new article - spending vs winning

[Hoosier59]

I give the DeWitt’s a lot of grief on here for not spending enough, but there are some things to consider.
Where would the Cardinals be if Gorman and Walker had replicated their minor league stats? What if Arenado, and Goldschmidt Hadn’t fallen off a cliff, offensive wise? What If Matz hadn’t been injured so much, and Mikolas had stayed as a 17 game winner?
Last year Pallante looked like a real keeper, now he can’t locate a pitch for squat!
I blame Mo way more than the DeWitt’s, although they did sign off on his decisions, but he was paid to make decisions. It’s just that a lot of them haven’t panned out. I think Marmol would be really good in player development, but NOT as a major league manager, not yet anyway. Letting the minor leagues slip in player development has really hurt this team, just as some bad free agent signings have done. Hopefully Bloom can get things turned around. If he does, I do believe the DeWitts will spend again, not crazily, but enough to fill the needed holes.

[rockondlouie]

No rational Cardinals fan is asking BDWJr to spend at Dodger, Yankees, Mets, Phils, Cubs, ect....level.

But we (bleep) well have a right to expect, given DECADES of 3+M in attendance, that he spends in the $175+M range!

This is NOT outrageous and it's certainly NOT being spoiled.

You want to see 3+M again Dewitt, then give C. Bloom the same payrolls you gave Mo and watched him waste for years.

[Ronnie Dobbs]

Philly did
Red Sox did
Atlanta did

Yes and so did Houston. So, what, four out of the seven big powerhouse teams on that chart? San Diego basically never had a payroll over $100 million until 2021. It looks like they dropped about $75 million from 2023 to 2024, and went up by about $45 million for this year. So we'll see how long their appetite for being big money spenders lasts.

So, unless you think we can compete with LA, NY in terms of payroll and just throwing money at a problem until it gets fixed, I'm not sure what people are expecting.

Again, I'm really not sure that a lot of Cardinals fans understood what a rebuild consists of. But lucky them, the Cardinals won't commit to a full one, so we'll likely have to live with lower third payroll (as opposed to bottom of the league like the teams Matt showed) and mediocre records until Bloom and the new FO can turn this thing around and get us competitive again.

[CCard]

"Reset" really only means "We're going to go cheap and not worry about winning." It doesn't really lead to anything but losing. Funny how terminology can be misleading.

Okay, sure, if that's what ends up happening, but we've seen teams do "resets/rebuilds like the Cardinals are claiming they are doing for years. Even those teams listed as powerhouses in that chart. They reset, shed a ton of payroll, and rebuilt.

The big spenders reload every year. They might not win and they might shed a contract here or there but when did you ever hear of them losing for years? The answer is obvious. Just look at history.

History:

Atlanta
2015 - Record 67-95; 22nd in MLB payroll
2016 - Record 68-93; 27th in MLB payroll
2017 - Record 70-92; 19th in MLB payroll

Houston
2011 - Record 56-106; 19th in MLB payroll
2012 - Record 55-107; 27th in MLB payroll
2013 - Record 51-111; 30th in MLB payroll
2014 - Record 70-92; 29th in MLB payroll

Philadelphia
2016 - Record 71-91; 25th in MLB payroll
2017 - Record 66-96; 22nd in MLB payroll
2018 - Record 80-82; 24th in MLB payroll

Why go back nearly 10 years? What are there recent payrolls? Are you arguing that the big spenders don't win?

That wasn't your statement. Don't move the goal posts.

You claimed that "big spending teams" never pulled back a lot in the spending and accepted losing for multiple seasons to rebuild.

The facts are that multiple of today's "powerhouse" teams got to where they are by going through a period of "deep rebuilding".

LOL...Who's moving the goal posts? I didn't go back a decade to cherry pick data. You can argue all day long and it won't matter. The higher spending teams win more often. It's a simple fact, now argue with that.

