Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑18 Nov 2025 22:03 pm
Ok, then answer me this on timing. You say wait until 2028, 2029, 2030 before spending. Okay, but by the guys like Burleson, Herrera, Scott, and others are going to have their controlled years wasted. It seems like that will always be the case. Thoughts?
That's not a problem. As I've noted elsewhere, you PLAN to have a distribution of pre-ARB and ARB players:
- 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)
So, yeah, your "steady state" distribution will have guys like Herrera, Burleson, Scott, etc. being ARB-2 or ARB-3.
When you are in a healthy place, your farm system is delivering three more rookies the next year to take the place of any ARB-3 players that you don't choose to re-sign and bring back as part of your "8 full market value veterans" that fill out the 26 man roster.
You have to develop a Top 5 player development program that consistently feeds the ML team so that you can turn over the roster appropriately and keep to this "steady state" distribution that would let the Cardinals be truly competitive on a $170, $180 million payroll.
zuck698 wrote: ↑19 Nov 2025 01:06 am
Heck, trade our current vets for prospects and replace the vets by spending some money on a watchable team. I have never figured out why we can't do both, regardless of how many times its explained that its either one or the other.
The expectation is that they should trade away Gray, Arenado, Donovan, etc. to bring back AA/AAA prospect who can quickly add to the young talent on the ML team.
And, yes, I think everyone agrees that they will probably sign some FAs as filler for the ML team - but those will likely be guys on 1 year, 1 year + 1 team option year, etc. contracts - small commitments to guys who they probably look to flip at the 2026 trading deadline for more prospects.
I don't know whether you think that will make the team "watchable" or not, but that should be the course they are on.
Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑18 Nov 2025 22:03 pm
Ok, then answer me this on timing. You say wait until 2028, 2029, 2030 before spending. Okay, but by the guys like Burleson, Herrera, Scott, and others are going to have their controlled years wasted. It seems like that will always be the case. Thoughts?
That's not a problem. As I've noted elsewhere, you PLAN to have a distribution of pre-ARB and ARB players:
- 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)
So, yeah, your "steady state" distribution will have guys like Herrera, Burleson, Scott, etc. being ARB-2 or ARB-3.
When you are in a healthy place, your farm system is delivering three more rookies the next year to take the place of any ARB-3 players that you don't choose to re-sign and bring back as part of your "8 full market value veterans" that fill out the 26 man roster.
You have to develop a Top 5 player development program that consistently feeds the ML team so that you can turn over the roster appropriately and keep to this "steady state" distribution that would let the Cardinals be truly competitive on a $170, $180 million payroll.
Good in theory, Matt. Will NEVER happen like that in real life. If we are waiting for that, we might as well wait to win the lottery too.
Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑18 Nov 2025 22:03 pm
Ok, then answer me this on timing. You say wait until 2028, 2029, 2030 before spending. Okay, but by the guys like Burleson, Herrera, Scott, and others are going to have their controlled years wasted. It seems like that will always be the case. Thoughts?
That's not a problem. As I've noted elsewhere, you PLAN to have a distribution of pre-ARB and ARB players:
- 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)
So, yeah, your "steady state" distribution will have guys like Herrera, Burleson, Scott, etc. being ARB-2 or ARB-3.
When you are in a healthy place, your farm system is delivering three more rookies the next year to take the place of any ARB-3 players that you don't choose to re-sign and bring back as part of your "8 full market value veterans" that fill out the 26 man roster.
You have to develop a Top 5 player development program that consistently feeds the ML team so that you can turn over the roster appropriately and keep to this "steady state" distribution that would let the Cardinals be truly competitive on a $170, $180 million payroll.
Good in theory, Matt. Will NEVER happen like that in real life. If we are waiting for that, we might as well wait to win the lottery too.
I of course give that as an idealized framework. You can have years where you matriculate four prospects to the majors, other years where you matriculate two, etc. - the real point is on average matriculating three per year.
And yes, that can be done because I guarantee you that Tampa Bay (8th in regular season wins in the last decade), Cleveland (4th in regular season wins), Milwaukee (5th in regular season wins) have to be doing that - and maybe more - in order to be consistently competitive on an even smaller ML payroll. If they can do it, the Cardinals can do it.
Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑18 Nov 2025 22:03 pm
Ok, then answer me this on timing. You say wait until 2028, 2029, 2030 before spending. Okay, but by the guys like Burleson, Herrera, Scott, and others are going to have their controlled years wasted. It seems like that will always be the case. Thoughts?
