Mulder, three others done deals

Mark Mulder signs for two years with 09 option.

Ryan Franklin signs for one year.

Rick Ankiel re-signed, Jolbert Cabrera receives Minor League deal with NRI.

More details to come soon.



Good news! I wish Mulder well in his recovery.

Any news about Jeff Weaver? I really hope we sign him for at least two years. He was great when he regained his confidence after joining St. Louis and listening to Duncan’s advice.

My guess is this means they’re done, but we’ll see.

It is a good thing that Mulder re-signed. I know he was offered $18 million from Cleveland which to me is crazy since he would prabably at most get to play 10 months (but probably not) over the next two years. With his $13 million contract from the Cardinals thats still 1.3 a month when he is active. I would rather have a player like Weaver who probably could play all year and surely the Cards could sign him cheaper than Mulder. What do you think Matthew?


Well, the thing is, you can’t get Weaver for what you got Mulder for. By most accounts, it’s going to take at least a three-year commitment, maybe four, to get Weaver. Not sure he’s worth that.


Thankyou thankyou thankyou.

Man, this has been nerve-wracking. It’s really too bad about Weaver. It’s a shame that he can’t do the right thing and “dance with them what brought ya.” What are the odds he will have continued successes he had, but now without Duncan’s tutilage? I really hope he doesn’t take that for granted, tells Boras to cool it, and comes back to the team which helped make him a winner. If he turned down a deal in the neighborhood of $21m for three years, I think he’d be crazy.

P.S. I vote to double Dunc’s salary. He’s got some more miracle-working to do this year and I’m sure he’ll more than earn it.

So how do TLR and Dunc handle the rotation until Mulder is ready? They can maybe get by with a 4-man rotation until late April, if the past schedules are any guide, and I can imagine using Franklin for spot starts in the fifth slot for the rest of April. However, he strikes me as not really up to being a rotation guy on a continuing basis. Furthermore, there might be a temptation to use him as the *fourth* guy early on (which I don’t think will work well) and let Wainwright get some more work out of the pen, until Izzy is shown healthy and effective (on which I still have doubts), only then moving to the rotation. All of this still leaves a need for one starter, Mulder or no Mulder. Am I analyzing this correctly?

Anyway, I’m glad he’s signed, for a not-unreasonable price and an appropriate duration. The club option on the third year is icing on the cake. Walt did well on this one. Now if he can just snag one more starter…

Like a few, I would rather have had somebody like Weaver who could play all year rather than Mulder, who may be back in mid-year.

We’ll see how this pans out, and I was hoping we would get Weaver back. Instead, we’re waiting until the last minute to sign people. That’s what I don’t like about our offseason. While everyone makes moves, we’re sitting ducks.

On “dance with them what brought ya”, as eospictureguy calls it…

I don’t understand baseball fans wanting players to choose team loyalty over more pay. If you were offered more money than you were worth to do a job, would you stay at your current place of employment out of loyalty? Would you stay, even if it meant losing a long-term job, because your company “made” you?

It may very well be true that Weaver became the pitcher he was because Duncan taught him. It may very well be true that he owes his success to the Cardinals. I don’t dispute those claims in the least. What I do dispute is this idea that he should take a shorter-term contract or less money to play with them out of loyalty.

I completely disagree with earuttle. No disrespect intended, but loyalty is something baseball and sports in general should have more of. The problem is the athletes are too driven by money! Especially with prices going up for average talent like this current offseason, it makes me sick. 20 Million dollars will set anyone up for life with room to spare. So why would anyone need more?!

If they’re gonna make that kind of money, than at the very least they shouldn’t bite the hand that feeds them. I get more and more irritated everytime I hear Scott Boras’ name. Weaver should tell him to **** off and stay in St. Louis, because where else would he go? Do millions matter when you’ve already got millions? If he doesn’t stay he’ll be nothing. Period.

Furthermore, I believe players would show more loyalty if teams were just as loyal to their players. I admire St. Louis for sticking with Edmonds and Mulder, and re-signing the fallen Ankiel. Why? Because that’s loyalty. They are quality athletes and good people in truth who have given great service to the team and the city. I guess it’s unfortunate that other teams aren’t as loyal. I’m warning you Weaver, and I’m not the only one on this. Go after the money and you’ll fall, stay in St. Louis and you’ll thrive.

I agree with the Noarmninja…but I’ll take it a step further and say that I believe that the lack of loyalty in baseball is doing the most damage to the league, not free-agency. Free agency is necessary to keep the owners in line. But the players need to stop switching teams, simply for more money. How much **** money do they need?? Case in point, Jeff Suppan. He went to a worse team for more money. Why? Because he didn’t have anything to prove in St.Louis? Because he didn’t like the city? Because he didn’t like the team? Because he didn’t like the coaches?? Or was it just to line the pockets of his agent and fatten his bankroll? Why wouldn’t he want to be on a winning team for SLIGHTLY less money, relatively? To me it comes down to loyalty, and there is almost none left in MLB. From top to bottom. And then you can think back to Edgar Renteria. He showed no loyalty to the Cardinals after 2004. He left for Boston for about 3 million more,I think, and look what happened to him. He spent one year in Boston and was traded to the Braves. And look what we did. Won the Series 2 years later. Now, what’s more important? 13 million as opposed to 10…or achieving what is supposed to be every athlete’s ultimate goal-a world championship.

I respect noarmninja and shaunforrester for their points of view. I respect that they both seem to feel like there should be more loyalty in baseball.