[jbrach]

there are a handful of teams who outspend everyone else and other than perhaps the dodgers I dont see evidence of dominance from any of the others...the yanks are struggling..the mets and phillies have solid teams but are only a few games better than many teams spending far less the red sox and padres are ok but not great and the padres attempt at buying a title failed miserably...this post is written as if the big spending teams are lapping the teams spending less but it simply isnt true...the teams whose spending falls in the middle are generally competitive with the big spenders and this whole discussion is over the top..tampa bay is 2 games behind the yanks so obviously spending money isnt the be all and end all and milwaukee is thriving while spending far less than others

[mattmitchl44]

"Reset" really only means "We're going to go cheap and not worry about winning." It doesn't really lead to anything but losing. Funny how terminology can be misleading.

Okay, sure, if that's what ends up happening, but we've seen teams do "resets/rebuilds like the Cardinals are claiming they are doing for years. Even those teams listed as powerhouses in that chart. They reset, shed a ton of payroll, and rebuilt.

The big spenders reload every year. They might not win and they might shed a contract here or there but when did you ever hear of them losing for years? The answer is obvious. Just look at history.

History:

Atlanta
2015 - Record 67-95; 22nd in MLB payroll
2016 - Record 68-93; 27th in MLB payroll
2017 - Record 70-92; 19th in MLB payroll

Houston
2011 - Record 56-106; 19th in MLB payroll
2012 - Record 55-107; 27th in MLB payroll
2013 - Record 51-111; 30th in MLB payroll
2014 - Record 70-92; 29th in MLB payroll

Philadelphia
2016 - Record 71-91; 25th in MLB payroll
2017 - Record 66-96; 22nd in MLB payroll
2018 - Record 80-82; 24th in MLB payroll

Why go back nearly 10 years? What are there recent payrolls? Are you arguing that the big spenders don't win?

That wasn't your statement. Don't move the goal posts.

You claimed that "big spending teams" never pulled back a lot in the spending and accepted losing for multiple seasons to rebuild.

The facts are that multiple of today's "powerhouse" teams got to where they are by going through a period of "deep rebuilding".

LOL...Who's moving the goal posts? I didn't go back a decade to cherry pick data. You can argue all day long and it won't matter. The higher spending teams win more often. It's a simple fact, now argue with that.

You said - "Just look at history."

That's exactly what I did. I showed that several of the current "powerhouse" teams went through a deep rebuild a decade ago or less.

[Youboughtit]

This is so tiresome

Yes….spending is key…but not singularly..to sustained winning.

but this ownership is not going to spend with the big boys

They just aren’t……and all the whining on this board is not going to change that..

Let it go

Then most of us won’t go. I’m done until they spend and put a product on the field with either 2 superstar players or WS contenders

[jbrach]

so mamy teams over the years have to spend crazy money and got burned and went nowhere...you have to build a good farm system and have a bunch of young talent and then augment it with free agents or trades but to simply spend money is a waste of time...I remember all the years where the angels spent tons of money on rendon and pujols and others and despite having trout and ohtani they stunk...it isnt as easy as just spending money

[CCard]

"Reset" really only means "We're going to go cheap and not worry about winning." It doesn't really lead to anything but losing. Funny how terminology can be misleading.

Okay, sure, if that's what ends up happening, but we've seen teams do "resets/rebuilds like the Cardinals are claiming they are doing for years. Even those teams listed as powerhouses in that chart. They reset, shed a ton of payroll, and rebuilt.

The big spenders reload every year. They might not win and they might shed a contract here or there but when did you ever hear of them losing for years? The answer is obvious. Just look at history.

History:

Atlanta
2015 - Record 67-95; 22nd in MLB payroll
2016 - Record 68-93; 27th in MLB payroll
2017 - Record 70-92; 19th in MLB payroll

Houston
2011 - Record 56-106; 19th in MLB payroll
2012 - Record 55-107; 27th in MLB payroll
2013 - Record 51-111; 30th in MLB payroll
2014 - Record 70-92; 29th in MLB payroll

Philadelphia
2016 - Record 71-91; 25th in MLB payroll
2017 - Record 66-96; 22nd in MLB payroll
2018 - Record 80-82; 24th in MLB payroll

Why go back nearly 10 years? What are there recent payrolls? Are you arguing that the big spenders don't win?

