Skip to content

Eric Hinske: ownership's secret weapon

Mar 3, 2010, 9:28 AM EDT

FanGraph’s R.J. Anderson wonders if Eric Hinske won’t work his magic once again and persuade Jason Heyward to sign an uber-team-friendly contract with the Braves.  It was Hinske, you’ll recall who did that with Evan Longoria, famously telling the young stud not to pass up his first shot at money and leading him to sign a six-year, $17.5M extension with the Rays that already makes him the cheapest superstar in the game and will only get more ridiculously team-friendly as time goes on.

As a selfish Braves fan I’d love to see Heyward sign, say, a 15-year, $15 million deal. As a generally pro-player fellow who likes to see guys get paid what they’re worth, I hope that Heyward stays the heck away from Hinske.

Not that there aren’t other reasons to stay away from him . . .

  1. Andrew - Mar 3, 2010 at 9:53 AM

    Well The Dude is a good example of why you should take the contract extension. Not that he was ever regarded as a super star, but he never would have been making the kind of money he once did had he gone year to year.
    The other reason to stay with him is 3 world series in 3 years with 3 different teams. Maybe Heyward won’t mind being talked into an under market extension if Hinske gets him a ring in his first year.

  2. Joe - Mar 3, 2010 at 9:59 AM

    I think the visible band on Hinske’s Banana Republic undies really ices the look for him.

  3. Curious George - Mar 3, 2010 at 10:20 AM

    “I think the visible band on Hinske’s Banana Republic undies really ices the look for him.”
    .
    Shouldn’t there be a rule that if you are over 30 you don’t let your pants hang below the band from your underwear? It’s a moronic enough look on teenagers but one that is truly embarassing on grown men who feel the need to imitate teenagers.

  4. Curious George - Mar 3, 2010 at 10:30 AM

    “Well The Dude is a good example of why you should take the contract extension. Not that he was ever regarded as a super star, but he never would have been making the kind of money he once did had he gone year to year.”
    .
    In Hinske’s case, taking the money made sense. He was an old rookie. He signed his 5/15M contract as a 25-year old whom detractors feared played over his head.
    .
    Longoria, on the other hand, signed a 6/17M contract as a 22-year old entering his rookie season. Certainly the decision for lifetime security (if even for the “modest” sum of 17M) was his and his alone to make, but his decision was hopefully predicated on criteria other than Hinske’s post-contract demise.
    .
    25-year olds and 22-year olds are two entirely separate animals. Especially when the 22-year old comes with Longoria’s pedigree.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Colby-on-Colby crime in Toronto
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. H. Street (3565)
  2. C. Lee (2819)
  3. H. Ramirez (2511)
  4. M. Trout (2408)
  5. Y. Puig (2243)
  1. T. Tulowitzki (2205)
  2. D. Price (2116)
  3. B. Belt (2075)
  4. J. Segura (2056)
  5. J. Papelbon (2021)