Here’s my perspective, though. Players make a living from their bodies, and there is a limit on how long they can play. Why, then, should they take less money to stay with a team that may trade them the following year. Does it makes sense to turn one’s back on job security in the form of a multi-year deal just to be loyal to a team that, in a year, might trade you anyway? Does it make sense to take less money from a team when another team is going to pay you more simply for the sake of loyalty? Would you do it?

As Mrs. Dude touches on, I think the years really are the issue. More than the dollars, for the team and for the player in most cases.

Is there that much of a difference in daily life between an $8MM salary and a $10MM salary? I highly doubt it.

But, to look at one specific case — is there that much difference for Jeff Suppan between knowing he’ll have $10MM guaranteed in 2010, and not having anything certain for that year at all? You bet there is.

Guys get hurt. There’s no guarantee Jeff Suppan will be able to get another contract of any kind at the end when this one ends. So more power to him for guaranteeing a deal through 2010.

I think a lot of times fans look at dollars, either in annual value or total value, and that’s obviously a consideration. But in lots and lots of cases, the years are the big deal.

I always think about Eduardo Perez in this context. A lot of fans were upset or confused when Perez took a 2-year deal with Tampa Bay to leave the Cardinals. Then he suffered a serious injury, ending his first season. If he hadn’t had that second year — which the Cardinals were not offering him — he’d have taken an NRI probably. Instead, he had a guaranteed second year to get back on track and re-establish himself.


Dear M’s Lady-friend..aka Mrs. Dude,
I understand what you are saying. And you are right about job security. But if they show loyalty then there’s a decent chance the club will respond with the same loyalty. If the club doesn’t, then what’s the difference between being traded one year and the next…the answer is loyalty. That’s the only difference. Loyalty not just to the club, but to the fans who pay to see them perform.And I just don’t think guys who have already made multi-millions of dollars really have to worry about job security all that much. If they are very good at all, and they must be if they are in the Show, they shouldn’t have any need to worry about job security. There are, what, 31+ other teams for whom the player could possibly “get a job”. And,personally, I WOULD stay loyal to a team even if they might trade me the next year. Especially in the Cards case, becasue they just won a world title. To me that means there’s at least some chance of winning the next year.

The Dude does make a good point about Eduardo Perez. But I have no sympathy for players who get hurt on the front end of a multi-year deal, because that is part of the risk of being an athlete. Just like any factory employee who has a hazardous job. Except that athletes have access to the best medical facilities for rehabbing and the best medical insurance around. The team pays for it. So, yeah, that extra year provides a security blanket for athletes, but if they rehab they can still find “work.” They just might not get paid as many millions of dollars as they would if they hadn’t been injured…To me the only thing that should take percedence over loyalty is winning. And that’s in the case of guys like Mark Grace, who remained loyal to the Cubs for so long. Then left Chicago only for the chance to win.

Tell Edgar Rentaria about how loyal the Cardinals were supposed to be to him when they worked harder putting together the gazillion dollar deal for Albert Pujols than in getting a deal together to keep him in the StL.

Loyalty goes both ways between a player and a team.

That would make more sense if you’re an everyday guy working at a hard labor job or factory work struggling to put food on the table. Then I could see someone taking the money over the place of employment. But we’re talking millions of dollars here. Even the players that only make the league minimum are paid extremely well. And I don’t buy the whole, “oh the 162 games a season really takes a toll on their body”. It might be wear anyone down, but there are people sacrificing much more physically 365 days a year and making much less. I can see a point regarding the Renteria deal, but Edgar was a bit older and was Pujols not becoming the young face of the entire franchise? Renteria was never the face of the franchise. I don’t even see how the two compare frankly. haha. But just once I would love to hear a baseball player say, “I took a pay cut this year because I wanted to help the team find better pieces to win a championship” Just once!!! It’s a small dream. May never come.

‘But just once I would love to hear a baseball player say, “I took a pay cut this year because I wanted to help the team find better pieces to win a championship” Just once!!! It’s a small dream. May never come.’ Funny you should mention it, because the much-maligned Mark McGwire signed a contract with St. Louis at below market value (and had to put up with a lot of kvetching from the union, if I remember correctly) precisely because he liked the situation he was in. And if I recall correctly, liquidity for the team was one of the things he cited. Maybe it wasn’t Big Mac, but Morris, I forget, but it’s been done recently in St. Louis, by somebody big.

Well said by everyone. Some of us agree that most players have no concept of loyalty and some don’t. We’ll just have to agree to disagree, I guess. One last thing I’d like to add,”God I miss guys like Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn.” I think I’m getting old…Reminiscing of heroes past.

I think my point was lost somewhat. I’m not really trying to urge Weaver to be loyal, per se. I was trying to make a point that Jeff’s recent success was for THIS team, not the others he’s floundered at. I bascically believe, in my ignorant, non-players opinion, that this team and Dunc have played a big part in Jeff’s success. He owes it to HIMSELF as a player (if he cares about being a player) and person to take a good deal if it’s offered to him.

Taking $30m to play for a lousy team, where he will likely fall apart (again) instead of taking $20m to have a much better chance to succeed seems silly. That is, if you care about winning.

He doesn’t OWE it to the Cardinals to come back, I just hope he realizes that the remaining years of his career would probably be better here, than in some other town.

How many people have taken more money for a job they don’t like and have later regretted it? And we’re talking millions, not $15,000.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: