b*thing about it.

    Well, it's logical if you're a Marxist, if you believe that acquiring wealth is inherently immoral. But there aren't too many Marxists running around here and now. I guess naked jealousy never goes out of style. But if people were just jealous of Alex Rodriguez (or the CEO of McDonald's), why wouldn't they also be jealous of Jay Leno?

    But my main point is that there are reasons why someone would care how much money Alex Rodriguez makes and not care how much money Jay Leno makes. That's all I wanted to say.
  32. Finance Guy Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 08:30 PM (#486136)
    I can understand anger over Congress giving themselves pay raises - their pay comes directly out of our pocket. But why should anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in a private corporation care how the corporation is run?

    I think the point is that alot of these companies are publically owned companies (not public as in owned by the government but public as in their stock is publically traded on Nasdaq or the NYSE) and CEOs have stacked the deck in a way that negates the power of the public owners (shareholders) of the company ... and even if you're not a big wig that owns lots of stock, you're still getting hosed if you have a 401(k) or expect to get paid retirement benefits out of a pension plan. Read about the Tyco trial if you're interested ...

    I've never heard anyone complain about the salaries of CEOs of purely private companies with no publically traded stock.
  33. Joe Six Pack Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 08:59 PM (#486137)
    "Maybe I'm too sheltered or something..."

    You're damn right! And I don't like bein' called a commie.
  34. Eddie Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 09:21 PM (#486138)
    For what it's worth, I email Dave Dombrowski all the time. I don't really have any say on Reteria except for the fact that he's a damn good player and a damn underrated player, so a likely deal would probably be fair.
  35. Pops Freshenmeyer Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 09:25 PM (#486139)
    Did anyone hear about the holdout juror in the Tyco trial giving the Defendants a thumbs-up before going into deliberation again? Sounds to me like a little cash has been spread around.
  36. Biff Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 09:37 PM (#486140)
    Pay him as little as he will take to stick around.
  37. Nigel Mellish Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 09:41 PM (#486141)
    My first thought is that this could be some sort of hoax. My second was the "sinister front office thing". But with the recent hiring of "stats guys" and the heretofore limited readership of Redbird Nation, I think this might just be sincere, if not just harmless marketing.

    If you lurk the Post-Dispatch online forums and other Cardinal online sites, you do tend to notice a very vocal Sabr- friendly number of STL fans. I think that STL marketing might be savvy enough to understand that these days Bernie and Gordo only really influence Card fans who aren't Internet literate, and that the new core target market of upwardly mobile fans tend to lurk online. Heck, mainstream coverage was afforded to Howard Dean's online "grassroots" efforts, maybe somebody bright in the Cardinals organization tried a semi-controlled democracy marketing experiment (if you're interested, and you're probably not, I am a republican not in the GOP sence, but in the Joe Sheehan "the average American is an economically illiterate b*tch" elitist sense).

    Other optimistic conspiracy theories indicate a rift in the Cardinal management, with LaRussa asking for players like Womack, the new "stats guys" challenging those assumptions, and this is an attempt by the "stats guys" to try and make it up to us "in the know" fans.

    Either way, it's interesting that someone (and no, I don't count Curt on Sam Horn) in an organization went to a website.
  38. Pops Freshenmeyer Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 09:52 PM (#486142)
    If the Cardinals are beginning to embrace sabermetrics, does this have something to do with the rumors of LaRussa's departure very soon?
  39. Chacon is my Deity Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 10:24 PM (#486143)
    I think the Cards should hold off on giving Renteria serious money unless he shows he can hit .330 again. It's entirely possible that he just had a Tejada like spike, and just got a few extra balls to fall in for hits. I guess if Tejada is worth 12 million, then maybe Renteria is worth 10, but if he goes back to hitting .280 or even .300 he's only slightly above average. Of course, if he has become a .330 hitter then he's certainly worth it. I just think that its just as likely that this was a good player having a great year as a 27 year old.
  40. Marc Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 10:32 PM (#486144)
    People complain about other people's incomes if they feel like it's coming out of their hide or their pocket. And with the demands that baseball teams are making for public funding, people understand that that comes out of their hide. If they're pissed about their taxes being used to pay teachers then I guess they're gonna pissed about their taxes going to the well-being of baseball team owners.

    The connection to Leno is less tangible. I know that sounds surreal. Have they not heard of advertising? But advertising is just the air that we breath, it's practically invisible. So people don't see Leno getting rich at their own expense.
  41. Dan Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 11:10 PM (#486145)
    Go Cardinals has also been in touch with Mr. Luhnow on several occasions, so unless it's a conspiracy I think this is legit. Never e-mailed my blog, but I doubt they're in cahoots to fool everybody.
  42. yb125 Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 11:13 PM (#486146)
    My theory is that people complain when ever then think they are some how being inconvenienced. When someone strikes whether it's teachers or ball players, people complain and call them greedy.
  43. Steve M. Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 11:14 PM (#486147)
    I'd give him 4 years, $42 million. He's a better player than Tejada, but the O's overpaid.
  44. WaltDavis Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 11:31 PM (#486148)
    Tejada spike? His OPS+ the last 4 years are 112, 112, 122, 117. That's a model of consistency.