That's not a problem. As I've noted elsewhere, you PLAN to have a distribution of pre-ARB and ARB players:
- 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)
So, yeah, your "steady state" distribution will have guys like Herrera, Burleson, Scott, etc. being ARB-2 or ARB-3.
When you are in a healthy place, your farm system is delivering three more rookies the next year to take the place of any ARB-3 players that you don't choose to re-sign and bring back as part of your "8 full market value veterans" that fill out the 26 man roster.
You have to develop a Top 5 player development program that consistently feeds the ML team so that you can turn over the roster appropriately and keep to this "steady state" distribution that would let the Cardinals be truly competitive on a $170, $180 million payroll.
Good in theory, Matt. Will NEVER happen like that in real life. If we are waiting for that, we might as well wait to win the lottery too.
I of course give that as an idealized framework. You can have years where you matriculate four prospects to the majors, other years where you matriculate two, etc. - the real point is on average matriculating three per year.
And yes, that can be done because I guarantee you that Tampa Bay (8th in regular season wins in the last decade), Cleveland (4th in regular season wins), Milwaukee (5th in regular season wins) have to be doing that - and maybe more - in order to be consistently competitive on an even smaller ML payroll. If they can do it, the Cardinals can do it.
We have to set our sights higher than what those teams have achieved.
Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑18 Nov 2025 22:03 pm
Ok, then answer me this on timing. You say wait until 2028, 2029, 2030 before spending. Okay, but by the guys like Burleson, Herrera, Scott, and others are going to have their controlled years wasted. It seems like that will always be the case. Thoughts?
That's not a problem. As I've noted elsewhere, you PLAN to have a distribution of pre-ARB and ARB players:
- 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)
So, yeah, your "steady state" distribution will have guys like Herrera, Burleson, Scott, etc. being ARB-2 or ARB-3.
When you are in a healthy place, your farm system is delivering three more rookies the next year to take the place of any ARB-3 players that you don't choose to re-sign and bring back as part of your "8 full market value veterans" that fill out the 26 man roster.
You have to develop a Top 5 player development program that consistently feeds the ML team so that you can turn over the roster appropriately and keep to this "steady state" distribution that would let the Cardinals be truly competitive on a $170, $180 million payroll.
Good in theory, Matt. Will NEVER happen like that in real life. If we are waiting for that, we might as well wait to win the lottery too.
I of course give that as an idealized framework. You can have years where you matriculate four prospects to the majors, other years where you matriculate two, etc. - the real point is on average matriculating three per year.
And yes, that can be done because I guarantee you that Tampa Bay (8th in regular season wins in the last decade), Cleveland (4th in regular season wins), Milwaukee (5th in regular season wins) have to be doing that - and maybe more - in order to be consistently competitive on an even smaller ML payroll. If they can do it, the Cardinals can do it.
Matt,
One of the things that seperates us from those teams was our rabid fan base of 3 million plus fan going thru the turnstile every year.
Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑18 Nov 2025 22:03 pm
Ok, then answer me this on timing. You say wait until 2028, 2029, 2030 before spending. Okay, but by the guys like Burleson, Herrera, Scott, and others are going to have their controlled years wasted. It seems like that will always be the case. Thoughts?
That's not a problem. As I've noted elsewhere, you PLAN to have a distribution of pre-ARB and ARB players:
- 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)
So, yeah, your "steady state" distribution will have guys like Herrera, Burleson, Scott, etc. being ARB-2 or ARB-3.
When you are in a healthy place, your farm system is delivering three more rookies the next year to take the place of any ARB-3 players that you don't choose to re-sign and bring back as part of your "8 full market value veterans" that fill out the 26 man roster.
You have to develop a Top 5 player development program that consistently feeds the ML team so that you can turn over the roster appropriately and keep to this "steady state" distribution that would let the Cardinals be truly competitive on a $170, $180 million payroll.
Good in theory, Matt. Will NEVER happen like that in real life. If we are waiting for that, we might as well wait to win the lottery too.
I of course give that as an idealized framework. You can have years where you matriculate four prospects to the majors, other years where you matriculate two, etc. - the real point is on average matriculating three per year.
And yes, that can be done because I guarantee you that Tampa Bay (8th in regular season wins in the last decade), Cleveland (4th in regular season wins), Milwaukee (5th in regular season wins) have to be doing that - and maybe more - in order to be consistently competitive on an even smaller ML payroll. If they can do it, the Cardinals can do it.
