skmsw wrote:Wow, I have mixed feelings about this.
Absolutely no one has been more of a supporter and fan than me. I've been on his bandwagon since the day we signed him, and on that day I knew he'd be out at least 9 months.
The way the market is moving, Carp getting some $16mm in 2009 is going to be the future equivalent of about $11.5mm today. And who would argue that Carp is, in any given season, well worth $11.5mm?
But gee -- Carp is gonna be 32 shortly after opening day this year. He's gonna be 34 the day this extension first kicks in. He's gonna be getting some 12% of our budget, when he is 38.
Yeah, I have mixed feeling too. I can't say that it's a bad idea, but Carp will sure be getting up there towards the end of this deal.
Steve, do you have any thoughts on Carp's innings pitched to this point that might predict how he'll perform towards the end of this deal?
skmsw wrote:He's gonna be getting some 12% of our budget, when he is 38.
There's no way to know that, really.
No, but there is a fairly reasonable way to estimate it. Frankly I'm being generous; it could easily be 15%.
I don't know...you'd have to assume an awful lot.
Will ownership be the same in 6 years? Who knows.
Wouldn't you also have to assume a $115,000,000 payroll to get 15%?
Maybe I'm on the wrong track.
$115 million is a pretty good guess for our payroll in 2011. In fact, it's probably a bit low. We've increased payroll about $3-5 million every year (roughly) since 1999.
Even in this market, we don't like it. The Cardinals already had Carpenter under control for $15 million over the next two years, so they're essentially paying $50 million for the following three years. Now, if he keeps pitching like this, he's definitely worth that kind of cash. However, two years is an awful long time, especially for someone with a history of shoulder troubles. Giving him this kind of extension now is a terribly risky move.
Fat Strat wrote:$115 million is a pretty good guess for our payroll in 2011. In fact, it's probably a bit low. We've increased payroll about $3-5 million every year (roughly) since 1999.
After reading that the dynamics of things have changed wildly (meaning contracts that seem large now will seem reasonable)?
I don't know I guess, but I might be disappointed in six years if that's the case, but whatever.
That's kind of how I feel about it (the Rotoworld take).
I don't mind them giving him more cash or extending it a few years. And frankly, looking out for him and giving him a better deal than the one he was signed to was the right thing to do. But extending it this long is an awfully risky thing to do.
If it had been the same amount per year through 2010, I'd be pretty happy about it. Instead, we're all going to have to cross our fingers and gnash our teeth for a while with him.
skmsw wrote:He's gonna be getting some 12% of our budget, when he is 38.
There's no way to know that, really.
No, but there is a fairly reasonable way to estimate it. Frankly I'm being generous; it could easily be 15%.
I don't think you are right. He will be 37 the year he may have his option exercised to the tune of $12M. At 38 he will ostensibly be a free agent. Certainly @ $12M in his 37th year it won't be anywhere near 12% of our 2012 budget, either.
