Donovan

[An Old Friend]

It's really an example of poor front office principles that they don't have Donovan and Nootbaar signed longer term.

Oh please. No Pujols here.

You don’t like explaining yourself so I don’t expect you to answer, but your response insinuates that no team should sign any player that came through their system to stick around past arbitration years unless they’re an all time great.

It’s very funny, honestly.

[ecleme22]

It's really an example of poor front office principles that they don't have Donovan and Nootbaar signed longer term.

No. No need at this point. Both have concerns about health. It's 11 [fork]ing games.

Every year, players can get hot for 60 days and then turn into pumpkins

Noots 1 for 14 his last 3 games. Hurdys been on a run but started slow.

At this point? Dude, they're already late.

The Cardinals have ZERO young players signed through their arbitration years. Knowing their stated payroll strategy, how on earth could you suggest they shouldn't lock up players they've developed longer term before they get close to free agency?

It's not about 3 games. Way to miss the point... can't tell if it was intentional or not, feels like it wasn't based on your extremely short-sighted defense of your position.

Nootbar:
It's really easy to be high on him now, but he averages about 110 games a year. Not sure why it's so important to make sure he's locked up through 2028 or 2029 instead of the 2027 he is currently. So you think Mo, after seeing Noot injured in 2022 and 2023, shoulda been like, "man, I gotta lock this dude up for 6 years / 40mil!"

Donovan:
Once again, really easy to say that now w BD hitting .400. I like Donovan, a lot. But once again, why is it so important that we have Donovan locked up 1-3 years passed FA year of 2027? The year after his breakthrough 2022 year, he got injured and the Cards lost 91 games. Is THAT the offseason you give a guy a 7 year deal?

As of now, both players have only cost the team about 10 million TOTAL. And, both players remain cheap and very tradable if needed.



Can you imagine if Noot still had another 5 years left in a contract and was owed like 35mil? Oh man, that would be super cool!!!!

[renostl]

It's really an example of poor front office principles that they don't have Donovan and Nootbaar signed longer term.

No. No need at this point. Both have concerns about health. It's 11 [fork]ing games.

Every year, players can get hot for 60 days and then turn into pumpkins

Noots 1 for 14 his last 3 games. Hurdys been on a run but started slow.

At this point? Dude, they're already late.

The Cardinals have ZERO young players signed through their arbitration years. Knowing their stated payroll strategy, how on earth could you suggest they shouldn't lock up players they've developed longer term before they get close to free agency?

It's not about 3 games. Way to miss the point... can't tell if it was intentional or not, feels like it wasn't based on your extremely short-sighted defense of your position.

Nootbar:
It's really easy to be high on him now, but he averages about 110 games a year. Not sure why it's so important to make sure he's locked up through 2028 or 2029 instead of the 2027 he is currently. So you think Mo, after seeing Noot injured in 2022 and 2023, shoulda been like, "man, I gotta lock this dude up for 6 years / 40mil!"

Donovan:
Once again, really easy to say that now w BD hitting .400. I like Donovan, a lot. But once again, why is it so important that we have Donovan locked up 1-3 years passed FA year of 2027? The year after his breakthrough 2022 year, he got injured and the Cards lost 91 games. Is THAT the offseason you give a guy a 7 year deal?

As of now, both players have only cost the team about 10 million TOTAL. And, both players remain cheap and very tradable if needed.



Can you imagine if Noot still had another 5 years left in a contract and was owed like 35mil? Oh man, that would be super cool!!!!

They aren't exactly the same.

As you know, the only reason for signing players beyond arb is the hope of getting
production above pay.

Does either player project as an unaffordable player to the Cardinals vs what they
might save? I don't see it as a big deal either way really. They both would have a projected peak,
Nootbaars is probably higher if he plays 150 games. Donovan's around $12 +/-.

The team is flush with near 2B, IMO. IF they want BD to a longer term, it would not be consistent
with how they have viewed contracts with 2B in the past. I'd be slightly surprised. Lars replacements
are there too but slightly further away. Walkers' success or failure has impact.

Anyway not that big of a thing, just pay market value if it
turns out you want a player a little longer. I think Atlanta has had mixed results with their efforts.

[sikeston bulldog2]

17 hits for Donny, 3rd highest in MLB!

And don’t think he don’t know this stat. Bodes well being a league leader.

[scoutyjones2]

It's really an example of poor front office principles that they don't have Donovan and Nootbaar signed longer term.

Why?

Just so I'm clear on what you're asking... you're asking why teams should consider signing their good young players to longer deals to retain them past their arbitration years?

And if that IS your question, I'd ask you why you're against that... and especially considering we know that ownership is resetting the payroll baseline to a lower number.

His OPS+ has gone down every year. What's the rush to sign him? He couldn't even win his arbitration.

Plenty of players to replace him...

[An Old Friend]

It's really an example of poor front office principles that they don't have Donovan and Nootbaar signed longer term.

Why?

Just so I'm clear on what you're asking... you're asking why teams should consider signing their good young players to longer deals to retain them past their arbitration years?

And if that IS your question, I'd ask you why you're against that... and especially considering we know that ownership is resetting the payroll baseline to a lower number.

