Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
We have to do both well Rats. First we need to build a strong foundation and then buy talent to supplement it. We aren’t close enough yet. Compare our team to the Dodgers position by position. Are we better than them with any single player on our 26-man roster? Almost certainly Wetherholt over Edmans at 2B. Maybe Walker over Kyle Tucker based on recent results. That’s it. They would have 24 to 25 better players in a head-to-head matchup. Even the Cubs probably have a 20 to 6 advantage.
We have to build the base first. These prospects have a chance to improve that future or become traded for proven MLB talent when the time is right.
Those others are staying. Stanek could be a DFA candidate if we have an arm we’d like to try in his place who needs a roster spot to retain them (Hancel Rincon or Cade Winquest maybe?).
Could be Saggese recalled. He could also play LF. Or I guess it could be Victor Scott returning, but that doesn’t make a lot of sense. His offense still needs fixing. So probably Baez in LF.
I’m waiting to see if Nootbaar was traded for Arenado . . .
Probably does mean Baez gets promoted, but not necessarily. I could see Torres playing there for another month.
I think I would have Frias at 7 and Ragsdale at 13 or 14 (which I guess is 14 or 15 after Frias gets put in ahead of him). I’d like to see more of Frias to be sure. I’ve seen some of Ragsdale in action in the past. Even if I’m a bit more pessimistic on where these guys are ranked vs some, I still see this as a great win for St Louis.
Dustin May was an outstanding signing for Bloom this offseason. He cost the Cardinals around $7 million and we got 2/3 of a season of mostly good results and now get a top 100 prospect for him (assuming Frias for May and Ragsdale for Romero). Well done.
I like the return. Ragsdale is putting up some eye-popping numbers but has strikeout issues. Frias though could be the real talent if he can put it all together.
I wonder if Ragsdale spells the end of Zach Levenson?
Peoria almost blew it at the end. They brought on one of my under the radar faves in Ruben Menes for the save and he gave up a single and double to lead off the bottom of the ninth putting runners at second and third with no one out in a one-run game. He managed to close it out and strand those two runners after that and secure the win.
I agree that tightening up the CBT threshold would help but all that does is put more money in wealthy teams’ owners pockets or it has them spending more on coaches, GMs, facilities, etc, which are not counted against the CBT (which gives them a lot of the same advantages they have today). I believe sharing more revenue is the best solution (with a salary floor which forces that revenue gets spent). Like you, I also don’t think a salary cap is the right solution. That mostly just harms the players.
And of those 10 winning % clubs, only 1 is a bottom 10 revenue team (Rays). I do agree that having money doesn’t necessarily make you win. Lots of wealthy people and wealthy owners of companies throughout the history of the world have learned that lesson the hard way. But it certainly gives you some advantages in life, which make winning easier to do.
The top 10 teams in terms of the most resources have won 18 of the past 25 seasons. One third of the teams with about three quarters of the wins. Plus lots of pennants in there too.
That could be because they are better run (they generally are). However, they are better run because they have more resources to pay for better coaches, better GMs, better analytics, better facilities, and better equipment.
The problem with baseball isn’t the Dodgers. They are just a symptom showing up as the easiest example to point at. The problem is the disparity in resources of the haves and have-nots. While it has always been this way to a degree, the gap has vastly grown in recent years due to TV contracts and the sale of merchandise. I think it’s a problem. I understand why some may look at it and see it differently.
If you are a Rays or Rockies fan, you have never seen your team win a World Series.
Odd are pretty good that if you’re a Pirates or Tigers fan, you don’t ever remember seeing your team win a World Series. Similar for Reds and A’s. And, it’s been over a whole generation for the White Sox, Twins, and Marlins. Just that one Royals win in the past 20 years providing any hope.
The other 4 middle teams that are also close to the bottom 1/3 are the Brewers, Guardians, Diamondbacks, and Nationals. They’ve had a little more success on the Pennant side but not so many World Series in the past 25 years for them either (just the Nationals with one – and Arizona had their one and only title 26 years ago).
