Carpenter Signed through 2011, op. 2012 (Matthew Leach)

[skmsw]

have a question,

Jocketty denied the extension suggested another high-dollar signing was imminent. But Jocketty insisted that the club would not sign any pitcher to a deal that would offer a higher average annual value the next three seasons.

I think what he meant was, "during the next three seasons, we will not offer any other pitcher an average annual value that is higher than the average annual value Carp has now [the whole five years plus option, an avg of about $13mm]."

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Our well documented reluctance to pass out 5 year deals just died a quick death.

Well I don't know Strat, I think saying sure we'll give you 5 years - after you win the Cy Young and take us to the World Series - I don't think that is really lower the bar all that far.

[Faceman]

why do you think that? Market prices go up every year, right? Look at the differences in pitching contracts, year over year. It's insane.

Additionally, you cannot throw $10MM+ at other, LESSER pitchers without paying Carp. This extention puts the timing of the contract where we need it. After Edmonds and Izzy's deals.

the market tends to level out for a couple years after an insane year. the same thing happened a few years ago, agents accused MLB of "collusion" but the reality is the market can't sustain insane contracts every year.

i think waiting another year to make sure health/performance held up would be less risky than worrying about a slight market increase (if at all)

Prices go up quite a bit every year. It may level for one year, then explode for 2 years, like a stock market. But in the end, 5 years from now the market will be much higher than it is today.

You are gambling that the market will be level next season. At which time, if Carp pitches well AGAIN, he will STILL demand more money.

And what happens if the market increases wildly again, which it's more likely to do?

You guys will see this to be a bargain down the road. If he gets hurt, he gets hurt and his salary is a drain no matter what he is making.

[BW23]

Is there a NTC?
If his production wanes, and we decide the money is bogging us down why not just trade him?

No mention of it, but he'll be a 10-and-5 guy, so it doesn't matter.

Since Rolen has not only a NTC but should also be a 10/5 guy next season, does that mean the Rolen trade ideas can stop?

Nope. Guys get dealt when they have either or both.

[JCShutout]

It's an ok deal if he is a staff ace for two years, a bad deal if he is a staff ace for one year or less, and a remarkable deal if he pitches like a staff ace from 2009-2012.

I think he needs to pitch like an ace for atleast 3 years to make this a good enough deal. 4 years is an very good/exceptional year.

If he regresses during the third year, then we're paying 3/50 for a non-Ace.

[Fat Strat]

From Rotoworld. The terms of the deal. They're lower per year than we originally suspected.

Chris Carpenter's five-year deal with the Cardinals is worth $63.5 million. If the option is exercised, he'll make $77.5 million over six years.

Carpenter had been under control at $15 million through 2008. His new deal calls for salaries of $8.5 million in 2007, $10.5 million in 2008, $14 million in 2009, $14.5 million in 2010 and $15 million in 2011. The Cardinals have a $15 million option for 2012 with a $1 million buyout

I like that a lot more than the 16/16/17 for years '09-'11 that we originally thought. A couple million here or there make a lot of difference in offseason plans.

[JCShutout]

From Rotoworld. The terms of the deal. They're lower per year than we originally suspected.

Chris Carpenter's five-year deal with the Cardinals is worth $63.5 million. If the option is exercised, he'll make $77.5 million over six years.

Carpenter had been under control at $15 million through 2008. His new deal calls for salaries of $8.5 million in 2007, $10.5 million in 2008, $14 million in 2009, $14.5 million in 2010 and $15 million in 2011. The Cardinals have a $15 million option for 2012 with a $1 million buyout

I like that a lot more than the 16/16/17 for years '09-'11 that we originally thought. A couple million here or there make a lot of difference in offseason plans.

me too. I'd rather he get a small raise now (19 mill over the next 2 years) than to have a completely backloaded contract. I still would have liked a $12mm option, but this feels better.

