To set the record straight

[OldRed]

If the Cardinals would merely do as I advise, we would not be having this conversation.
I alone correctly predicted the current malaise, the factors that made it inevitable, and the correct solutions.
Four very reasonable, very achievable course corrections over the past 5 years would have guaranteed a team capable of winning 90+ each season.
I have been right all along, and I am right now.
Is it acceptable for the owners to not spend 170 Million next year and every year?
It is not.
Does the team need to spend 300+M to be relevant?
Absolutely not.
Can they immediately compete by addressing just 2 positions?
Yes, they can.
85+ wins next year, and 90+ the years following, is ridiculously easy to achieve.
Now, the record is set straight.
Easy.
Obvious.
Correct.

LOL!

[mattmitchl44]

If the right elite talent is signed now or 5 yrs years from now what's the difference?

Again, see Nolan Arenado.

When the Cardinals acquired him five years ago, he was 30 (right about the same age as "elite talent" that you might sign as an FA now) and was an "elite talent" for the Cardinals for a couple of years.

Then he was an OK to good talent for a couple of years.

Then last year he as not a good talent.

So the "elite talent" you sign today at age 30, 31, 32, etc. probably won't be "elite talent" 3, 4, 5 yrs. from now, but you'll still be paying them "elite talent" money.

If I want to sign someone to be an "elite talent" in 2030, it's better to sign them in 2029 or 2030 at age 30 than in 2026 at age 30.

[Goldfan]

If the right elite talent is signed now or 5 yrs years from now what's the difference?

Again, see Nolan Arenado.

When the Cardinals acquired him five years ago, he was 30 (right about the same age as "elite talent" that you might sign as an FA now) and was an "elite talent" for the Cardinals for a couple of years.

Then he was an OK to good talent for a couple of years.

Then last year he as not a good talent.

So the "elite talent" you sign today at age 30, 31, 32, etc. probably won't be "elite talent" 3, 4, 5 yrs. from now, but you'll still be paying them "elite talent" money.

If I want to sign someone to be an "elite talent" in 2030, it's better to sign them in 2029 or 2030 at age 30 than in 2026 at age 30.

2 bats, 2 SP you’re in the playoffs.

[mattmitchl44]

If the right elite talent is signed now or 5 yrs years from now what's the difference?

Again, see Nolan Arenado.

When the Cardinals acquired him five years ago, he was 30 (right about the same age as "elite talent" that you might sign as an FA now) and was an "elite talent" for the Cardinals for a couple of years.

Then he was an OK to good talent for a couple of years.

Then last year he as not a good talent.

So the "elite talent" you sign today at age 30, 31, 32, etc. probably won't be "elite talent" 3, 4, 5 yrs. from now, but you'll still be paying them "elite talent" money.

If I want to sign someone to be an "elite talent" in 2030, it's better to sign them in 2029 or 2030 at age 30 than in 2026 at age 30.

2 bats, 2 SP you’re in the playoffs.

Two "elite" bats and two "elite" SPs? Would be $100+ million a year. The Cardinals shouldn't be paying that just to "get into the playoffs."

[rockondlouie]

I'm 100% behind C. Bloom re-building the organization from the ground (minor leagues) up (Cardinals roster).

And I've NEVER suggested they'll spend heavily in free agency until that happens.

What I have always said and will continue to say is Mo, the architect of this disaster is gone!

C. Bloom is perfectly capable of walking (rebuilding the farm system----check it's done) & chewing gum (re-building/shaping the Cardinals roster) at the same time.

NO ONE is calling for him to spend huge on free agents who don't fit the long term plan or trade for players who don't either.

BUT

What he can do, beginning this Winter, is attempt to acquire either via trade or SMART (re: low cost) free agnet signings who do fit the re-build plan.

Some in here think it takes losing 90 games for multiple years and then MAGICALLY the Cardinals will become a World Series contender.

This is foolish and we've got many teams scattered at the bottom of MLB who've taken this path only to see no results.

Again

No one in their right mind is calling for BDWJr to up payroll back to the $180M range in 2026.

BUT

He can certainly give Bloom some money ($125-130M payroll?) to add salaries/players who FIT THE LONG TERM plan.

Once the system starts to funnel some quality players to the big leagues (by the opening of the 2027 season perhaps?), then it will be time for Dewitt to up the payroll significantly so Bloom can "fill in the missing pieces" that aren't in the system.

JMO

[scoutyjones2]

There continues to be a contingent on CT who wants to misrepresent what those of us who support the Cardinals current direction are saying. This contingent repeatedly tries to say that we who support the direction categorically "don't want the Cardinals to spend money."

I have not seen anyone who has said that the Cardinals will not eventually have to spend money in order to compete with the Dodgers, Phillies, Mets, etc. The Cardinals will eventually likely have to spend back at the $170, $180 million level of ML payroll. Time will tell when/if that happens.

What those who support the Cardinals direction ARE saying is that the Cardinals don't need to prioritize spending money NOW - and in particular they should avoid committing to big 3, 4, 5, or more year contracts for significant FAs. Even if they held on to Gray, Contreras, Donovan, etc. and added like a Bo Bichette and/or Dylan Cease on 5+ year deals, they wouldn't have enough talent to really challenge the best teams in the NL in 2026. Committing to more guys now on long, expensive contracts who are likely to turn into your next "Nolan Arenados" in 3, 4, 5 years isn't going to help you down the road either.

The Cardinals probably will choose to sign some guys much more cheaply to 1 year + 1 team option year or 2 year deals - guys who are more "boom or bust" options like a Dustin May, etc. Those guys aren't being signed to "win now" in 2026. Those guys should be signed to be traded for more prospects at the 2026 trading deadline if they "boom," or cut loose after 2026 if they "bust." The Cardinals should also "spend money" now by packaging it with Gray, Arenado, Contreras, etc. in deals in order to get better prospects back which could jump start their rebuild in 2027, 2028, etc.

So their spending money now should be directed toward either gathering more prospects immediately (from trades of Gray, Arenado, Contreras) or gathering more prospects later by planning to deal cheap FAs signed now for prospects during the 2026 season.

A lot of us here want instant gratification.
I do.
I want that.
We've been in a funk for 3 or so years now and your prescription just adds to the funk.
The funk will stink so bad in another 3 years, the brand will become stale.
Nobody will want to watch the Cards play.
Irrelevancy.

3 whole years!

Awww ..so painful

[Ronnie Dobbs]

I agree with you Mel.
I think it is a terrible idea to just opt for a tear down rebuild.
They plan to trade Gray and Donovan?
Insane.
I'd keep both.
I would trade Arenado though.
But keeping Gray and Donovan and just add to the team.
Just seems more sensible to me.

Interesting that you want to trade Arenado. Why is that? Is it because he is an aging, expensive player who has declined significantly the last three years, starting at around age 32? What do you think is going to happen when the Cardinals rely on signing "proven talent" I'm free agency? You're going to have a team full of those guys. And you think a mid market team like the Cardinals is just going to be able to keep spending their way out of it? All but about two teams in MLB can afford to do that. The rest have rebuilt at some point.

The core of this team has been mediocre to bad the last 3 years. There's no quick fix. They need to rely on a young core so that they can sign a guy in free agency or trade for a high priced player and it won't kill them when those players inevitably age.

[CorneliusWolfe]

If the right elite talent is signed now or 5 yrs years from now what's the difference?

Again, see Nolan Arenado.

When the Cardinals acquired him five years ago, he was 30 (right about the same age as "elite talent" that you might sign as an FA now) and was an "elite talent" for the Cardinals for a couple of years.

Then he was an OK to good talent for a couple of years.

Then last year he as not a good talent.

So the "elite talent" you sign today at age 30, 31, 32, etc. probably won't be "elite talent" 3, 4, 5 yrs. from now, but you'll still be paying them "elite talent" money.

If I want to sign someone to be an "elite talent" in 2030, it's better to sign them in 2029 or 2030 at age 30 than in 2026 at age 30.

Why does your side think every free agent we sign would be Nolan Arenado 2.0 and every prospect we acquire will be Bobby Witt Jr. 2.0?

[Cardinals4Life]

There continues to be a contingent on CT who wants to misrepresent what those of us who support the Cardinals current direction are saying. This contingent repeatedly tries to say that we who support the direction categorically "don't want the Cardinals to spend money."

I have not seen anyone who has said that the Cardinals will not eventually have to spend money in order to compete with the Dodgers, Phillies, Mets, etc. The Cardinals will eventually likely have to spend back at the $170, $180 million level of ML payroll. Time will tell when/if that happens.

What those who support the Cardinals direction ARE saying is that the Cardinals don't need to prioritize spending money NOW - and in particular they should avoid committing to big 3, 4, 5, or more year contracts for significant FAs. Even if they held on to Gray, Contreras, Donovan, etc. and added like a Bo Bichette and/or Dylan Cease on 5+ year deals, they wouldn't have enough talent to really challenge the best teams in the NL in 2026. Committing to more guys now on long, expensive contracts who are likely to turn into your next "Nolan Arenados" in 3, 4, 5 years isn't going to help you down the road either.

The Cardinals probably will choose to sign some guys much more cheaply to 1 year + 1 team option year or 2 year deals - guys who are more "boom or bust" options like a Dustin May, etc. Those guys aren't being signed to "win now" in 2026. Those guys should be signed to be traded for more prospects at the 2026 trading deadline if they "boom," or cut loose after 2026 if they "bust." The Cardinals should also "spend money" now by packaging it with Gray, Arenado, Contreras, etc. in deals in order to get better prospects back which could jump start their rebuild in 2027, 2028, etc.

So their spending money now should be directed toward either gathering more prospects immediately (from trades of Gray, Arenado, Contreras) or gathering more prospects later by planning to deal cheap FAs signed now for prospects during the 2026 season.

I the right elite talent is signed now or 5yrs years from now whats the difference? What lineup spots do you expect to have internal elite talent filling, because that’s what you’re waiting for if you’re in the waiting camp…..

We’ve already gone over the huge team salary decline and with NA, Gray, Donny, Noot gone this team if probably under 100mil
3-4 IMPACT players at whatever positions you choose to assign will put this club in the playoffs and thats the only position this ownership and fan base have expected for decades. And you’re still receiving prospects for Donny, Gray, Noot, whoever. So why not walk and chew gun at the same time, if Bloom is as talented as all proclaim this shouldn’t be too difficult….

This is exactly right.

[Cardinals4Life]

If the right elite talent is signed now or 5 yrs years from now what's the difference?

Again, see Nolan Arenado.

When the Cardinals acquired him five years ago, he was 30 (right about the same age as "elite talent" that you might sign as an FA now) and was an "elite talent" for the Cardinals for a couple of years.

Then he was an OK to good talent for a couple of years.

Then last year he as not a good talent.

So the "elite talent" you sign today at age 30, 31, 32, etc. probably won't be "elite talent" 3, 4, 5 yrs. from now, but you'll still be paying them "elite talent" money.

If I want to sign someone to be an "elite talent" in 2030, it's better to sign them in 2029 or 2030 at age 30 than in 2026 at age 30.

2 bats, 2 SP you’re in the playoffs.

Yep.
Trade for 1 of those SPs. Sign Valdez.
Sign E. Suarez and get an OF slugger.

What does that put our payroll at? (Assuming we still trade Nado)

[mattmitchl44]

If the right elite talent is signed now or 5 yrs years from now what's the difference?

Again, see Nolan Arenado.

When the Cardinals acquired him five years ago, he was 30 (right about the same age as "elite talent" that you might sign as an FA now) and was an "elite talent" for the Cardinals for a couple of years.

Then he was an OK to good talent for a couple of years.

Then last year he as not a good talent.

So the "elite talent" you sign today at age 30, 31, 32, etc. probably won't be "elite talent" 3, 4, 5 yrs. from now, but you'll still be paying them "elite talent" money.

If I want to sign someone to be an "elite talent" in 2030, it's better to sign them in 2029 or 2030 at age 30 than in 2026 at age 30.

Why does your side think every free agent we sign would be Nolan Arenado 2.0 and every prospect we acquire will be Bobby Witt Jr. 2.0?

I certainly have never said I expect every prospect to be Witt. I've even said, quite clearly, that you expect a percentage of your prospects to not work out. But you have to obtain and develop enough prospects that, even with the losses due to guys not working out, you are still delivering the absolutely necessary critical mass of young talent to your ML team. The fact that all prospects do not work out requires you to obtain and develop MORE prospects, to ensure that you have enough succeed, not fewer.