His OPS+ has gone down every year. What's the rush to sign him? He couldn't even win his arbitration.

Plenty of players to replace him...

Still missing the point.

They have no one signed.

[ecleme22]

It's really an example of poor front office principles that they don't have Donovan and Nootbaar signed longer term.

Why?

Just so I'm clear on what you're asking... you're asking why teams should consider signing their good young players to longer deals to retain them past their arbitration years?

And if that IS your question, I'd ask you why you're against that... and especially considering we know that ownership is resetting the payroll baseline to a lower number.

His OPS+ has gone down every year. What's the rush to sign him? He couldn't even win his arbitration.

Plenty of players to replace him...

Still missing the point.

They have no one signed.

Who cares?

What's the obsession with 'signing' players who have years of team control left?

[icon]

It's really an example of poor front office principles that they don't have Donovan and Nootbaar signed longer term.

Why?

They are not foundational pieces...at all.

[An Old Friend]

It's really an example of poor front office principles that they don't have Donovan and Nootbaar signed longer term.

Why?

Just so I'm clear on what you're asking... you're asking why teams should consider signing their good young players to longer deals to retain them past their arbitration years?

And if that IS your question, I'd ask you why you're against that... and especially considering we know that ownership is resetting the payroll baseline to a lower number.

His OPS+ has gone down every year. What's the rush to sign him? He couldn't even win his arbitration.

Plenty of players to replace him...

Still missing the point.

They have no one signed.

Who cares?

What's the obsession with 'signing' players who have years of team control left?

Because to compete with a payroll that the Cardinals intend to carry, it’s 100% imperative that they do so.

Doing it your way, signing no one, means you’re no longer even trying to compete.

[ecleme22]

It's really an example of poor front office principles that they don't have Donovan and Nootbaar signed longer term.

Why?

Just so I'm clear on what you're asking... you're asking why teams should consider signing their good young players to longer deals to retain them past their arbitration years?

And if that IS your question, I'd ask you why you're against that... and especially considering we know that ownership is resetting the payroll baseline to a lower number.

His OPS+ has gone down every year. What's the rush to sign him? He couldn't even win his arbitration.

Plenty of players to replace him...

Still missing the point.

They have no one signed.

Who cares?

What's the obsession with 'signing' players who have years of team control left?

Because to compete with a payroll that the Cardinals intend to carry, it’s 100% imperative that they do so.

Doing it your way, signing no one, means you’re no longer even trying to compete.

I prefer to sign ppl who aren’t already on the team.

But that’s just me. lol

[11WSChamps]

Makes no sense to sign either one of them to a buy out arbitration type deal.

Nootbar hasn't proven anything and Donovan's price tag being cheap makes him a more attractive trading piece if that's the direction the team wants to go.

[EastCoastDave]

Makes no sense to sign either one of them to a buy out arbitration type deal.

Nootbar hasn't proven anything and Donovan's price tag being cheap makes him a more attractive trading piece if that's the direction the team wants to go.

That’s really the point in NOT signing Donnie to a long-term deal…his trade value. If JJ develops like he should, he’ll be in the majors as early as late next year, if not sooner. When he arrives, he’ll play second base. Winn will not be moved from short and lit looks like Gorman will at some point land at third. Outfield looks set with Noot, Scott and Jordan. So where does Donnie fit in? It makes no sense to have him riding the bench at that time with a $15-18 million/year contract.

[An Old Friend]

It's really an example of poor front office principles that they don't have Donovan and Nootbaar signed longer term.

Why?

Just so I'm clear on what you're asking... you're asking why teams should consider signing their good young players to longer deals to retain them past their arbitration years?

And if that IS your question, I'd ask you why you're against that... and especially considering we know that ownership is resetting the payroll baseline to a lower number.

His OPS+ has gone down every year. What's the rush to sign him? He couldn't even win his arbitration.

Plenty of players to replace him...

Still missing the point.

They have no one signed.

Who cares?

What's the obsession with 'signing' players who have years of team control left?

Because to compete with a payroll that the Cardinals intend to carry, it’s 100% imperative that they do so.

Doing it your way, signing no one, means you’re no longer even trying to compete.

I prefer to sign ppl who aren’t already on the team.

But that’s just me. lol

They didn’t try on Harper.
They didn’t try on Scherzer.
They didn’t try on Soto.
Lindor didn’t hit the market.
Betts didn’t hit the market.
Ramirez didn’t hit the market.

A bunch of young players have signed long term deals so they won’t be on the market… Tatis, Julio, Devers, Carrol, Witt, Merrill, Campbell, etc.

They’ve failed miserably punching at the low to middle end of the free agent market, and you want to see MORE of it.

Interesting team building philosophy

[ecleme22]

It's really an example of poor front office principles that they don't have Donovan and Nootbaar signed longer term.

Why?

Just so I'm clear on what you're asking... you're asking why teams should consider signing their good young players to longer deals to retain them past their arbitration years?

And if that IS your question, I'd ask you why you're against that... and especially considering we know that ownership is resetting the payroll baseline to a lower number.