[Michael]

Joe Sheehan from BP:

Of the other moves that actually happened, the big news was the Cardinals' extending Chris Carpenter almost to the teens, reaching agreement on a deal that will pay him $65 million through 2011, with a club option for 2012 worth $12 million. The initial reaction last night, and I include myself among the people who said this, was that the deal sounded like a quite a bargain. Thirteen million per for arguably the top starting pitcher in the NL? I'll take two, thanks. With a lost season on his resume and some nagging injuries in 2006, I have no real faith that Carpenter will throw 1000 innings over the life of the deal, but even so, looking at it as a three-year deal for that money almost makes sense in this market.

Thinking about it some more, though, I wonder if the Cards haven't jumped the gun here. Carpenter had been signed for 2007 at $7 million and for 2008 at $8 million. So the scenario I listed above isn't actually that far-fetched; this is essentially a three-year extension for an additional $50 million, or just shy of $17 million per year. Again, that's not unreasonable in this market. Where I question the deal is the timing. Right now, Chris Carpenter is one of the best pitchers in the NL, and as such, is a decent bet to be a good pitcher through 2007, and even 2008. But given his background and the age range we're talking about here, the Cardinals have assumed a lot of risk. They've bought Carpenter's Age 34-36 seasons at $17 million per without yet knowing what he's going to be at 32 and 33. Given the attrition rates of pitchers, that's a major risk.

Contracts like this are usually justified by the club as a means of locking up a player who's important to them, rewarding him for performance, even showing the fan base that they're committed to winning. I think it's both inconsistent with practices elsewhere-watch what pre-arb players, even good ones like Justin Verlander, get in 2007, or how many teams complain about the price of competing for talent in the marketplace-and it's also generally bad business. It's one thing to have to overcommit to a player's probable decline phase in an effort to win a competitive process; that tradeoff is at the core of every single major free-agent signing. To make that overcommitment when it's not necessary to do so, and when you're 400 innings away from the first pitch covered by the new deal? That's just asking for trouble.

I made these same arguments when David Ortiz signed his extension with the Red Sox. Like Carpenter, Ortiz is a key contributor to a championship team and one of the best players in the game. Also similar to the Carpenter contract, Ortiz's deal was reached two years before a possible decision point, with the player likely to be declining when the new contract kicked in. The contract reflected something other than a dispassionate evaluation of the player's on-field contributions and his likely performance going forward.

I didn't like the Ortiz deal, and I have to say that I've changed my mind on the Carpenter deal for the same reasons. In fact, because of the specifics with Carpenter-he's a 32-year-old pitcher with an injury history-I may like it even less that the Ortiz deal. It's hard enough to predict what a pitcher's health and performance will be next year; making a $50 million bet on what it will be three, four and five years out is basically wishcasting.

Despite all that, I happen to really like Chris Carpenter. He throws a ton of strikes, works quickly and battled back from what could have been career-ending surgery to become a star. I would like this to work out for the Cardinals. I just can't see the justification for committing that far out to a pitcher, any pitcher. The job is too hard with too high a failure rate.

Link

[GatewaySnayke]

But isn't it silly to compare David Ortiz and Chris Carpenter?

Ortiz has a bad body and there's something to be said for those type of hitters who reach their mid-30s.

Yes, Carpenter has had his share of nagging injuries, but I remember reading on here and elsewhere about how pitchers don't detoriate like hitters do. And Carpenter's repertoire--fastball, cutter and curve--combined with proper mechanics don't suggest he's a ticking TJ surgery waiting to happen.

[fulldeck]

Is there a NTC?
If his production wanes, and we decide the money is bogging us down why not just trade him?

No mention of it, but he'll be a 10-and-5 guy, so it doesn't matter.

Since Rolen has not only a NTC but should also be a 10/5 guy next season, does that mean the Rolen trade ideas can stop?

Nope. Guys get dealt when they have either or both.

Why is it different for Carpenter when he doesn't have a NTC and hasn't reached 10/5 status yet?