new article - spending vs winning

[OldRed]

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?

One major star might have increased attendance and excitement. This team has no player that brings in fans. Even in the 1950's they had Musial. Then they had Brock, Gibson and other starts in the 60's. I remember when Gibson pitched people bought tickets just to see him.

[Goldfan]

I find it interesting that Cubs spend $197M vs. Brewers $112 M and there is a 1 game difference in the standings .

Cranny-But, But,But, But

[desertrat23]

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?

Well, because you can only punt on so many seasons before the fans you want back in the ballpark will be gone forever.

[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.

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.

Okay, at this point we're just going around and around. Tell me what championships Tampa, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Seattle and Cleveland have won. I rest my case.

[rockondlouie]

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?

I don't deal in "possible", just another excuse you're using to protect BDWJr's wallet since you know good and well other teams who are actually trying to win will spend.

[Bully4you]

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.

Hey, I'm on your side.
I think this team should be blown the [fork] up.
It ain't special in any way.

[mattmitchl44]

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.

Okay, at this point we're just going around and around. Tell me what championships Tampa, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Seattle and Cleveland have won. I rest my case.

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.

[CCard]

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.

Okay, at this point we're just going around and around. Tell me what championships Tampa, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Seattle and Cleveland have won. I rest my case.

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.

Doing it BETTER is fine as long as it isn't tanking on purpose which is what they're doing by not raising their talent level on the field. These young players you jizz your pants over may or man not work out. Then what? Another tank job? More draft picks to develop? New shiny toys in the minor leagues to show off? Get real. There is no excuse fot not trying to win. If you say there is then we're at an impasse and no further discussion is necessary.

[mattmitchl44]

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.

Okay, at this point we're just going around and around. Tell me what championships Tampa, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Seattle and Cleveland have won. I rest my case.

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.

Doing it BETTER is fine as long as it isn't tanking on purpose which is what they're doing by not raising their talent level on the field. These young players you jizz your pants over may or man not work out. Then what? Another tank job? More draft picks to develop? New shiny toys in the minor leagues to show off? Get real. There is no excuse fot not trying to win. If you say there is then we're at an impasse and no further discussion is necessary.

The Cardinals simply aren't going to be able to compete without having a foundation of young, good, cost controlled players. So, yes, they have to keep working that part of the problem first before they worry about spending a lot on future FAs to plug the holes.

[butsir01]

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.

Okay, at this point we're just going around and around. Tell me what championships Tampa, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Seattle and Cleveland have won. I rest my case.

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.

I really like your last sentence.

[Ronnie Dobbs]

Doing it BETTER is fine as long as it isn't tanking on purpose which is what they're doing by not raising their talent level on the field. These young players you jizz your pants over may or man not work out. Then what? Another tank job? More draft picks to develop? New shiny toys in the minor leagues to show off? Get real. There is no excuse fot not trying to win. If you say there is then we're at an impasse and no further discussion is necessary.

You can keep jizzing your pants over all the players you think you can sign and will never get old and cause payroll problems because the Cardinals are going to spend $300+ million on payroll like the Dodgers, so they can just keep throwing money at the problem, but you're living in a fantasy world.

[CCard]

Doing it BETTER is fine as long as it isn't tanking on purpose which is what they're doing by not raising their talent level on the field. These young players you jizz your pants over may or man not work out. Then what? Another tank job? More draft picks to develop? New shiny toys in the minor leagues to show off? Get real. There is no excuse fot not trying to win. If you say there is then we're at an impasse and no further discussion is necessary.

You can keep jizzing your pants over all the players you think you can sign and will never get old and cause payroll problems because the Cardinals are going to spend $300+ million on payroll like the Dodgers, so they can just keep throwing money at the problem, but you're living in a fantasy world.

Nobody and I mean nobody said the Cards should spend $300 million dollars on payroll. Don't be an idiot, there are way too many of them now. They can however spend $200 million easily. They recently made $350 million dollars profit. Don't tell me how poor they are. Remove your lips from the owners posterior.

[CCard]

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.

Okay, at this point we're just going around and around. Tell me what championships Tampa, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Seattle and Cleveland have won. I rest my case.

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.

