- This topic has 191 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I wholeheartedly agree with J.P.’s article. The payroll situation has been perplexing at best and I think his roster guess – assuming 6 starters – is most likely. But in reality, as we’ve seen through Brian’s health articles, someone or multiple someones will be hurt. And that opens the door for 1-2 additional pitchers. I’d go with Fernandez and King if it’s 2. But don’t discount Robertson or O’Brien at all. And after that there’s Wilking Rodriguez, Kyle Leahy, Josh James (an interesting signing who is super under the radar because he’s not at Spring training yet – not sure if he might be hurt), Ryan Loutos, Andre Granillo, and Logan Sawyer who would all need to be added to the 40 man. And finally, there’s also Packy Naughton who is supposed to be healthy again by May. And if you like more options, well, there’s about 10 other starter candidates who could all pitch in the bullpen.
As for the position players, if they’re all healthy, there’s really only 1 spot that is kind of sort of up for grabs. J.P. projects that spot to go to Burleson which seems like the safe bet. But if Donovan isn’t ready to be the emergency shortstop due to his arm, then having just Wynn and Edman feels really risky. Seriously, who would be the third SS if Donovan can’t throw that far? Arenado? Nootbaar? Carlson? I can’t fathom it being anyone else. And none of those guys has played SS in ages – maybe since Little League so that’s an injury waiting to happen. That situation would be awkward for sure. So I think if Donovan is not cleared to be a backup SS, then the team almost has to carry someone like Fermin over Burleson.
That article has both Liberatore and Thompson in the pen, which seems unlikely. As to the payroll, I think Mo will hold on the dry powder. Being able to take on payroll at the deadline would be helpful.
Bling – the article has Thompson as the 6th starter but listed with the BP guys. I think it would have been clearer had JP put it as 6 starters and 7 in the pen but I think since we’re all used to it being 5 and 8, he just listed Thompson with the 8.
jnevel said:
Josh James (an interesting signing who is super under the radar because he’s not at Spring training yet – not sure if he might be hurt)
James was not invited to St. Louis’ spring camp. It may be that he isn’t ready to pitch but we may not know that until minor league camp is underway.
I was more focused on the payroll aspect of the column and I wholeheartedly agree with his description of events. The Cardinals have been all over the map with the signals they sent during the winter regarding spending compared to last year. As usual the safe assumption is that they are going to take the conservative and frugal approach while keeping the powder dry.
We are at 211.6mil (CBT-40man) today.
Our same year-end last season, was 186.5mil (16th), after the deadline sell off (Low 190mil’s likely, w/out selling off).
We are roughly 20mil over last seasons year-end, today, in ST. We are 25.4mil under the soft cap.
Tell me when we’ve been closer to the cap if you can. I suggest %’s, the soft cap does change.
Why JP or anyone would chase opening day totals, and the FO PR, surprises me. Reads a lot like he’s trying to save face.
211.6mil current
25.4 under
CotsUsing CBT is tricky because it is NOT a reflection of actual payrolls for the current year. It is based on AAV’s.
According to Cot’s the 2023 opening day 26 man payroll was 176.5 and the current 26 man payroll is 169.1, which would be a decrease. The current 40 man payroll is 176.6.
“Tricky” is not using AAV, and believing the single season payroll numbers. Grays backload will come due, as Contreras and Matz did.
I’ll follow the cap total, as mlb does, each seasons end. The FO and players have their own accounting agreements. That’s their business.
We are at 211.6mil and adding Crawford on a supposed bench salary. Probably some incentives for playing time.
I can’t EVER remember a CBT-40man over 200mil at any time, any season. We are adding payroll, but deferring portions of the total. Harder to see the increase.
We are at 211.6mil and adding Crawford on a supposed bench salary
The Cardinals are not paying 211.6M in payroll in 2024, unless they decide to sign both Montgomery and Snell. I think using the current 40 man payroll is more relevant because that is what is actually happening now. I am not giving the Cardinals a pass just because they are paying Gray $35M in 2026. What does that have to do with now? The answer is nothing. They could easily cut back in other areas of the roster to make up for his increase in 2026 if they want to. The CBT is only relevant if you go over the line.
