- This topic has 664 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 4 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Our rotation this offseason will look so thin it’s a prize destination to get your IP on a 1yr pillow FA contract.
Maybe a couple of change of scenery arms ready to go by opening day, can help backfill and possibly be trade chips?
Someone like Dustin May could be signed on a cheap one year deal. Former Dodger prospect derailed by injuries would be viewed as a lottery ticket.
jj said:
Maybe a couple of change of scenery arms ready to go by opening day, can help backfill and possibly be trade chips?
Would feel like 2024 with Lynn and Gibson over again…
I would hope Chain Bloom is more willing to make trades to improve the club than Mozeliak was.
The Cardinals have a logjam of infielders + catching prospects that need to be thinned out.
We have the Cardinals history vs our hopes, for how long now? I already met my quota as the broken record. Good luck with your crusade!
Well jj, the one thing that has changed is that Mozeliak will not be in charge of trades at the end of the season.
The Cardinals brought in Bloom because they want to be more like Tampa Bay, and Tampa Bay makes trades.
LA, once the FA’s walk away, what other choice is there?
“The farm and Bills pockets are not overflowing, and the draft takes too long. Trading very well is mandatory.”
The biggest hindrance to the Cardinal rebuild thus far has been the no trade clause. I keep reading about how Mo has left Bloom a “clean slate” but there is actually two or three more years of dead weight to get rid of.
I get what you are saying about clean slate. But only Arenado’s contract is really dead weight, IMO. Gray is still the best pitcher on the staff and Willson is the best hitter on the team (though Herrera has a higher OPS+ this year). They aren’t blocking anyone, IMO.
The Cards need to have a few above average veterans on the roster to remain respectable. And there is no assurance that DeWitt would spend the saved money on other players if he shedded all three salaries. Why would he get rid of veterans to sign more veterans? Far more likely, he would apply the payroll savings to his balance sheet to offset the declining revenue.
Perhaps if they could be traded for true top prospects or young, controllable developing stars, it could help both the talent pipeline and the financial ledger. But in my experience, young established MLB future stars are rarely traded.
I haven’t thought about it deeply, but I think I’d rather see Sonny and Willson remain.
I’m not advocating getting rid of Sonny for sure. I hope they pick up his option for 2027 as well because he certainly isn’t blocking anyone. Contreras is a little bit of a different story. The Cardinals have several cheaper options they could use at 1B. Burleson would be the logical choice.
Regardless I think all three vets would be gone if it wasn’t for the NTC’s. It has been reported that Mo has met with all three more than once about leaving but rebuffed each time.
Right. But do we know WHY they want the three to leave? Is it because they want:
a) to get better?
or
b) to save money?I want them to get better. There is no assurance getting rid of the veterans will do anything but help them lose less money.
I am not interested in further payroll cuts until they are willing to reinvest the savings. And what they are spending on the minors isn’t close to balancing the cuts. Reinvestment at the MLB level won’t happen until the pipeline cranks out more cheap talent.
Re spending…
Dewitt has already fully played the villian- and made it clear that money = larger % money on field..this is a business etc
With CBA coming after next year I think we would be absolutely foolish to think anyone is going to be signed for a significant amount of money or time considering caps and floors are coming.
Caps and floors are already in place. Clubs blow by the cap with ease and the floor is 26 players times the minimum. Neither are altering clubs spending.
I agree with Brian, I don’t think DeWitt has any intention of reinvesting money saved from Gray, Contreras and Arenado into the team.
He seems to be working his way toward claiming those welfare dollars from MLB, and the way to ensure he gets a free $70 million is by continuing to lower payroll. It is the MLB way.
If the FO is open to “trade hitters for pitchers”, and it’s not the NTC’s being traded, then it’s shuffling equal value, unless we fleece someone. The margin to get better is tight, until the farm or Bills wallet start producing better.
If the FO is open to “trade hitters for pitchers”, and it’s not the NTC’s being traded, then it’s shuffling equal value, unless we fleece someone. The margin to get better is tight, until the farm or Bills wallet start producing better.
Depends on the hitter, but if equal or better value is on the farm already, then trading from the surplus to shore up the lack is a smart move. The rotation looks pretty bleak, and it sure would be nice to have a solid #2-3 to shore it up. Trading one of the younger bats may just bring that and without much loss on the lineup.
Burly is establishing a track record of slumping in the second half.
Last season
Pre-break .814 OPS
Post-break .626 OPSThis season
Pre .805
Post .686He still has time to shake it this year, but I don’t see him yet as a viable long-term replacement for the very consistent Contreras.
If the FO is open to “trade hitters for pitchers”, and it’s not the NTC’s being traded, then it’s shuffling equal value, unless we fleece someone.
You have to remember, this is a portfolio optimization problem. There are two aspect at play: Do the Cardinals have internal replacements for the players they are trading away, or are they trading future value for present value?
When Mozeliak and DeWitt came up with their strategy of not trading away prospects, that was their profit-maximization strategy at the time. Now, DeWitt’s profit-maximization strategy is to get revenue low enough that he can claim $70 million in free money. Thus, it now makes sense to trade away prospects for cost-controlled present value.
Do you really think the Cards are trying to drive revenue down to become a revenue sharing participant? If so, what makes you think that?
Seems to me that if that was the plan, they would have gone into full teardown mode.
Anyone hoping for any improvement of substance via trades this winter is going to be disappointed. Hopefully some roster balancing. A Gorman quality outfielder for Gorman or a Saggese quality outfielder for Saggese. And no we won’t get something good for a basket of stuff that is not good. Platoon bats, bad fielders, guys that are hurt all the time.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.