Doing it BETTER is fine as long as it isn't tanking on purpose which is what they're doing by not raising their talent level on the field. These young players you jizz your pants over may or man not work out. Then what? Another tank job? More draft picks to develop? New shiny toys in the minor leagues to show off? Get real. There is no excuse fot not trying to win. If you say there is then we're at an impasse and no further discussion is necessary.

The Cardinals simply aren't going to be able to compete without having a foundation of young, good, cost controlled players. So, yes, they have to keep working that part of the problem first before they worry about spending a lot on future FAs to plug the holes.

Dude, you're like a broken record. Of course they want young cost controlled talent. There isn't a team in baseball that doesn't covet that and no team lives solely on free agents. So stop with the mantra. Those of us in the know realize that it doesn't have to be one or the other. It does need to be both but there's no reason to not try to win every frigging year. Why watch if they're not trying to win it all?

[mattmitchl44]

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.

Okay, at this point we're just going around and around. Tell me what championships Tampa, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Seattle and Cleveland have won. I rest my case.

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.

Doing it BETTER is fine as long as it isn't tanking on purpose which is what they're doing by not raising their talent level on the field. These young players you jizz your pants over may or man not work out. Then what? Another tank job? More draft picks to develop? New shiny toys in the minor leagues to show off? Get real. There is no excuse fot not trying to win. If you say there is then we're at an impasse and no further discussion is necessary.

The Cardinals simply aren't going to be able to compete without having a foundation of young, good, cost controlled players. So, yes, they have to keep working that part of the problem first before they worry about spending a lot on future FAs to plug the holes.

Dude, you're like a broken record. Of course they want young cost controlled talent. There isn't a team in baseball that doesn't covet that and no team lives solely on free agents. So stop with the mantra. Those of us in the know realize that it doesn't have to be one or the other. It does need to be both but there's no reason to not try to win every frigging year. Why watch if they're not trying to win it all?

Yes it ultimately will likely take both to ever win another WS - a critical mass of young cost controlled talent and a few select high cost FAs that address specific needs that have not been able to be addressed by the farm system.

But until you have that critical mass of young talent you don't know what holes you actually have to fill. Locking yourself in to several high cost FAs now that you will have to give long term contacts to limits your flexibility in another 2 or 3 years, and they may not address the actual holes you have when you are ready to compete again.

Having to give impactful FAs 5, 6, 7 year deals in particular when you can expect them to be declining at the back end of those deals is why a team like the Cardinals can't just reload by spending money to compete every year.

[ramfandan]

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?

One major star might have increased attendance and excitement. This team has no player that brings in fans. Even in the 1950's they had Musial. Then they had Brock, Gibson and other starts in the 60's. I remember when Gibson pitched people bought tickets just to see him.

Yes, like you, I remember the 60's and going to a game where Gibson vs. Koufax or Gibson vs. Drysdale would be the matchup. More fans would be at that game of the series than other two yet everyone going pretty well knew the final score may be 1-0 , 2-1 . Fans were different back then. They didn't have to see a bunch of runs scored to be entertained or by HRs flying out of the park a few times a game. My younger friends today can't understand how the Gibson vs Drysdale game would draw more fans . They want to see Runs Runs Runs to be entertained today. In fact, I know younger guys who will not buy tickets to see the better teams play the Cardinals as they rather go to the bad teams hoping for more Cardinal hits .

[Ronnie Dobbs]

Having to give impactful FAs 5, 6, 7 year deals in particular when you can expect them to be declining at the back end of those deals is why a team like the Cardinals can't just reload by spending money to compete every year.

Exactly. Everyone wants the Cardinals to spend money to acquire big name players, but never think about the part at the end where they get old. Look at how much (bleep) Arenado get a now. Well, guess what? If you want to sign a big name free agent or trade for a superstar with either a big contract or extend him when he gets here, you're going to have to deal with that. If you get lucky you sign a player and you only get one real dramatic year of decline like we had with Goldschmidt and people still wanted to run him out of town.

And there's very few teams in baseball who can just pile contracts upon contracts and not let it kill them. Hence the teams rebuilding. Had we done a better job drafting and developing good, young players, maybe we could have surrounded Arenado and Goldschmidt with better players or starting pitching that wasn't headlined by Miles Mikolas or a 40 year old Adam Wainwright. Maybe we're not out making desperate trades for JA Happ or Jon Lester to save our season.