That wasn't your statement. Don't move the goal posts.

You claimed that "big spending teams" never pulled back a lot in the spending and accepted losing for multiple seasons to rebuild.

The facts are that multiple of today's "powerhouse" teams got to where they are by going through a period of "deep rebuilding".

LOL...Who's moving the goal posts? I didn't go back a decade to cherry pick data. You can argue all day long and it won't matter. The higher spending teams win more often. It's a simple fact, now argue with that.

You said - "Just look at history."

That's exactly what I did. I showed that several of the current "powerhouse" teams went through a deep rebuild a decade ago or less.

You cherry picked a few years where big spending teams cut some payroll because they were losing, not because they were "rebuilding". There's a big difference. Even that doesn't matter because you look over the history of the big spenders since free agency became a thing and it's clear who wins and why they win. Bang your drum all day but it won't change the facts.

[Ronnie Dobbs]

You cherry picked a few years where big spending teams cut some payroll because they were losing, not because they were "rebuilding". There's a big difference. Even that doesn't matter because you look over the history of the big spenders since free agency became a thing and it's clear who wins and why they win. Bang your drum all day but it won't change the facts.

"Cut some payroll"? All the way down to near the bottom of MLB? And you're a fool if you think that 10 years ago is ancient history and not relevant to the exact reasons why these teams are winning today. And the Braves and Houston are talking about rebuilding again.

Don't believe him? Here's an article about the Braves rebuild:

https://www.batterypower.com/2021/10/25 ... nald-acuna

Here's one about Houston:

https://www.crawfishboxes.com/2019/2/6/ ... he-rebuild

Here's one about the Phillies:

https://phillysportsreports.com/2024/03 ... r-rebuild/

I'm sure there's better, more detailed articles, but I'm too lazy and you seem determined to deny reality, so I'm going with whatever I could find in about two seconds.

[CCard]

You cherry picked a few years where big spending teams cut some payroll because they were losing, not because they were "rebuilding". There's a big difference. Even that doesn't matter because you look over the history of the big spenders since free agency became a thing and it's clear who wins and why they win. Bang your drum all day but it won't change the facts.

"Cut some payroll"? All the way down to near the bottom of MLB? And you're a fool if you think that 10 years ago is ancient history and not relevant to the exact reasons why these teams are winning today. And the Braves and Houston are talking about rebuilding again.

Don't believe him? Here's an article about the Braves rebuild:

https://www.batterypower.com/2021/10/25 ... nald-acuna

Here's one about Houston:

https://www.crawfishboxes.com/2019/2/6/ ... he-rebuild

Here's one about the Phillies:

https://phillysportsreports.com/2024/03 ... r-rebuild/

I'm sure there's better, more detailed articles, but I'm too lazy and you seem determined to deny reality, so I'm going with whatever I could find in about two seconds.

Try this, it might help.
https://tht.fangraphs.com/ten-years-of-spending/

I can't believe you guys even argue the point.

[mattmitchl44]

you have to build a good farm system and have a bunch of young talent and THEN augment it with free agents or trades but to simply spend money is a waste of time

^This.

As I've stated many times, for a team with a payroll like the Cardinals the first priority is to build a core of young, cost controlled players through your farm system. Then, and only then, do you go out and spend the money necessary to add a few expensive FAs to plug the holes in your roster to try to get to WS contention.

[mattmitchl44]

"Reset" really only means "We're going to go cheap and not worry about winning." It doesn't really lead to anything but losing. Funny how terminology can be misleading.

Okay, sure, if that's what ends up happening, but we've seen teams do "resets/rebuilds like the Cardinals are claiming they are doing for years. Even those teams listed as powerhouses in that chart. They reset, shed a ton of payroll, and rebuilt.

The big spenders reload every year. They might not win and they might shed a contract here or there but when did you ever hear of them losing for years? The answer is obvious. Just look at history.

