Lance Lynn and the Cardinals have both said they’re open to discussing a contract extension for the righty this winter, Derrick Goold of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports. Lynn will be eligible for arbitration for the first time this offseason, and he’s built a strong case for himself by posting a 2.74 ERA in 2014 and averaging 194 IP, 8.7 K/9 and a 2.64 K/BB rate over his first three full seasons in the St. Louis rotation. As Goold notes, Lynn could be the latest in a series of core Cardinals players who the club has extended before hitting their arb years or free agency.
Here’s some more from the 19-time National League champs…
- Cardinals chairman Bill DeWitt tells Goold that the organization plans to increase payroll and is “forecasting fairly significant increases in the next three to five years.” The spending increase was planned to coincide with several younger players (Lynn, Shelby Miller, Matt Adams, etc.) reaching arbitration eligibility within that same time span. Additional money could also be spent to bring new talent into the team via trades or free agency, as DeWitt said “we would have the capacity for an additional core player or players depending on their quality, their compensation, and our need.” The Cardinals’ payroll has ranged from roughly $109MM to $116MM over the last four seasons, and Goold speculates that number could jump to around $130MM in the next few years.
- GM John Mozeliak made it clear that the team is very happy with Mike Matheny, and Bernie Miklasz of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch considers it “ludicrous” for critics to suggest a change at manager despite some questionable tactical decisions from Matheny during the NLCS.
- Mozeliak also said that Oscar Taveras isn’t going to be traded, and that the star prospect’s underwhelming first season “is not the end of the world. If anything, it’s a blessing in disguise” since now Taveras knows what is needed to perform at the Major League level. On the other hand, Miklasz writes that Matheny “isn’t a fan” of Taveras and wonders if the Cardinals might be tempted to explore trades for the outfielder this winter.
- Also from Miklasz, he feels relief depth, upgrades at the backup catcher and backup middle infielder spots and a right-handed hitting platoon partner for Adams are all logical winter goals for the Cardinals.
The Cardinals can only afford a 130 MM dollar payroll, better hand this small market club some more draft picks!
Yeah, I never understood that. I don’t think teams should get extra draft picks based on their market at all, and St. Louis doesn’t seem to fit anyway. If they want to be awarding extra draft picks, it should be based solely on something like the worst records over a three-year period. That way teams who have an occasional bad year aren’t rewarded, but those who are legitimately a poor team get some extra help to get them back into the fold.
Why should st Louis be punished for doing a good job with their limited resources? The fact of the matter is that st Louis will never get the billion dollar TV deals that the big boys get but they run their organization well to where they can get 42k in ticket sales a night. So because they run their organization well and a team like Miami does not does not mean stl should be punished for putting a good product on the field.
They are competitive balance draft picks…I don’t think they need them.
Perhaps they should just take all their draft picks away since they are a successful franchise?
There’s a difference between taking away picks and giving them extra ones.
Competitive balance draft picks are totally different. Everyone is entitled to regular draft picks. The whole point of the competitive balance lottery is to balance the competition… and giving a financially stable team in a fine market more draft picks isn’t balancing the market.
Cause that makes sense…?
We are talking about extra draft picks with the sole intention to make things more competitive.
With the sole intention to level the playing field. Fact: St. Louis is one of the ten smallest markets. If you don’t like it, let your favorite teams owner know that you would like to see a better revenue sharing system instead of acting like a draft pick makes up for the substantial difference in market size. St. Louis was good before they got the CHANCE to get an extra draft pick. I don’t really care if the Cardinals have the pick or not, but the constant complaining about it is tiresome.
Seriously. Are we going to have this debate on every single Cardinals post? We get it.
Tell me about it. I can’t believe the one extra draft pick they’ve received under this system has propelled them to years of success. Truly amazing what they can do with one pick.
I think you are little confused
All I am saying is the fact they have a pick makes no sense. It is for competitive balance and as you said they were already successful before a pick and their payroll is pretty high. Maybe it shouldn’t be called a CB Pick and instead a small market pick.
Also people can complain about a broken system if they want. Sorry your team happens to be at the center of it all.
I’m not confused at all. It was designed for the 10 smallest markets and for the 10 lowest revenue teams to have a chance at a competitive balance pick. I don’t care what they call it. Every team signed off on this. It’s not like the owners, lawyers, MLBPA, etc didn’t realize the Cardinals were in this when it started. I guess it should be “A draft for the 10 smallest market and lowest revenue teams minus St. Louis” I guess if that could make everyone happy, I could get on board.
