Comments on: Eric Hinske: ownership's secret weapon

By: Curious George

Curious George — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:30:55 +0000

“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.

By: Curious George

Curious George — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:20:24 +0000

“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.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:59:38 +0000

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

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:53:05 +0000

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.