I’m listing the 10 lowest revenue teams and how many years it’s been since they won a pennant and number of years since they won a world series. If there was parity, you would think they would average around 5-7 years for each since this is 1/3 of the teams. (Note that the Nationals probably are not bottom 1/3, but they were in Forbes last figures and the Pirates are listed just ahead of them so I’m swapping them):
A’s: 26 / 37 years
White Sox: 21 / 21 years
Rays: 6 / (N/A) years
Marlins: 23 / 23 years
Rockies: 19 / (N/A) years
Tigers: 14 / 42 years
Royals: 11 / 11 years
Twins: 25 / 25 years
Reds: 36 / 36 years
Pirates: 47 / 47 yearsThese teams win a WS on average about once every 30 years and that number is going up. They win a pennant on average about every 15 years. The Rays are the outlier as well as the one flukey Royals win. Note that the Brewers are not in the bottom 10 (although close).
I do hope I’m wrong and the Brewers or Rays show up big in the postseason. A little guy hasn’t won in a long time.
I think you’re missing the point GScottar. I agree with everything you said. There are 4-7 other teams that also have similar resources to the Dodgers and who could be just as good but haven’t made the quality decisions the Dodgers have. The Dodgers have been smart and done a great job with everything they’ve been given and the Mets have squandered most everything. Good for the Dodgers. The point is that the 10 little guys out there basically have no chance anymore. The “Haves” just have so many more resources today than the “have-nots” and there is no end in sight because at this point, the Dodgers model is perfectly sustainable for the long future. I’m not concerned about the Dodgers being better than the Cubs or Yankees. That’s fine. Good for them. I’m not even really concerned about them being better than the Cardinals or all the teams in the middle, although there is a big disparity in resources there. My concern is that a team like the Pirates has no chance to ever win (or next to no chance) from game 1 of the season every season. Even if they do nearly everything perfectly and they get extremely lucky like the Brewers have done, they still are heavy underdogs with almost zero chance. I think that’s bad for baseball both short and long-term. The good news is it can be fixed and hopefully will be.
Consider all the downstream impacts that happened when the Cardinals traded Sandy Alcantara and Zac Gallen to Miami for Ozuna. Or the fact that they did that at all because of the death of our Taveras a couple years prior. Imagine if Taveras hadn’t lost his life and Alcantara and Gallen led the rotation for years. It doesn’t have to be Pujols to make a big impact (although obviously that one would have been catastrophic had he been traded). It’s not just the talent that can leave, it can also be the cost-control of that talent that allows a team to sign a free agent or two to supplement a team.
I do agree with you that Milwaukee could have been aggressive if they wanted to really go for it and they chose not to. Going for it at the right moment is probably their only chance to be a winner. But, they do have far more to lose than the Dodgers. Even if Skubal gets hurt, the Dodgers still have a rotation full of all-star talent and those prospects lost meant little to their future since almost none of their prospects ever make the team.
Great start today for Libby. That pushes some of the doubters back.
Now we need more runs. This one two or three runs a game stuff is getting old. Come on guys! Big inning time.
The catcher has some impact, but I’m still pretty certain it is 90-95% about the pitcher’s performance and execution on that day. Herrera does have a good catcher’s ERA this season but that hasn’t always been the case. I do think he’s improved his pitch calling, but the pitcher still has to execute. No catcher ever calls for a hanging slider over the middle of the plate yet Liberatore has thrown quite a few of those this season!
Giving up the wrong prospect can have a huge impact on a team’s future. It just depends. We don’t know which ones the Tigers wanted from Milwaukee or how Milwaukee felt about them.
There is nothing preventing the Pirates from being the Brewers except lots of great decisions over time and a little luck. But they cannot become the Dodgers – at least not in the next 10 or 20 years – no matter what. It would take a huge population shift.
The Dodgers can trade away all their prospects and have it not matter because they can always just buy whoever they want in free agency. Prospects for them are trade capital. For a team like the Brewers, prospects are their lifeline for the future. Sure, they could “go for it” and trade them for Skubal. But they know that puts their future in jeopardy. For the Dodgers, it has almost no impact whatsoever on their future. They didn’t go for it at all. They just continued to use their strategic advantage to their favor. That’s not “smart” or “aggressive”. It’s just the obvious thing to do in their situation. Why not do it when there’s almost only upside?
That’s where the more revenue sharing part comes in. Ideally, they would all equally share revenue or at least all revenue up to a certain point and all have a substantial floor so they are forced to spend it.
