Comments on: UCB Roundtable: Kyle Lohse deal too soon?

By: [Redbird Reveille] Sweep, Blues, and Kyle Lohse | Pitchers Hit Eighth :: A St. Louis Cardinals blog

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:48:27 +0000

[...] to the Cardinals, what about Lohse, eh? There was a lengthy discussion here in the off-season, as part of the UCB Roundtable, about Lohse’s extension and whether it was [...]

By: PHE

PHE — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:29:07 +0000

Lohse got his cash at the perfect time, no doubt about that. I just wonder if having that money available really would’ve meant a strong push for Lowe or someone else.

By: Jack Jones

Jack Jones — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:30:25 +0000

I think the Five O’Clock Blogger hit it right in that if the Cards waited they could have gotten either him or someone else cheaper, but who would have thought everyone was going to tighten their budgets so much this year?

By: Round and round « Five O’Clock Blogger

Round and round « Five O’Clock Blogger — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:40:21 +0000

[...] Nick at Pitchers Hit Eighth: Was Kyle Lohse’s contract bad timing or a huge gaffe? [...]

By: PHE

PHE — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:42:53 +0000

Depends on who you listen to.

By: BrewCards

BrewCards — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:39:33 +0000

That is true, but i don’t think that buying out a no-trade is a multi-million dollar deal. I think most of them are done for a few hundred thousand. Which in the grand scheme of things isn’t going to break the Cards.

By: PHE

PHE — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:28:31 +0000

Well, the only thing to consider then, is that waiving a no-trade clause is often a financial decision for a player.

So the Cards would either have to buy it out, or the team trading for Lohse would have to be willing to extend him immediately, etc.

That could have an effect on payroll as well, if the Cards are eating some portion of that no-trade clause financially while trying to re-up Pujols.

By: BrewCards

BrewCards — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:25:22 +0000

My only issue with the deal is the 4th year. Wainwright, Molina, and Carpenter hit their options that year in 2012 and may need extensions. Also 2012 is the year Pujols is going to be up for big money after his 2011 option.

No-trade clauses are waived all the time, so while it could be a minor inconvenience in the future I don’t see it as anything to worry about.

By: PHE

PHE — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:09:03 +0000

Yeah, difficult to say what cheap may or may not be in 2012.

The eternal optimist in me wants to believe the no-trade won’t be an issue, while he’s winning 16 games a year over the course.

By: Cardinal70

Cardinal70 — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:07:14 +0000

I agree, the Cards shouldn’t have given him the no-trade clause. The only rationale I could give would be they expect by the time they might want to trade him, his contract would look cheap and therefore people might pay to have that clause waived.

Of course, that looks much less likely now and honestly it wasn’t very solid then. If Lohse was getting more like $7-8 million a year, maybe.