    And by the way, Tejada's career OPS+ is 10 points higher than Renteria's and it's been higher 3 of the last 4 years. Renteria's sb's make up for some of that. I'm not sure there's a significant defensive difference (Prospecuts acutally puts Tejada better ... I can't link to UZR right now).

    In short, I don't see a basis for saying Renteria's a better player than Tejada.
  45. ntr Joe Sheehan Membership Posted: March 31, 2004 at 11:36 PM (#486149)
    And with the demands that baseball teams are making for public funding, people understand that that comes out of their hide.

    Actually, it's because they're economically illiterate bi<i></i>tches who think salaries drive ticket prices.
  46. Chacon is my Deity Membership Posted: April 01, 2004 at 12:16 AM (#486150)
    " Tejada spike? His OPS+ the last 4 years are 112, 112, 122, 117. That's a model of consistency."

    EQA for the last 4 years: .280, .276, .298, .281. His numbers were much better in 02 and an added ten percent better then the league is a significant jump. I'm surprised to see OPS+ rate him so highly last year. I'm going to blame that on it weighing slugging too heavily.

    I don't think Renteria is better then Tejada either, I just think his offensive peak year is similiar to Tejada's. I would agree that Tejada is the better player.
  47. Jeremy Membership Posted: April 01, 2004 at 01:05 AM (#486151)
    It doesn't matter how good he is, becaue LaRussa will bat him 6th or 7th, where he is wasted.

    Might as well play Luna there next year, and save $10 million and use it on a decent pitcher (since Morris and Woody will be gone).
  48. E. Kraus Membership Posted: April 01, 2004 at 08:49 AM (#486152)
    While it may not be his primary area of responsibility, Mr. Luhnow should be more concerned about a Cardinal team that will carry an All-Star automatic out roster of So F. Taguchi, Marlon F. Anderson, Tony F. Womack, and Chris F. Widger rather than what he should offer Edgar Rentaria. Also, doesn't it tell you something about a team and Walt Jocketty that has Ray Lankford starting in LF?
  49. Jeff Luhnow Membership Posted: April 01, 2004 at 09:21 AM (#486153)
    Wow. You all sure can be a suspicious bunch! I assure you there are no hidden motives, other than to gather as much information and get educated opinions. It's the same thing an investor would do before buying a stock! Thanks for all the opinions. I knew I was taking a risk in reaching out to bloggers, but I figured I'd try it once and see what happened.
  50. Ginger Nut Membership Posted: April 01, 2004 at 09:36 AM (#486154)
    But why should anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in a private corporation care how the corporation is run?

    1) Because many people own mutual funds, and so a vast number of Americans do have "interests" in how these companies are run. cmr, your retirement will probably be affected by how much money the ceo of McDonald's makes. (I assume, since the example is McDonald's, we are talking about publicly traded "private" corporations.)

    2) Because large corporations affect the entire economies of cities, regions, even the nation. Ask a gardener or general contractor in Houston who doesn't own Enron stock whether the Enron collapse had any effect on them.

    3) Number 2 doesn't mean that a corporation doesn't have a right to pay a ceo whatever the board thinks s/he is worth, but it does mean that people whose lives will be affected by these decisions have a good reason to be interested in them and to have their own opinions thereof.

    4) I am not a "Communist" (however that might be defined), but it is my opinion that most ceo's are overpaid. This is because corporate boards are not truly independent. If you have a small group of people who fill powerful positions through cronyism, it makes sense that they will scratch each others' backs. I realize that this is natural and perhaps inevitable. In a capitalist economy, we may well simply have to accept a certain amount of this. All the same, as someone who holds stock in dozens if not hundreds of companies through mutual funds, I think it is reasonable for me to be upset that these ceo's are taking money out of shareholder value and putting it in their own pockets, when a truly independent board that understood the concept of the replacement-level executive would be able to pay less for the same performance. :)

    5) There is a long-standing American tradition of distrust for the wealthy. There's nothing "Communist" about it. During the Revolutionary War era, scads of pamphlets and newspaper editorials in places like Boston and Philadelphia warned of the desire of the "money men" (i.e., wealthy merchants) to take over the government and scr*w the working classes.

    Sorry about the non-baseball content of this post.

