To set the record straight

[Carp4Cy]

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.

Does eating salaries for NA, Contreras. Gray constitute "spending money". The money has been committed for some time.

I count it as "spending money" on top of what they will be paying the guys actually on the Cardinals roster. If the actual roster is $100 million and they ship $30 million with Gray and Arenado, they are spending $130 million this year.

So BDW is going to pay way to much to lose (and sell few tickets) for several years (magically converting prospects into future wins) then hopefully he will spend to win. At the end of the day he's spending too much over the course of a decade to not have more chances to win and to not sell enough tickets. Doesn't seem likes its going to be a sustainable business model for long.

Then fast forward 10 years to when every single prospect we acquire before 2028 will either have reached FA, or been paid market rates, or failed - and then we no long have these surpluss contracts to trade for bonus prospects and we will presumably enter a cycle of losing again?

[mattmitchl44]

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.

Does eating salaries for NA, Contreras. Gray constitute "spending money". The money has been committed for some time.

I count it as "spending money" on top of what they will be paying the guys actually on the Cardinals roster. If the actual roster is $100 million and they ship $30 million with Gray and Arenado, they are spending $130 million this year.

So BDW is going to pay way to much to lose (and sell few tickets) for several years (magically converting prospects into future wins) then hopefully he will spend to win. At the end of the day he's spending too much over the course of a decade to not have more chances to win and to not sell enough tickets. Doesn't seem likes its going to be a sustainable business model for long.

Then fast forward 10 years to when every single prospect we acquire before 2028 will either have reached FA, or been paid market rates, or failed - and then we no long have these surpluss contracts to trade for bonus prospects and we will presumably enter a cycle of losing again?

At the beginning of a rebuild, spending, revenue/attendance, and winning go down.

At the end of a rebuild, spending, revenue/attendance, and winning go up.

As I've said before, once they get a critical mass of young players together going into 2028 or 2029, they will probably have to ramp up spending one offseason before seeing attendance/revenue rebound significantly. What you conserve now you need to be willing to "advance spend" by one offseason later.

[renostl]

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.

Does eating salaries for NA, Contreras. Gray constitute "spending money". The money has been committed for some time.

I count it as "spending money" on top of what they will be paying the guys actually on the Cardinals roster. If the actual roster is $100 million and they ship $30 million with Gray and Arenado, they are spending $130 million this year.

So BDW is going to pay way to much to lose (and sell few tickets) for several years (magically converting prospects into future wins) then hopefully he will spend to win. At the end of the day he's spending too much over the course of a decade to not have more chances to win and to not sell enough tickets. Doesn't seem likes its going to be a sustainable business model for long.

Then fast forward 10 years to when every single prospect we acquire before 2028 will either have reached FA, or been paid market rates, or failed - and then we no long have these surpluss contracts to trade for bonus prospects and we will presumably enter a cycle of losing again?

At the beginning of a rebuild, spending, revenue/attendance, and winning go down.

At the end of a rebuild, spending, revenue/attendance, and winning go up.

As I've said before, once they get a critical mass of young players together going into 2028 or 2029, they will probably have to ramp up spending one offseason before seeing attendance/revenue rebound significantly. What you conserve now you need to be willing to "advance spend" by one offseason later.

They do need to accumulate more players with higher upside.
I do not think that it has to be a one step at a time, paint by numbers,
methodical process though.

Spending big on 32 y/o or so FA, definitely is counterproductive. Obtaining players with 5 year
windows is totally different. More than one thing can happen at the same time. Will it, who
knows what trades bring in return or how players emerge.

This is where those who prefer to keep a Donovan have a legitimate argument. Will the Cardinals
be bad for Donovan's window of being good? There are certainly reasons for a little more
urgency. He's a player that does not break a budget, he's a $12 million type +/-, kind of player
that teams want as evidence of teams interested in him, and the kind of player that is harder
to grow on your own, also as evidence by the number of teams after him. Should not LAD and their highly
ranked minors have a couple players like this instead of having to buy an Edman, a Kike, or now
BD?

[mattmitchl44]

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.

Does eating salaries for NA, Contreras. Gray constitute "spending money". The money has been committed for some time.

I count it as "spending money" on top of what they will be paying the guys actually on the Cardinals roster. If the actual roster is $100 million and they ship $30 million with Gray and Arenado, they are spending $130 million this year.

So BDW is going to pay way to much to lose (and sell few tickets) for several years (magically converting prospects into future wins) then hopefully he will spend to win. At the end of the day he's spending too much over the course of a decade to not have more chances to win and to not sell enough tickets. Doesn't seem likes its going to be a sustainable business model for long.

