PDA

View Full Version : Eckstein to the Cards


Hokiesox
12-23-2004, 07:14 PM
Darnit!

Guess it's on to nepotism and Alex Cora....

NonetheLoaiza
12-23-2004, 07:16 PM
per ESPN

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1952764

eh, cora wouldnt be terrible though.

Fire Kenny
12-23-2004, 07:16 PM
No big loss, Cora is better anyway.

Dub25
12-23-2004, 07:17 PM
Not a surprise after they lost Renteria and not be able to get Cabrera.

ChiWhiteSox1337
12-23-2004, 07:25 PM
ESPN doesn't have the $$ terms yet so it'll be interesting to see how much he signed for. However, I'm assuming that this is a good move by the financially "strapped" Cardinals(how can you draw that many fans and be "strapped"? :dunno: ) rather than giving big $$ to renteria or cabrera when they still have tons of offensive power in pujols, rolen, edmonds, and walker. I'm sure the Cards and their GM will find a way to beat the cubs like always. :smile:

batmanZoSo
12-23-2004, 07:37 PM
Just garbage. Where the hell were we while this was going down?

anewman35
12-23-2004, 07:52 PM
Just garbage. Where the hell were we while this was going down?
For all you know, we were calling him all the time, and making him better offers, and he choose to go to St Louis anyway. Why do people always assume that everytime we lose a free agent, it's automatically our fault?

ilsox7
12-23-2004, 07:56 PM
It's a 3 year deal. I wouldn't to commit to him for 3 years anyways.

SoxxoS
12-23-2004, 07:59 PM
It's a 3 year deal. I wouldn't to commit to him for 3 years anyways.
To be honest, I would rather have Eck for 3 years than Uribe. I don't want the side by side statistical Billy Beane crap, either. All I know from last season is Uribe went 50-100 for the month or 1-100. He is so maddingly inconsistant it scares me. Actually, I don't know a player that is more inconsistant in the game of baseball today. That is just what we didn't need, IMO.:angry:

ilsox7
12-23-2004, 08:00 PM
To be honest, I would rather have Eck for 3 years than Uribe. I don't want the side by side statistical Billy Beane crap, either. All I know from last season is Uribe went 50-100 for the month or 1-100. He is so maddingly inconsistant it scares me. Actually, I don't know a player that is more inconsistant in the game of baseball today. That is just what we didn't need, IMO.:angry:
No stats analysis here. I just don't think Eck is worth a 3 year commitment.

princek
12-23-2004, 08:33 PM
To be honest, I would rather have Eck for 3 years than Uribe. I don't want the side by side statistical Billy Beane crap, either. All I know from last season is Uribe went 50-100 for the month or 1-100. He is so maddingly inconsistant it scares me. Actually, I don't know a player that is more inconsistant in the game of baseball today. That is just what we didn't need, IMO.:angry:
Eck was just as inconsistent last year -
april (.272)
may (.268)
june (.344)
july (.339)
august (.234)
september (.218)
october (.286)

and Uribe's

april (.393)
may (.303)
June (.222)
july (.123)
august (.305)
september (.353)
october (.333)

now compound that with the fact that Uribe hit 21 more homers and 40 more rbis and i think anyone would be hardpressed to make a decsion over who they wanted playing shortstop

Jjav829
12-23-2004, 08:40 PM
For all you know, we were calling him all the time, and making him better offers, and he choose to go to St Louis anyway. Why do people always assume that everytime we lose a free agent, it's automatically our fault?
I fully agree. I've felt all along he would go to the Cardinals. It's just a better situation. They have more money to spend than the Sox. The Cardinals went to the World Series last year. The Sox didn't make the playoffs. I suppose it also depends on Eckstein's personal preferences. If he likes to leadoff and/or play short, the Cardinals were able to offer him both. The Sox would be asking him to play 2B and bat 2nd. I don't think we lost him for lack of effort. The Cardinals are just a better situation.

Brian26
12-23-2004, 09:30 PM
It just seems like we can't sign anyone we want. Vizquel, Clement, Eckstein, Renteria....

Whitesox029
12-23-2004, 09:33 PM
It's $10.25 million over 3 years. That translates to just under $3.5 million per year. I assumed taht's what we'd be giving him, only not 3 years' worth.
http://stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/stl/news/stl_news.jsp?ymd=20041223&content_id=925673&vkey=news_stl&fext=.jsp

Nick@Nite
12-23-2004, 09:40 PM
This is a setback. :mad:

Eckstein would have held his own in the field and with the bat, but the intangible was that he played on a WS winner. I'm not saying he was the straw that stirred the Angels drink on that team, but his influence could have rubbed off in a good way in a Sox clubhouse devoid of WS hardware.

