- This topic has 6 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Does anybody else think the reason the Cardinals are more willing to lose draft picks with free agent signings or trade them away as they did with Goldschmidt is because of the criticism they receive for competitive balance picks?
It seems with DeWitt’s statement that he is afraid of being the one to set the bar for a player’s salary that he might also have made the decision to lose one pick per year to mute the criticism of the Cardinals receiving the pick.
No. They still received the picks and value in return. Why would a trade matter in the overall scheme of things?
I think this pales in significance to the other example cited – the Cardinals willfully paying a free agent a record salary that would affect the market for every other team. That is many times more important than a second or third round draft pick.
JMO.
The Cardinals not wanting to set the standard for a FA acquisition strikes me as a reversal from recent past practice (Brett Cecil and Dexter Fowler come to mind.). I thought they viewed that as buying on the cheap.
I imagine the Cardinals included the pick because Arizona demanded it since they are losing a pick from offering Goldy a QO after the season.
No. They still received the picks and value in return. Why would a trade matter in the overall scheme of things?
For a team that wants to build through the draft, and places a high importance on draft picks, they’ve seemed rather ambivalent about the loss of draft picks the past few years, ever since Epstein started being vocal about it (as are fans of just about every team).
When the draft comes next year, and people are looking at the picks, do you really think they are going to think that is a St. Louis pick or an Arizona pick?
It’s simple perception.
gscottar’s explanation makes sense.
I agree with gscottar’s supposition as well, which would appear to have no connection to any greater worry about having the pick in the first place.
Mags, I don’t think Fowler’s contract set any kind of industry high water mark or standard. I would imagine that others saw it as an overpay, which does happen in MLB fairly often. I know how Cardinals fans feel, but across the game, it was not a landmark deal.
Cecil’s four-year commitment as a left-handed specialist might have been out there. But in the scheme of things, Cecil makes considerably less in four years than Harper will make in one. So it isn’t like that deal blew up the economics of free agency.
On the other hand, Harper’s new contract could go where no other contract has gone before. That is what DeWitt was almost certainly referring to.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.