The “now” number is 211.6mil for me. It’s the most accurate number of total payroll commitments on the books now, and going forward. It grew, substantially this offseason.
Deferrals, opening day totals, 26man totals, deadline totals, etc., hard pass.
I just need the bottom line now and as the season progresses. Like the teams do.I’m not surprised JP got mislead. I used to track payroll that way too. It’s not worth the headache.
What we are paying later doesn’t mean anything now. The world could end by then so stuff like that doesn’t really matter. Adding Crawford to an aging lineup just means these guys will be adding social security to their earnings.
Let’s take a hypothetical situation to illustrate one side of this discussion.
So if Sonny Gray has a great season for the Cards this year, and then is traded in November, 2024, with the trade partner absorbing his entire remaining contract, are you going to go back and correct what you claimed the 2024 payroll to be, JJ? You see the logic pretzel the AAV/CBT numbers have created?To me (and I’m guessing 99.9% of fans) when a club says, “we’re increasing player payroll for next season,” it means next season. Not 2 or 10 or 20 years down the line. Not a single year down the line.
211.6mil, and growing (Crawford). That’s 2024 Bob, actual, today. Imagine if we are buyers at the deadline.
I’ll follow the number teams pay taxes on. Less noise. Others can decifer the Mo / FO speak that JP Hill spoke of.
My guess is that whether CBT is high or low, what drives their player spending commitments this year is their inflows and outflows this year. That is what I most care about.
We will have to see how much Crawford gets and reassess whether 2024 player spending is above or below 2023 spending. I suspect it will be down. BTW, to my recollection, the Cardinals haven’t made any related declarations lately as to payroll up or down YTY. I also don’t recall them ever quoting CBT to the media, though that spin might help them from a PR perspective, but I could be corrected.
Both numbers have a place, but I agree with those who see CBT as a specialized number that has a specialized purpose.
Surprise! The COL funds we will receive this season (2023), that was for last season (2022). Remember that one?
Unnecessary noise. Done with it. I don’t even remember the amount, just that it felt like Goold was running PR for their latest “tricky” juggling act.
——
Ideally, if we snuggle up to the soft cap, I’m good with the yearly budget total. I’m not not expecting, wanting or asking the FO to surpass the cap and be a taxpayer.From MLBs view, by the CBA, we are getting closer to the cap, and hopefully we earn buyer status this deadline.
I don’t like the noise either JJ but the system is deliberately noisy because it makes it easier to create smokescreens to keep the fans confused and mollified.
The fact is that the CBT is nothing but an artifical formula created in the CBA to penalize teams who go over a certain amount. It is not designed to be indicative of current year payrolls. It is based on AAV’s and benefits, not current payroll spending. The Cardinals current 40 man payroll is 176.6 (plus Crawford), not 211.6. The Cardinal CBT number is overly inflated because of the extremely backloaded contract to Gray. As a side note, comparing Gray’s backloaded contract to Matz and Contreras is laughable. Not even remotely close. Gray’s contract has to be the most backloaded Cardinal contract in history, by far.
I am concerned with what the Cardinal payroll is for 2024, not 2026, so when management indicates they are going to raise payroll for 2024 (which they haven’t) then I could care less what 2026 looks like now.
All my above totals have been about 2024, the topics title.
Why others are mentioning 2026, or bobs futuristic timeframe, I don’t get. Just more noise to me.
I enjoy that we differ here. Your opinions are top shelf. I don’t mind a solo walk along my path 🙂
—-
3-peat!I think the futuristic timeframe was because of Gray’s 2026 salary impacting today’s CBT number, essentially making it artificially high.
I enjoy the debate as well. You are a very knowledgeable numbers guy JJ.
That’s far lower than the $8 million I saw that was originally projected. For $2 million, that’s a relative bargain. But Crawford likely had very few options. Now, at just $2 million, if he plays poorly, it will be easy for the Cards to just eat the sunk cost and move on.
Glad it was Kennedy that we jettisoned. He just never made any sense.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.