And I know what a critical mass of young talent looks like, because it looks like this:

As I've noted before, they basically need to successfully matriculate three prospects to the majors every year. If you divide the roster up into 15 high value (5 SPs, 8 starting position players, 1 DH, 1 closer) spots and 11 lower value (7 other RPs, 4 bench players) spots, the steady state roster needs to look something like:

- 3 rookies (2 in lower value spots; 1 in a high value spot) making close to the ML minimum (total ~$3 million)
- 3 2nd year players (1 in a lower value spot; 2 in high value spots) making close to the ML minimum (total ~$3 million)
- 3 3rd year players (2 in lower value spots; 1 in a high value spot) making close to the ML minimum (total ~$3 million)
- 3 ARB-1 year players (1 in a lower value spot; 2 in high value spots) averaging maybe $2.5 million (total ~$7.5 million)
- 3 ARB-2 year players (1 in a lower value spot; 2 in high value spots) averaging maybe $5 million (total ~$15 million)
- 3 ARB-3 year players (1 in a lower value spot; 2 in high value spots) averaging maybe $7.5 million (total ~$22.5 million)
- 8 full market value veterans (3 in lower value spots; 5 in high value spots) taking up a total of ~$120 million in payroll

But to successfully matriculate three prospects to the majors every year, you probably need to have 5 or 6 prospects who you think may be "ML ready" because not all will actually be ready to successfully make the jump.

And why do I think FA signings are very likely to be on a path like Arenado? Because every FA that you sign is an "auction" where you have to be willing to outbid every other team in on that FA. When you have to do that, it biases the outcome toward you - as the "outlier" who was willing to pay the most - being more likely to have ultimately overpaid for that FA over the life of their contract. And, as we know how players generally age, if you are overpaying, you are most likely going to be overpaying in the latter years when they are further past their prime - just like Arenado.

[WeeVikes]

If the Cardinals would merely do as I advise, we would not be having this conversation.
I alone correctly predicted the current malaise, the factors that made it inevitable, and the correct solutions.
Four very reasonable, very achievable course corrections over the past 5 years would have guaranteed a team capable of winning 90+ each season.
I have been right all along, and I am right now.
Is it acceptable for the owners to not spend 170 Million next year and every year?
It is not.
Does the team need to spend 300+M to be relevant?
Absolutely not.
Can they immediately compete by addressing just 2 positions?
Yes, they can.
85+ wins next year, and 90+ the years following, is ridiculously easy to achieve.
Now, the record is set straight.
Easy.
Obvious.
Correct.

Mel,

Yes, with a couple moves the Cardinals could be relevant again. No doubt.

What is you thought about the ability between the minors and international signing capability of maintaining sustainability of the org from a baseball standpoint? I think that is from where the bulk of the talent acquisition needs to come. From there, they can strategically fill needs from free agency — I.e. spend, but spend wisely. For me personally, I don’t want them to have a short window then fall off again. I really liked our recent long stretch of virtually always having the capability of contending.

Thank you, Sir.

[ecleme22]

There continues to be a contingent on CT who wants to misrepresent what those of us who support the Cardinals current direction are saying. This contingent repeatedly tries to say that we who support the direction categorically "don't want the Cardinals to spend money."

I have not seen anyone who has said that the Cardinals will not eventually have to spend money in order to compete with the Dodgers, Phillies, Mets, etc. The Cardinals will eventually likely have to spend back at the $170, $180 million level of ML payroll. Time will tell when/if that happens.

What those who support the Cardinals direction ARE saying is that the Cardinals don't need to prioritize spending money NOW - and in particular they should avoid committing to big 3, 4, 5, or more year contracts for significant FAs. Even if they held on to Gray, Contreras, Donovan, etc. and added like a Bo Bichette and/or Dylan Cease on 5+ year deals, they wouldn't have enough talent to really challenge the best teams in the NL in 2026. Committing to more guys now on long, expensive contracts who are likely to turn into your next "Nolan Arenados" in 3, 4, 5 years isn't going to help you down the road either.

The Cardinals probably will choose to sign some guys much more cheaply to 1 year + 1 team option year or 2 year deals - guys who are more "boom or bust" options like a Dustin May, etc. Those guys aren't being signed to "win now" in 2026. Those guys should be signed to be traded for more prospects at the 2026 trading deadline if they "boom," or cut loose after 2026 if they "bust." The Cardinals should also "spend money" now by packaging it with Gray, Arenado, Contreras, etc. in deals in order to get better prospects back which could jump start their rebuild in 2027, 2028, etc.

So their spending money now should be directed toward either gathering more prospects immediately (from trades of Gray, Arenado, Contreras) or gathering more prospects later by planning to deal cheap FAs signed now for prospects during the 2026 season.

A lot of us here want instant gratification.
I do.
I want that.
We've been in a funk for 3 or so years now and your prescription just adds to the funk.
The funk will stink so bad in another 3 years, the brand will become stale.
Nobody will want to watch the Cards play.
Irrelevancy.