You know this whole CB Pick issue isn’t just about the Cardinals right? The world doesn’t revolve around your Cardinals.
The Cardinals are used so much because they are considered the best off team of anyone who got a pick. So they always use them in an argument regarding a team like the Rays who somehow don’t get one.
The other problem is that the system is so flawed the Cardinals got a Round A pick which is a bit surprising.
Should St. Louis be punished for doing a good job, no. However, St. Louis should not be given bonus draft picks for being a “small market” team when even the Astros don’t receive the same special treatment.
This is a system that is in place because large market teams would rather give smaller markets more draft picks than an actual level playing field dollar wise. That is what it comes down to.
The cardinals are a small market team, they are not a small revenue team because they run their team very well. But they are at disadvantage compared to other organizations because they will never get the cable revenues other teams get. Houston is the 4th biggest city in the country, it’s not a small market.
4th largest city in the country doesn’t mean 4th biggest baseball market in the country. If Houston was really a bigger baseball market than St. Louis don’t you think the Astros’ games would at least be on TV in Houston?
Economics 101 taught me that revenue and market size should be proportional. Calling the team with the 4th largest revenue in the league a small market team is nothing short of hilarious.
I hear what you’re saying. but my point is that based solely on the amount of potential viewers, St Louis is at a disadvantage because they will not get a massive TV deal like the Dodgers got, they make up for that by doing really good at maximizing ticket sales, but they are at a disadvantage to other teams because of the TV Revenue. Also as far as Astros games being on TV, LA is certainly a good baseball market, Dodgers lead the league in ticket sales and lots of LA fans couldn’t watch Dodger games on TV.
Doesn’t that further cement my claim that there is more to market share than city size and Houston is a smaller baseball market than St. Louis?
On a side note, after the recent failures on the Dodgers TV network I don’t think any team will be matching that TV contract any time soon.
You’re inventing this “baseball market” Houston had the same “baseball market” as St. Louis in the early 2000’s when they were consistently winning. Their market size has nothing to do with them being the worst team in baseball for 5 years.
The Cardinal have had a higher revenue than the Astros in every season since 2001 (the last year in which Forbes allows you to view baseball team revenue for free). From 2001 to present the Astros have made 3 postseason appearances and one WS appearance.
The revenue disparity is not simply due to recent poor on field performance. Sounds more like St. Louis’ “small market” is invented to me.
So two steak houses in the same city. One cooks great steaks and is overflowing with business and does a great job maximizing their market. The other steakhouse serves bad food and can’t get customers to the restaurant. You’re saying the city should give the bad steak house tax breaks that aren’t available to the one that is drawing business.
Well if they were trying to balance competition…yes, yes they should.
Wow.
Why wow?
You do realize the Astros haven’t always been a bad team and the Rangers haven’t always been a good team, right?
I am saying the Cardinals, a team with a comparatively large revenue who have openly admitted they view the draft as a cost saving tool, do not need extra draft picks.
Are the Cardinals a well run organization, sure. All the more reason they don’t need to be handed draft picks they don’t deserve from a revenue standpoint.
Yes. All major league owners are involved in this conspiracy to lower the population in the St. Louis area to create the illusion that it is one of the 10 smallest markets. It’s all a fabrication to get the Cardinals an extra pick every few years!
Its the flawed logic that population is the only component of market size. Assuming every metropolitan population will exhibit the same level of support for a particular sport is simply incorrect.
The Cardinals are also the only MLB team in Missouri, Texas has two teams. Having lived and worked in Texas since 1997 I can tell you Texas is a large state and MLB fans from Houston have no problem supporting the Rangers, further reducing the size of their actual market but not the population.
You should visit Kansas City sometime. Hint: The Royals are in Missouri.
Touche, you got me there…. but we all know they meant to put Kansas City in the State of Kansas and just made a mistake drawing the line 😉
Haha. I’m not trying to argue here. It’s just so old hearing this everywhere. I understand why people don’t like it, I don’t think they should have this lottery at all. But people seriously act like it’s some hidden conspiracy to get the Cardinals a pick. I really don’t care if they never get it again. One middle-rpund pick isn’t going to make or break any team.
Fair enough, we can certainly agree that one middle round pick does not make or break an organization. I just dont like the competitive balance system and the Cardinals are one way to draw attention to some flaws in that system.