History:

Atlanta
2015 - Record 67-95; 22nd in MLB payroll
2016 - Record 68-93; 27th in MLB payroll
2017 - Record 70-92; 19th in MLB payroll

Houston
2011 - Record 56-106; 19th in MLB payroll
2012 - Record 55-107; 27th in MLB payroll
2013 - Record 51-111; 30th in MLB payroll
2014 - Record 70-92; 29th in MLB payroll

Philadelphia
2016 - Record 71-91; 25th in MLB payroll
2017 - Record 66-96; 22nd in MLB payroll
2018 - Record 80-82; 24th in MLB payroll

Why go back nearly 10 years? What are there recent payrolls? Are you arguing that the big spenders don't win?

That wasn't your statement. Don't move the goal posts.

You claimed that "big spending teams" never pulled back a lot in the spending and accepted losing for multiple seasons to rebuild.

The facts are that multiple of today's "powerhouse" teams got to where they are by going through a period of "deep rebuilding".

LOL...Who's moving the goal posts? I didn't go back a decade to cherry pick data. You can argue all day long and it won't matter. The higher spending teams win more often. It's a simple fact, now argue with that.

You said - "Just look at history."

That's exactly what I did. I showed that several of the current "powerhouse" teams went through a deep rebuild a decade ago or less.

You cherry picked a few years where big spending teams cut some payroll because they were losing, not because they were "rebuilding". There's a big difference. Even that doesn't matter because you look over the history of the big spenders since free agency became a thing and it's clear who wins and why they win. Bang your drum all day but it won't change the facts.

Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, etc. became some of the current "powerhouse" teams because they spent money AFTER they made sure they had enough young cost controlled talent first. They aren't winning JUST because they spend money. They win because they are spending money smartly AFTER they have a core of young talent to add to.

It's never about just spending money, it is about spending your money well.

[CCard]

"Reset" really only means "We're going to go cheap and not worry about winning." It doesn't really lead to anything but losing. Funny how terminology can be misleading.

Okay, sure, if that's what ends up happening, but we've seen teams do "resets/rebuilds like the Cardinals are claiming they are doing for years. Even those teams listed as powerhouses in that chart. They reset, shed a ton of payroll, and rebuilt.

The big spenders reload every year. They might not win and they might shed a contract here or there but when did you ever hear of them losing for years? The answer is obvious. Just look at history.

History:

Atlanta
2015 - Record 67-95; 22nd in MLB payroll
2016 - Record 68-93; 27th in MLB payroll
2017 - Record 70-92; 19th in MLB payroll

Houston
2011 - Record 56-106; 19th in MLB payroll
2012 - Record 55-107; 27th in MLB payroll
2013 - Record 51-111; 30th in MLB payroll
2014 - Record 70-92; 29th in MLB payroll

Philadelphia
2016 - Record 71-91; 25th in MLB payroll
2017 - Record 66-96; 22nd in MLB payroll
2018 - Record 80-82; 24th in MLB payroll

Why go back nearly 10 years? What are there recent payrolls? Are you arguing that the big spenders don't win?

That wasn't your statement. Don't move the goal posts.

You claimed that "big spending teams" never pulled back a lot in the spending and accepted losing for multiple seasons to rebuild.

The facts are that multiple of today's "powerhouse" teams got to where they are by going through a period of "deep rebuilding".

LOL...Who's moving the goal posts? I didn't go back a decade to cherry pick data. You can argue all day long and it won't matter. The higher spending teams win more often. It's a simple fact, now argue with that.

You said - "Just look at history."

That's exactly what I did. I showed that several of the current "powerhouse" teams went through a deep rebuild a decade ago or less.

You cherry picked a few years where big spending teams cut some payroll because they were losing, not because they were "rebuilding". There's a big difference. Even that doesn't matter because you look over the history of the big spenders since free agency became a thing and it's clear who wins and why they win. Bang your drum all day but it won't change the facts.

Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, etc. became some of the current "powerhouse" teams because they spent money AFTER they made sure they had enough young cost controlled talent first. They aren't winning JUST because they spend money. They win because they are spending money smartly AFTER they have a core of young talent to add to.

