PDA

View Full Version : Francisco Cordero being paid $9,700 per pitch



LouisvilleCARDS
05-17-2009, 04:50 AM
Here's how I figured it out. I took an approximate number of average overall pitches per year from his career stats looking at his past few years (about 1,250.) So far this year he's had 257 pitches, so he is 20.56% through a typical year in pitches.

He's being paid $12,125,000 a year so divided by his 1,250 average, thats $9,700 a PITCH. So this year, we've "used" $2,492,900 this year on him.

Just some food for thought, since apparently princess Francisco couldn't get his jersey dirty tonight. Always nice to know a guy going out there to the mound on any given at bat to pitch, when in 4 pitches he's making more than most people in the world for those.

Slyder
05-17-2009, 04:55 AM
if it was his call send his ass to the low minors for a week and remind him just how nice he has it. If it was Dusty's call to just send Owings back out there then he ought to payback his check for tonight.

There is no excuse anyone could come up with that could make me overlook the 16th inning. I dont care if he grooves the first pitch at least he'd been out there actually pitching after Owings gave us EVERYTHING and then some.

BTW great find Cards.

gilpdawg
05-17-2009, 05:35 AM
You've obviously got an axe to grind, since this is the third thread you've posted a bash of Cordero. Dusty puts the players in. If he wanted to put Cordero in, he would have. Cordero was obviously his last resort in that situation.

Fon Duc Tow
05-17-2009, 10:17 AM
Maybe he should have put Harang in.









Kidding.

DTCromer
05-17-2009, 10:36 AM
Well, at least we're not starting "The Reds are in 1st place" or "Can this team win 90 games?" threads

A couple losses in a row does wonders to the fans psyche.

big boy
05-17-2009, 10:49 AM
Cordero was obviously his last resort in that situation.

Agreed...if he put him in in the 14th or 15th, he would have had nobody else. His strategy seems ok here. He rode Owings as far as he could. Cordero would have pitched the 17th - 19th most likely and then you'd be looking at Jannish.

Ghosts of 1990
05-17-2009, 12:07 PM
Baker gave the game away tonight. Not sure why but he did.

Slyder
05-17-2009, 12:18 PM
Why not put him out there in the 16th when everyone and their mother knew Owings was done? You go 2-3 more innings at least you went as long as you could with your best option on the field.

Brutus
05-17-2009, 02:07 PM
Why not put him out there in the 16th when everyone and their mother knew Owings was done? You go 2-3 more innings at least you went as long as you could with your best option on the field.

As long as you keep Owings in there, he can bat when his spot comes up in the order. His spot, if I remember correctly, was coming back up again in the 17th inning. Yes, he was clearly starting to lose it, but he was still getting people out. Even in the bottom of the 16th, he got two people out including a K, he just put a fastball (with no velocity or life obviously) right over the middle just under the letters and needless to say it was a BP pitch for Nick Hundley.

Point is, as soon as you commit to putting Cordero in for Owings, you A) lose a potentially productive spot in the batting order and B) have no more than 2-3 innings left to 'seriously' try to win the game. I say that because 2-3 innings was the most a reliever like Cordero would be conditioned to go.

Though everyone has a legitimate reason to see things differently, it's really not complicated to see why Dusty Baker was hesitant to take out Owings. Once he did, the offense immediately lost a weapon and you essentially capped yourself at a max of 2-3 more innings before you had to start throwing a non-pitcher.

Ghosts of 1990
05-17-2009, 02:30 PM
As long as you keep Owings in there, he can bat when his spot comes up in the order. His spot, if I remember correctly, was coming back up again in the 17th inning. Yes, he was clearly starting to lose it, but he was still getting people out. Even in the bottom of the 16th, he got two people out including a K, he just put a fastball (with no velocity or life obviously) right over the middle just under the letters and needless to say it was a BP pitch for Nick Hundley.

Point is, as soon as you commit to putting Cordero in for Owings, you A) lose a potentially productive spot in the batting order and B) have no more than 2-3 innings left to 'seriously' try to win the game. I say that because 2-3 innings was the most a reliever like Cordero would be conditioned to go.

Though everyone has a legitimate reason to see things differently, it's really not complicated to see why Dusty Baker was hesitant to take out Owings. Once he did, the offense immediately lost a weapon and you essentially capped yourself at a max of 2-3 more innings before you had to start throwing a non-pitcher.

Just my thinking, but Owings bat (he bails out on every swing) is no reason to leave him in the game when he's got nothing left but batting practice fastballs.

mroby85
05-17-2009, 04:03 PM
Here's how I figured it out. I took an approximate number of average overall pitches per year from his career stats looking at his past few years (about 1,250.) So far this year he's had 257 pitches, so he is 20.56% through a typical year in pitches.

He's being paid $12,125,000 a year so divided by his 1,250 average, thats $9,700 a PITCH. So this year, we've "used" $2,492,900 this year on him.

Just some food for thought, since apparently princess Francisco couldn't get his jersey dirty tonight. Always nice to know a guy going out there to the mound on any given at bat to pitch, when in 4 pitches he's making more than most people in the world for those.

This thread is 100% idiocy!

LouisvilleCARDS
05-17-2009, 05:16 PM
I actually gave props to Cordero in previous threads, so saying I have an axe to grind is BS. It's not true at all. But the fact is, I'm sick of Reds management babying him. We played 16 INNINGS last night, and we didn't use a reliever who was available, either from his own incompetence in tied games, or because he's too much of a diva to go *gasp* TWO innings.

Has it really gotten to the point where we're literally going to say keeping a closer in more than one inning is pushing him?? What the heck has happened to baseball?

gilpdawg
05-17-2009, 08:47 PM
I actually gave props to Cordero in previous threads, so saying I have an axe to grind is BS. It's not true at all. But the fact is, I'm sick of Reds management babying him. We played 16 INNINGS last night, and we didn't use a reliever who was available, either from his own incompetence in tied games, or because he's too much of a diva to go *gasp* TWO innings.

Has it really gotten to the point where we're literally going to say keeping a closer in more than one inning is pushing him?? What the heck has happened to baseball?
Yeah, calling him "Princess Francisco" isn't having an agenda from the start? Dusty screwed up. That's all. If Dusty wasn't going to use him he shouldn't have had him warm up three times.

Hondo
05-18-2009, 02:18 PM
Atleast Owings pitched well... How can this team goe sweep the D Backs, leave on a high, and Waltz into San Diego and get Swept... Hope this is a Wake up Call WALT...

LouisvilleCARDS
05-18-2009, 04:34 PM
Yeah, calling him "Princess Francisco" isn't having an agenda from the start? Dusty screwed up. That's all. If Dusty wasn't going to use him he shouldn't have had him warm up three times.

No its not. When he's a closer and the last two times he was put in a TIE game he promptly lost them. Explain that? It's no wonder a manager can't even trust to goto a closer when he pitches like that ALL THE TIME.

gilpdawg
05-18-2009, 04:53 PM
No its not. When he's a closer and the last two times he was put in a TIE game he promptly lost them. Explain that? It's no wonder a manager can't even trust to goto a closer when he pitches like that ALL THE TIME.
Like I said, he warmed up three times. After you warm up three times 99% of managers will not use you unless it's an emergency.