If instant gratification was a winning recipe, don’t you think all teams would do it?

[Red Bird Classic]

There continues to be a contingent on CT who wants to misrepresent what those of us who support the Cardinals current direction are saying. This contingent repeatedly tries to say that we who support the direction categorically "don't want the Cardinals to spend money."

I have not seen anyone who has said that the Cardinals will not eventually have to spend money in order to compete with the Dodgers, Phillies, Mets, etc. The Cardinals will eventually likely have to spend back at the $170, $180 million level of ML payroll. Time will tell when/if that happens.

What those who support the Cardinals direction ARE saying is that the Cardinals don't need to prioritize spending money NOW - and in particular they should avoid committing to big 3, 4, 5, or more year contracts for significant FAs. Even if they held on to Gray, Contreras, Donovan, etc. and added like a Bo Bichette and/or Dylan Cease on 5+ year deals, they wouldn't have enough talent to really challenge the best teams in the NL in 2026. Committing to more guys now on long, expensive contracts who are likely to turn into your next "Nolan Arenados" in 3, 4, 5 years isn't going to help you down the road either.

The Cardinals probably will choose to sign some guys much more cheaply to 1 year + 1 team option year or 2 year deals - guys who are more "boom or bust" options like a Dustin May, etc. Those guys aren't being signed to "win now" in 2026. Those guys should be signed to be traded for more prospects at the 2026 trading deadline if they "boom," or cut loose after 2026 if they "bust." The Cardinals should also "spend money" now by packaging it with Gray, Arenado, Contreras, etc. in deals in order to get better prospects back which could jump start their rebuild in 2027, 2028, etc.

So their spending money now should be directed toward either gathering more prospects immediately (from trades of Gray, Arenado, Contreras) or gathering more prospects later by planning to deal cheap FAs signed now for prospects during the 2026 season.

A lot of us here want instant gratification.
I do.
I want that.
We've been in a funk for 3 or so years now and your prescription just adds to the funk.
The funk will stink so bad in another 3 years, the brand will become stale.
Nobody will want to watch the Cards play.
Irrelevancy.

,
Some of us will continue to follow the team, win or lose. You are welcome to follow another team.

What?

Not that I agree with the instant gratification demand, but...

If every Cardinal fan had this attitude, the team would never win anything because DeWitt wouldn't spend more than a minimal amount and the Cardinals would become the Pirates west.

Would you stick with your wife if she cheated with your best friend? Would you keep your dog if he bit you 9-month old on the face and the kid had to have surgery? Twice?

Loyalty is a good thing, but blind loyalty is ruinous.

[Red Bird Classic]

If the right elite talent is signed now or 5 yrs years from now what's the difference?

Again, see Nolan Arenado.

When the Cardinals acquired him five years ago, he was 30 (right about the same age as "elite talent" that you might sign as an FA now) and was an "elite talent" for the Cardinals for a couple of years.

Then he was an OK to good talent for a couple of years.

Then last year he as not a good talent.

So the "elite talent" you sign today at age 30, 31, 32, etc. probably won't be "elite talent" 3, 4, 5 yrs. from now, but you'll still be paying them "elite talent" money.

If I want to sign someone to be an "elite talent" in 2030, it's better to sign them in 2029 or 2030 at age 30 than in 2026 at age 30.

2 bats, 2 SP you’re in the playoffs.

Even if that's true, and I'm not sure it is, reaching the playoffs is not the goal. The World Series is the goal.

[45s]

If the right elite talent is signed now or 5 yrs years from now what's the difference?

Again, see Nolan Arenado.

When the Cardinals acquired him five years ago, he was 30 (right about the same age as "elite talent" that you might sign as an FA now) and was an "elite talent" for the Cardinals for a couple of years.

Then he was an OK to good talent for a couple of years.

Then last year he as not a good talent.

So the "elite talent" you sign today at age 30, 31, 32, etc. probably won't be "elite talent" 3, 4, 5 yrs. from now, but you'll still be paying them "elite talent" money.

If I want to sign someone to be an "elite talent" in 2030, it's better to sign them in 2029 or 2030 at age 30 than in 2026 at age 30.

2 bats, 2 SP you’re in the playoffs.

Yep.
Trade for 1 of those SPs. Sign Valdez.
Sign E. Suarez and get an OF slugger.

What does that put our payroll at? (Assuming we still trade Nado)

valdez is looing for six years at 33mil per

a 37 year old pitcher making 33 mil might not be the best move