It's never about just spending money, it is about spending your money well.

You're partially right and I didn't say spending alone was the answer. But spending DIRECTLY CORRELATES to WINNING. You can't cherry pick a stretch and ignore the payroll. Developing talent through the draft and minors is a part of it, but all teams do this. So what separates them? Payroll and the talent it provides.

[mattmitchl44]

"Reset" really only means "We're going to go cheap and not worry about winning." It doesn't really lead to anything but losing. Funny how terminology can be misleading.

Okay, sure, if that's what ends up happening, but we've seen teams do "resets/rebuilds like the Cardinals are claiming they are doing for years. Even those teams listed as powerhouses in that chart. They reset, shed a ton of payroll, and rebuilt.

The big spenders reload every year. They might not win and they might shed a contract here or there but when did you ever hear of them losing for years? The answer is obvious. Just look at history.

History:

Atlanta
2015 - Record 67-95; 22nd in MLB payroll
2016 - Record 68-93; 27th in MLB payroll
2017 - Record 70-92; 19th in MLB payroll

Houston
2011 - Record 56-106; 19th in MLB payroll
2012 - Record 55-107; 27th in MLB payroll
2013 - Record 51-111; 30th in MLB payroll
2014 - Record 70-92; 29th in MLB payroll

Philadelphia
2016 - Record 71-91; 25th in MLB payroll
2017 - Record 66-96; 22nd in MLB payroll
2018 - Record 80-82; 24th in MLB payroll

Why go back nearly 10 years? What are there recent payrolls? Are you arguing that the big spenders don't win?

That wasn't your statement. Don't move the goal posts.

You claimed that "big spending teams" never pulled back a lot in the spending and accepted losing for multiple seasons to rebuild.

The facts are that multiple of today's "powerhouse" teams got to where they are by going through a period of "deep rebuilding".

LOL...Who's moving the goal posts? I didn't go back a decade to cherry pick data. You can argue all day long and it won't matter. The higher spending teams win more often. It's a simple fact, now argue with that.

You said - "Just look at history."

That's exactly what I did. I showed that several of the current "powerhouse" teams went through a deep rebuild a decade ago or less.

You cherry picked a few years where big spending teams cut some payroll because they were losing, not because they were "rebuilding". There's a big difference. Even that doesn't matter because you look over the history of the big spenders since free agency became a thing and it's clear who wins and why they win. Bang your drum all day but it won't change the facts.

Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, etc. became some of the current "powerhouse" teams because they spent money AFTER they made sure they had enough young cost controlled talent first. They aren't winning JUST because they spend money. They win because they are spending money smartly AFTER they have a core of young talent to add to.

It's never about just spending money, it is about spending your money well.

You're partially right and I didn't say spending alone was the answer. But spending DIRECTLY CORRELATES to WINNING. You can't cherry pick a stretch and ignore the payroll. Developing talent through the draft and minors is a part of it, but all teams do this. So what separates them? Payroll and the talent it provides.

No one in this thread ever said that spending more doesn't give you an advantage when it comes to winning. Of course it does.

But the Cardinals are never going to regularly spend more than being a mid-market club (10th, 11th in MLB payroll). They never have.

So they have to make assembling the necessary core of young players their priority through a deep rebuild (like what the Braves, Astros, etc. went through) before smartly spending their, maybe, $170, $180, etc. million to obtain a few expensive veterans to get them over the top.

The Cardinals need to model themselves like the "overachievers" (Cleveland, Tampa Bay, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Seattle) and then do it BETTER by having somewhat more money to spend on top of that.

[Cranny]

No rational Cardinals fan is asking BDWJr to spend at Dodger, Yankees, Mets, Phils, Cubs, ect....level.

But we (drat) well have a right to expect, given DECADES of 3+M in attendance, that he spends in the $175+M range!

This is NOT outrageous and it's certainly NOT being spoiled.

You want to see 3+M again Dewitt, then give C. Bloom the same payrolls you gave Mo and watched him waste for years.

Why would you want big FA long term contracts with a possible lockout coming?