Then fast forward 10 years to when every single prospect we acquire before 2028 will either have reached FA, or been paid market rates, or failed - and then we no long have these surpluss contracts to trade for bonus prospects and we will presumably enter a cycle of losing again?

At the beginning of a rebuild, spending, revenue/attendance, and winning go down.

At the end of a rebuild, spending, revenue/attendance, and winning go up.

As I've said before, once they get a critical mass of young players together going into 2028 or 2029, they will probably have to ramp up spending one offseason before seeing attendance/revenue rebound significantly. What you conserve now you need to be willing to "advance spend" by one offseason later.

They do need to accumulate more players with higher upside.
I do not think that it has to be a one step at a time, paint by numbers,
methodical process though.

Spending big on 32 y/o or so FA, definitely is counterproductive. Obtaining players with 5 year
windows is totally different. More than one thing can happen at the same time. Will it, who
knows what trades bring in return or how players emerge.

This is where those who prefer to keep a Donovan have a legitimate argument. Will the Cardinals
be bad for Donovan's window of being good? There are certainly reasons for a little more
urgency. He's a player that does not break a budget, he's a $12 million type +/-, kind of player
that teams want as evidence of teams interested in him, and the kind of player that is harder
to grow on your own, also as evidence by the number of teams after him. Should not LAD and their highly
ranked minors have a couple players like this instead of having to buy an Edman, a Kike, or now
BD?

I address the case for trading Donovan in another thread:

The priorities this offseason are:

1. Use whatever trade equity they can generate by eating salary when they move Gray, Arenado, and maybe Contreras to obtain more ML-ready AA and AAA prospects who could be those 2+ fWAR players if the guys they have can't fill those slots.

and

2. Use Donovan's trade equity to obtain another ML-ready AA or AAA prospect who could be one of the ~4 fWAR players if Wetherholt or a Doyle don't pan out to be that good. Donovan has the most trade equity of anyone they are going to move. If anyone is going to bring back a higher level prospect it will be him. Maybe you have to package Romero or Gorman with him to get there, but you do that if you have to.

That's how the Cardinals fill up their pool as best they can to try to get to where they need to be by the end of 2027 or 2028.

[JuanAgosto]

No need to change managers yet. Bloom probably couldn't get the guy he wants with the current roster. Give him time to build a stronger team. Then he will have a higher caliber of manager applicants.

The Manager and his coaching staff is WHO makes the roster stronger. And Oli isn't doing it. The young guys on the roster now don't have another year to wait and waste.

I agree a manager sets a tone, brings a culture, and adds an attitude to the team. And I prefer to see a change. But I dont think a top quality manager would be interested in this job right now. Bolster the roster and go find the guy.

why not? Bloom has the number 1 farm system and the brightest future in all of MLB according to some posters here. If true, shouldn't top managers Want to be a part of that? If not true, why are some fans blindly believing what baseball pros won't believe in?

Meanwhile we are just spinning our wheel every time we "bolster" the roster with a top rated prospect who makes their debut then can't find their footing due to Oli and his staff's lack of development guidance AFTER they actually make the majors.

Leadership comes first. Only then can talent develop to their true potential.

Given the unpredictability of prospects performing at a high level in MLB. Walker was the top rated prospect back in 2023. That didn't translate to success. Gorman and Liberatore were highly rated. Not much successes there either. A

They all developed well in the Minors and flopped after reaching MLB. That's on Oli for not continuing the progess, not on the MiLB system. A manager like Tony would force the players to listen and learn and develop OR determine they are a lost cause and demand a trade/replacement. Oli did neither.

No. Nothing about Walker's game showed any implication he was prepared to play MLB baseball. His offense was bad and his defense was horrendous. Gorman was the same except for flashes of power. Scott uses his speed to play good defense but his bat is nowhere near MLB ready. The whole program needed changed.

And it mostly has been, except for Oli

Once these changes bear fruit, Bloom can look to upgrade if he feels the need. All Bloom has committed to is letting Marmol finish the last year of his contract.

[renostl]

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.

Does eating salaries for NA, Contreras. Gray constitute "spending money". The money has been committed for some time.

I count it as "spending money" on top of what they will be paying the guys actually on the Cardinals roster. If the actual roster is $100 million and they ship $30 million with Gray and Arenado, they are spending $130 million this year.

So BDW is going to pay way to much to lose (and sell few tickets) for several years (magically converting prospects into future wins) then hopefully he will spend to win. At the end of the day he's spending too much over the course of a decade to not have more chances to win and to not sell enough tickets. Doesn't seem likes its going to be a sustainable business model for long.