Btw, Ozzie's WS ring is not what I meant.

batmanZoSo
12-23-2004, 09:48 PM
It just seems like we can't sign anyone we want. Vizquel, Clement, Eckstein, Renteria....
...Dye, Hernandez...

There's no problem other than we're cheap. Unless a guy's been hurt and has little or no suitors, we ain't gettin' him. I'm sure with Eckstein it was only a two year deal or the first year was only a million or other lowballing crap. Just like always.

SoxFan48
12-23-2004, 10:02 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1952764

BRDSR
12-24-2004, 01:37 AM
It just seems like we can't sign anyone we want. Vizquel, Clement, Eckstein, Renteria....
I know. And theres Dye and Hermanson and Orlando Hernandez. Crap!

There are 29 other teams in major league baseball and they all get a fair shot at every free agent. Renteria and Clement weren't worth the money they were getting paid, and Hernandez and Harris are better options for what we're paying them. We don't need to lock up Eckstein for 3 years, we have Uribe and Valdez coming through the system who could be a starting shortstop in 2006. A 3 year contract to Eckstein would have been a waste and if the Cardinals wanted him, they were going to get him...they needed him more. As far as Vizquel, that may have been KWs fault for flying "above the radar" but still. It's true we haven't gotten everyone we've wanted, but we shouldn't act like we haven't gotten anyone we wanted.

D. TODD
12-24-2004, 02:10 AM
3 years at 3.5 per; St. Louis can have him. Every player who is avaliable gets made into a stud on this board. He would have been a nice fit as a utility guy with good bat handling skills, and toughness. That is not worth 3.5 million on our budget. Cora will help with the much needed depth and bat handling abilities, at a third of the cost. Even going with Valdez until needed is better then overextending our budget for Eck. GOOD NO MOVE KENNY!:)

JRIG
12-24-2004, 10:11 AM
Eckstein would have held his own in the field and with the bat, but the intangible was that he played on a WS winner. I'm not saying he was the straw that stirred the Angels drink on that team, but his influence could have rubbed off in a good way in a Sox clubhouse devoid of WS hardware.


If that's all we need, we should bring back Roberto Alomar again. He's got a World Series ring (two of them!) and supposedly a ton of intangibles.

Then again, we did have him the past two years and didn't win anything. So many talent is the most important thing.

34 Inch Stick
12-24-2004, 10:47 AM
The going rate for second basemen seems to be in the 2-2.5 million range. The Cardinals offered more because, as a shortstop, he is a much more necessary and higher paid component of a team.

fquaye149
12-24-2004, 12:17 PM
If that's all we need, we should bring back Roberto Alomar again. He's got a World Series ring (two of them!) and supposedly a ton of intangibles.

Then again, we did have him the past two years and didn't win anything. So many talent is the most important thing.
haha mark this date - me and jrig see exactly eye to eye...

Eckstein is like a pete rose who can't hit....and a pete rose who can't hit is like...eeek

johnny_mostil
12-24-2004, 12:31 PM
Even going with Valdez until needed is better then overextending our budget for Eck.
Wilson Valdez isn't a real option. They have to have somebody else even for 100-200 at bats.

SOXSINCE'70
12-25-2004, 09:57 AM
Eck was just as inconsistent last year -
april (.272)
may (.268)
june (.344)
july (.339)
august (.234)
september (.218)
october (.286)

and Uribe's

april (.393)
may (.303)
June (.222)
july (.123)
august (.305)
september (.353)
october (.333)

now compound that with the fact that Uribe hit 21 more homers and 40 more rbis and i think anyone would be hardpressed to make a decsion over who they wanted playing shortstop
And what Uribe hit in June and July helped contribute
to the final outcome (Sox lose division to Twins by a
few games).:(: :(:

PaleHoseGeorge
12-25-2004, 07:04 PM
Wilson Valdez isn't a real option. They have to have somebody else even for 100-200 at bats.
I agree. Wilson Valdez is not a major league baseball player. His swing is so bad, he makes Chris Singleton look like Pete Rose.

:tongue:

Nick@Nite
12-25-2004, 08:15 PM
If that's all we need, we should bring back Roberto Alomar again. He's got a World Series ring (two of them!) and supposedly a ton of intangibles.

Then again, we did have him the past two years and didn't win anything. So many talent is the most important thing.Robbie ran out of gas for good in 2002. Not only that, but much of the Sox current roster couldn't relate to a "clubhouse leader" who last won a WS ring 12 years ago.

If we had picked up Eckstein, I'm guessing that the clubhouse would've benefited from his supposed gritty-rep that he's been tagged with. That's just a guess.

serena
12-25-2004, 10:03 PM
The Cards are paying him to start and gave him a 3-year contract.