Let agree to disagree while I go spend the rest of the day in aw that Kansas City isn’t in Kansas….. seriously I can’t believe I didn’t know that by my age.
There are two Kansas City’s…one is in KS and one is in MO.
My point is that most of the revenue comes from TV rights, St Louis will never be able to compete with that. I don’t know what the Astros deal with comcast is, I’m sure it must be a pretty good one to limit the astros exposure to so few people. I suspect that Houston makes more money in TV rights than St Louis does.
Revenue has 100% to do with the quality of the product on the field, amount of tickets, merchandise, concessions, and contracts with media and sponsors. None of those exist in Houston because they all go hand in hand and no one WANTS to watch the Astros because they don’t produce quality.
Market size is determined by the size of…yes…the MARKET. The population, average income, and such. They WISH it was proportional but they’re pretty much the proof that it’s not.
Houston’s baseball market isn’t exactly flourishing, though. St. Louis does have a good “baseball market” because they’re a good team, and I understand St. Louis itself is not much, but I’d guess St. Louis has a such a huge impact on surrounding towns, cities, etc. I understand giving St. Louis a pick, but I feel the picks should be reserved for Oakland, Tampa Bay, Miami, etc.
Houston’s problems are self created though, I live in Houston, more than half the city can’t even watch the game on TV, and the team was ran into the ground by a refusal to rebuild. St Louis is competive because they are ran well but they are still t a competitive disadvantage because we don’t get the massive TV revenues that the big market teams do.
The Astros should start out by getting draft picks to sign, and then complain because the Cardinals ONE extra draft pick that they occasionally get helped them win more playoff games than any team in baseball in the past decade…
All in the name of “competitive balance” you understand…
Matheny is not a fan of Taveras? When did this happen?
Don’t know but usually managers only have a problem with players if they’re work ethic is lousy. How’s Taveras’s work ethic?
It’s been hinted by stl media that lots of players have problems with Taveras’ s work ethic. But he’s young so there’s plenty of time to change that.
It is because Mike Matheny loves his veterans. When Taveras was brought up Matheny did a terrible job at putting Craig and/or Taveras in positions to succeed. So Mozeliak traded Craig. So Matheny sees it as Taveras getting his guy (Craig) ran out of town. The thing is, it was Matheny that got Craig shipped out due to his (mis)managing
A Lance Lynn extension is an interesting proposition. I guess I could see buying out two free agent years with a club option, so 5/9/12 for arb (is that light? I’m not sure what he’ll get paid in arb but he’s had a good start) then two free agent years at 15 MM and 16 MM plus a 17 MM club option? I’m not sure if this seems too light in arb or too much in FA. It’s difficult to peg yearly salaries on extensions for these #2 starters. That deal, with a 3 MM buyout on his club option, would be a 5 year, 60 MM extension.
I’d say Gio Gonzalez is a good comparison.he signed a 5 year 42 million deal right before arbitration started with 2 12 million dollar options. extrapolate that today 5 years 60 million with two 15 million dollar options sounds pretty reasonable.
I believe Gio was a super-2, though, which meant that of the five years, it was his four arb years plus one free agent year, while in my Lynn example it’s three arb years and two free agent years, which further explains the higher number. Adjusting the deal for the different between where their salaries are on the service time scale, I think it seems fair. Gio is a solid comparison here. It definitely seems that the MadBum/Sale/Lester/Shields/Buchholz days of 30-35 MM extensions for pitchers are finished. At least, I’d hope so. I think 60 MM is fair. It also looks like that 4/38-40 deal (Greinke, Josh Johnson, Johan) with an extra year plus inflation tacked on.
according to Cots contract he was not a super 2
hmm, I was just basing it off the fact that b-ref says Gio had 4.162 service time entering this year which means he had 2.162 after 2011, which certainly seems like enough to qualify for super-2.
MLBtr’s article about Gio Gonzalez’ extension from January 15th, 2012 says Gio was a super-2.
I like Mike as a person, but he is too much of a ‘By the Books’ manager. Instead of playing Taveras most of the year he chose Craig, because he was more tenured. Only uses Rosenthal (Closer) if his team is winning in bottom of the 9th. Leaves Wainwright in too long if he is struggling, and did absolutely nothing about Rosenthal’s walk issue.
I get the Cardinals have been to the postseason every year since he’s been manager, but is that really because of him? Or is it just because of a talented, deep organization.