His OPS+ has gone down every year. What's the rush to sign him? He couldn't even win his arbitration.

Plenty of players to replace him...

Still missing the point.

They have no one signed.

Who cares?

What's the obsession with 'signing' players who have years of team control left?

Because to compete with a payroll that the Cardinals intend to carry, it’s 100% imperative that they do so.

Doing it your way, signing no one, means you’re no longer even trying to compete.

I prefer to sign ppl who aren’t already on the team.

But that’s just me. lol

They didn’t try on Harper.
They didn’t try on Scherzer.
They didn’t try on Soto.
Lindor didn’t hit the market.
Betts didn’t hit the market.
Ramirez didn’t hit the market.

A bunch of young players have signed long term deals so they won’t be on the market… Tatis, Julio, Devers, Carrol, Witt, Merrill, Campbell, etc.

They’ve failed miserably punching at the low to middle end of the free agent market, and you want to see MORE of it.

Interesting team building philosophy

And somehow this is related to Noot and/or Donovan’s arb years being bought up and maybe having them for an extra year or two?

Explain…

[An Old Friend]

It's really an example of poor front office principles that they don't have Donovan and Nootbaar signed longer term.

Why?

Just so I'm clear on what you're asking... you're asking why teams should consider signing their good young players to longer deals to retain them past their arbitration years?

And if that IS your question, I'd ask you why you're against that... and especially considering we know that ownership is resetting the payroll baseline to a lower number.

His OPS+ has gone down every year. What's the rush to sign him? He couldn't even win his arbitration.

Plenty of players to replace him...

Still missing the point.

They have no one signed.

Who cares?

What's the obsession with 'signing' players who have years of team control left?

Because to compete with a payroll that the Cardinals intend to carry, it’s 100% imperative that they do so.

Doing it your way, signing no one, means you’re no longer even trying to compete.

I prefer to sign ppl who aren’t already on the team.

But that’s just me. lol

They didn’t try on Harper.
They didn’t try on Scherzer.
They didn’t try on Soto.
Lindor didn’t hit the market.
Betts didn’t hit the market.
Ramirez didn’t hit the market.

A bunch of young players have signed long term deals so they won’t be on the market… Tatis, Julio, Devers, Carrol, Witt, Merrill, Campbell, etc.

They’ve failed miserably punching at the low to middle end of the free agent market, and you want to see MORE of it.

Interesting team building philosophy

And somehow this is related to Noot and/or Donovan’s arb years being bought up and maybe having them for an extra year or two?

Explain…

I already have. You need it again?

The Cardinals need to be a team that secures their homegrown players to team friendly type of deals that keeps them in the organization past their arbitration years.

They’re not doing that.

At their payroll level, especially in the direction it’s going, it’s critical that they do this.

I don’t know why you’d ever argue that they shouldn’t.

[ecleme22]

It's really an example of poor front office principles that they don't have Donovan and Nootbaar signed longer term.

Why?

Just so I'm clear on what you're asking... you're asking why teams should consider signing their good young players to longer deals to retain them past their arbitration years?

And if that IS your question, I'd ask you why you're against that... and especially considering we know that ownership is resetting the payroll baseline to a lower number.

His OPS+ has gone down every year. What's the rush to sign him? He couldn't even win his arbitration.

Plenty of players to replace him...

Still missing the point.

They have no one signed.

Who cares?

What's the obsession with 'signing' players who have years of team control left?

Because to compete with a payroll that the Cardinals intend to carry, it’s 100% imperative that they do so.

Doing it your way, signing no one, means you’re no longer even trying to compete.

I prefer to sign ppl who aren’t already on the team.

But that’s just me. lol

They didn’t try on Harper.
They didn’t try on Scherzer.
They didn’t try on Soto.
Lindor didn’t hit the market.
Betts didn’t hit the market.
Ramirez didn’t hit the market.

A bunch of young players have signed long term deals so they won’t be on the market… Tatis, Julio, Devers, Carrol, Witt, Merrill, Campbell, etc.

They’ve failed miserably punching at the low to middle end of the free agent market, and you want to see MORE of it.

Interesting team building philosophy

And somehow this is related to Noot and/or Donovan’s arb years being bought up and maybe having them for an extra year or two?

Explain…

I already have. You need it again?

The Cardinals need to be a team that secures their homegrown players to team friendly type of deals that keeps them in the organization past their arbitration years.

They’re not doing that.

At their payroll level, especially in the direction it’s going, it’s critical that they do this.

I don’t know why you’d ever argue that they shouldn’t.

It’s not essential that Donovan and/or Noot are with the team in 2028 and beyond.

What’s critical is that they draft and nurture young talent. Not that they make sure Noot is a Cardinal for 8 years.

As of now, both BD and LN don’t have some clunky DeJong type deal. Which so far has made them 1) very cheap, 2) easier to trade and 3) less pressure for the team to build around them.

Remember Dejong? Dude had more lives than a cat as we watched year after year Mo trying to justify that contract.

So although I like Noot and Brendan, I’m not worried about who the Cards RF or 2B will be in 4 YEARS. I have faith they will find a solution by then. lol.