Then fast forward 10 years to when every single prospect we acquire before 2028 will either have reached FA, or been paid market rates, or failed - and then we no long have these surpluss contracts to trade for bonus prospects and we will presumably enter a cycle of losing again?

At the beginning of a rebuild, spending, revenue/attendance, and winning go down.

At the end of a rebuild, spending, revenue/attendance, and winning go up.

As I've said before, once they get a critical mass of young players together going into 2028 or 2029, they will probably have to ramp up spending one offseason before seeing attendance/revenue rebound significantly. What you conserve now you need to be willing to "advance spend" by one offseason later.

They do need to accumulate more players with higher upside.
I do not think that it has to be a one step at a time, paint by numbers,
methodical process though.

Spending big on 32 y/o or so FA, definitely is counterproductive. Obtaining players with 5 year
windows is totally different. More than one thing can happen at the same time. Will it, who
knows what trades bring in return or how players emerge.

This is where those who prefer to keep a Donovan have a legitimate argument. Will the Cardinals
be bad for Donovan's window of being good? There are certainly reasons for a little more
urgency. He's a player that does not break a budget, he's a $12 million type +/-, kind of player
that teams want as evidence of teams interested in him, and the kind of player that is harder
to grow on your own, also as evidence by the number of teams after him. Should not LAD and their highly
ranked minors have a couple players like this instead of having to buy an Edman, a Kike, or now
BD?

I address the case for trading Donovan in another thread:

The priorities this offseason are:

1. Use whatever trade equity they can generate by eating salary when they move Gray, Arenado, and maybe Contreras to obtain more ML-ready AA and AAA prospects who could be those 2+ fWAR players if the guys they have can't fill those slots.

and

2. Use Donovan's trade equity to obtain another ML-ready AA or AAA prospect who could be one of the ~4 fWAR players if Wetherholt or a Doyle don't pan out to be that good. Donovan has the most trade equity of anyone they are going to move. If anyone is going to bring back a higher level prospect it will be him. Maybe you have to package Romero or Gorman with him to get there, but you do that if you have to.

That's how the Cardinals fill up their pool as best they can to try to get to where they need to be by the end of 2027 or 2028.

I've read and acknowledged such. Agreed with some.

It's a statement suggesting that there is a possibility of more than one solution
to the end result. A trade using a player like Donovan, or Donovan plus does not have
to bring back a prospect. That trade could bring back a range of possibilities. In general trades
are difficult to predict.

I also have a belief that is totally unsubstantiated. I don't believe the team wants
to see a continuation of an empty stadium and low TV revenue. I'll be surprised if they
only go the slow methodical path and field a team that lacks interest. I think
where the "NO short cuts" philosophy will be followed, they will attempt to
get it turned around sooner not latter.

[Carp4Cy]

No need to change managers yet. Bloom probably couldn't get the guy he wants with the current roster. Give him time to build a stronger team. Then he will have a higher caliber of manager applicants.

The Manager and his coaching staff is WHO makes the roster stronger. And Oli isn't doing it. The young guys on the roster now don't have another year to wait and waste.

I agree a manager sets a tone, brings a culture, and adds an attitude to the team. And I prefer to see a change. But I dont think a top quality manager would be interested in this job right now. Bolster the roster and go find the guy.

why not? Bloom has the number 1 farm system and the brightest future in all of MLB according to some posters here. If true, shouldn't top managers Want to be a part of that? If not true, why are some fans blindly believing what baseball pros won't believe in?

Meanwhile we are just spinning our wheel every time we "bolster" the roster with a top rated prospect who makes their debut then can't find their footing due to Oli and his staff's lack of development guidance AFTER they actually make the majors.

Leadership comes first. Only then can talent develop to their true potential.

Given the unpredictability of prospects performing at a high level in MLB. Walker was the top rated prospect back in 2023. That didn't translate to success. Gorman and Liberatore were highly rated. Not much successes there either. A

They all developed well in the Minors and flopped after reaching MLB. That's on Oli for not continuing the progess, not on the MiLB system. A manager like Tony would force the players to listen and learn and develop OR determine they are a lost cause and demand a trade/replacement. Oli did neither.

No. Nothing about Walker's game showed any implication he was prepared to play MLB baseball. His offense was bad and his defense was horrendous. Gorman was the same except for flashes of power. Scott uses his speed to play good defense but his bat is nowhere near MLB ready. The whole program needed changed.

And it mostly has been, except for Oli

Once these changes bear fruit, Bloom can look to upgrade if he feels the need. All Bloom has committed to is letting Marmol finish the last year of his contract.

And the fruit will be stunted by Oli. This is a case where the Gardener needs to come before the fruit arrives, not after.