    GN
  51. Pops Freshenmeyer Membership Posted: April 01, 2004 at 10:19 AM (#486155)
    Mr. Luhnow,

    Are you guys hiring? :)
  52. DK Membership Posted: April 01, 2004 at 10:24 AM (#486156)
    BPro's projected WARP for the next 5 years is almost identical for Renteria and Tejada, so Tejada's a pretty good comp. Renteria gets a lower contract for two reasons. First, if it's signed before this season, the Cards are adding a year of risk in which Renteria could be injured, so they get an extension discount. Second, Renteria will be about 2 years older then Tejada was at the beginning of his new long-term contract. I'd say a 4 year, $40M extension would be fair.
  53. DTS Membership Posted: April 01, 2004 at 10:25 AM (#486157)
    As a Cardinal fan, I love Renteria. I'm just concerned with locking up $10 million/year (probably about what he's worth) when the starting pitching is so thin and there's not that much help on the horizon, outside of Haren and Wainwright. There are so many question marks in the rotation that I think the Cards are going to need some money to man up and get a solid starter, not a Jeff Suppan band-aid type guy.
  54. John VonBokel Membership Posted: April 01, 2004 at 11:08 AM (#486158)
    man up and get a solid starter, not a Jeff Suppan band-aid type guy

    Since you brought it up, I feel obligated to defend Suppan's worth. Compare him to Pettite ('03 stats):

    Pettitte: 208.1 IP, 227 H, 21 HR, 50 BB, 1.33 WHIP, 4.02 ERA
  55. studes Membership Posted: April 01, 2004 at 11:14 AM (#486159)
    I think it's great that the Cardinals are reaching out to the blogging community like this. There are a lot of smart, reflective fans out here, who could probably help our favorite teams (gladly, for no fee). Why not take advantage of it?

    Regarding CEO's and baseball player salaries, my take is that people shake their heads at player (and all entertainer) salaries, but don't blame the players themselves. They recognize that the salaries these folks make is more of an indictment of society, and that a "market" is setting those salaries.

    CEO salaries are not subject to a very effective market, and Boards have not done a good job on behalf of their shareholders. So I think the outrage is different, more outrage at a broken system characterized by "greedy" CEOs and Boards that don't have the fortitude to take them on.
  56. DTS Membership Posted: April 01, 2004 at 11:15 AM (#486160)
    That's fair, John. I didn't want the Cards to sign Pettitte either, but your point is well taken.

    After the Cardinals signed Suppan, I had the following conversation with a Royals fan:

    Me: The Cards signed Suppan.
  57. Schindleria praematurus Membership Posted: April 01, 2004 at 02:11 PM (#486161)
    GN -- I agree with you 100% on CEO salaries. Since I own shares in an index fund that itself owns shares of almost every publicly traded corporation, the extra money CEO's are paying themselves over what they are worth is coming directly out of my pocket.

    It's a tough issue. Since the ownership of large public corporations is now so broadly distributed ($1000 gets you one fifty-millionth of outstanding Disney corporation stock), it's hard for shareholders to get together to decide what's best for the corporation. That basically leaves management setting their own salaries at whatever levels they want. I can vote against the board, but my vote will mean next-to-nothing. So there's basically no way for me to express my opinion as a part-owner of that kind of corporation. And I don't own even close to $1000 of Disney stock. In my index fund, I'd be surprised if I own more than a few dollars' worth of any one company.

    I don't know what it would take to get CEO salaries down to the efficient level where they're being paid what they're worth. Certainly, it would require taking the decision of how much they get compensated out of their hands. But it'd take someone more clever than me to figure out how that's going to happen.
  58. Homer Simpson Membership Posted: April 01, 2004 at 03:07 PM (#486162)
    Good things don't end with "eum". They end with "mania". Or "teria."
  59. Two Americas Membership Posted: April 01, 2004 at 03:17 PM (#486163)
    What Cardinal management is doing by asking bloggers for input is, in effect, outsourcing a portion of baseball operations to a bunch of volunteers. They are saying that they are not necessarily willing to pay someone an executive's (or even a mgmt intern's) salary to do the statistical mumbo-jumbo that bloggers do for free because they enjoy it. Instead of debating Renteria's VORP or OPS+ or whatever, we should be debating how much we want the Cardinals to pay us.

    (It's the same deal with reality TV, but that's a rant for another thread.)
  60. mommy Membership Posted: April 01, 2004 at 06:05 PM (#486164)
    say VonBokel, how did suppan do in 2002?

    which league did he spend most of last season in?

    he and pettitte are practically twins! ha.
  61. Brian Membership Posted: April 02, 2004 at 11:43 AM (#486165)
    Last year's support-neutral wins above replacement --

    Pettitte: 2.6
  62. Daly City (GGC) Membership Posted: April 02, 2004 at 12:44 PM (#486166)
    You'd have to pay me bazillion kajillion dollars to be a CEO. I'd much rather be a worker drone.

    Having said that, it must be nice to set your own salary.
  63. NYSE, Tyco, Disney, Adelphia, etc. Membership Posted: April 09, 2004 at 12:39 PM (#486167)
    You'd have to pay me bazillion kajillion dollars to be a CEO.

    Sold! When can you start, GGC?
  64. Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

My Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Page rendered in 1.0491 seconds
71 querie(s) executed