My point above was not to support particular theories, but only to emphasize that we don’t know facts and so are running with our established narratives. Players would universally love to play for STL and would jump at the chance. Therefore, the fact that more impact players did not sign means ownership is cheap. Well, not necessarily.
The desirability of STL as a destination is well established over a long period. But I am sure it never applied to every player faced with an array of choices to pursue. And I am not sure if there could be a cross current in play right now causing players to hesitate about STL. From an outsiders perspective what they see is a winning manager was fired, apparently without any knowledge that there was a problem. Replaced by an organizational insider with no experience in the role and whose team flat lined in post season. Then at the end of the year the experienced and professional key coaches bolted, replaced by more insiders without experience in the roles. We do not know what is said or thought about all that amongst those in the game, but a cross current could be in play right now, making things difficult. We should not just assume we know enough, and we should not just assume that our favorite narratives must of course be true at the moment.
As to Chafin, what he signed for is not exorbitant by current standards. It is possible that an extra year could have enticed him like it did Contreras. Maybe the less urgent need was not enough to get Mo to do that again. Maybe the narratives did not pan out at all in this case.