We have to set our sights higher than what those teams have achieved.
Again, the Cardinals need to do what those teams do in terms of prospect development - and then add on top of that the ability to add more from outside the organization with a $170, $180 million payroll.
If the Cardinals have, say, $50+ million more to spend on outside help, they should have 5-6 more win talent than Milwaukee, Cleveland, Tampa Bay if they have the same prospect development ability.
Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑18 Nov 2025 22:03 pm
Ok, then answer me this on timing. You say wait until 2028, 2029, 2030 before spending. Okay, but by the guys like Burleson, Herrera, Scott, and others are going to have their controlled years wasted. It seems like that will always be the case. Thoughts?
That's not a problem. As I've noted elsewhere, you PLAN to have a distribution of pre-ARB and ARB players:
- 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)
So, yeah, your "steady state" distribution will have guys like Herrera, Burleson, Scott, etc. being ARB-2 or ARB-3.
When you are in a healthy place, your farm system is delivering three more rookies the next year to take the place of any ARB-3 players that you don't choose to re-sign and bring back as part of your "8 full market value veterans" that fill out the 26 man roster.
You have to develop a Top 5 player development program that consistently feeds the ML team so that you can turn over the roster appropriately and keep to this "steady state" distribution that would let the Cardinals be truly competitive on a $170, $180 million payroll.
Good in theory, Matt. Will NEVER happen like that in real life. If we are waiting for that, we might as well wait to win the lottery too.
I of course give that as an idealized framework. You can have years where you matriculate four prospects to the majors, other years where you matriculate two, etc. - the real point is on average matriculating three per year.
And yes, that can be done because I guarantee you that Tampa Bay (8th in regular season wins in the last decade), Cleveland (4th in regular season wins), Milwaukee (5th in regular season wins) have to be doing that - and maybe more - in order to be consistently competitive on an even smaller ML payroll. If they can do it, the Cardinals can do it.
Matt,
One of the things that seperates us from those teams was our rabid fan base of 3 million plus fan going thru the turnstile every year.
If you are suggesting that the Cardinals can't abide losing, I'll repeat what I said elsewhere:
Let me be clear - I don't care about anyone's obsession with attendance numbers. The Cardinals organization has gone through lengthy dismal stretches (the 1970s, the 1990s) in my lifetime and fans ALWAYS come back when the team starts to win again.
Winning solves everything - but they need to take the time now and put the organization back on a solid foundation of player development where they can win consistently. Running around now and spending a lot of money to put band aids on the ML roster is exactly what they've been doing for the past decade that has landed them in the mess they are in.
Getting the organization healthy and back to the point they can win 90+ games on a pretty regular basis (and make 3+ million fans happy) is EXACTLY what I want them to the take the time to do over the next 2-3 years.
Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑18 Nov 2025 22:03 pm
Ok, then answer me this on timing. You say wait until 2028, 2029, 2030 before spending. Okay, but by the guys like Burleson, Herrera, Scott, and others are going to have their controlled years wasted. It seems like that will always be the case. Thoughts?
That's not a problem. As I've noted elsewhere, you PLAN to have a distribution of pre-ARB and ARB players:
- 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)
So, yeah, your "steady state" distribution will have guys like Herrera, Burleson, Scott, etc. being ARB-2 or ARB-3.
When you are in a healthy place, your farm system is delivering three more rookies the next year to take the place of any ARB-3 players that you don't choose to re-sign and bring back as part of your "8 full market value veterans" that fill out the 26 man roster.
You have to develop a Top 5 player development program that consistently feeds the ML team so that you can turn over the roster appropriately and keep to this "steady state" distribution that would let the Cardinals be truly competitive on a $170, $180 million payroll.
Good in theory, Matt. Will NEVER happen like that in real life. If we are waiting for that, we might as well wait to win the lottery too.
I of course give that as an idealized framework. You can have years where you matriculate four prospects to the majors, other years where you matriculate two, etc. - the real point is on average matriculating three per year.
And yes, that can be done because I guarantee you that Tampa Bay (8th in regular season wins in the last decade), Cleveland (4th in regular season wins), Milwaukee (5th in regular season wins) have to be doing that - and maybe more - in order to be consistently competitive on an even smaller ML payroll. If they can do it, the Cardinals can do it.
Matt,
One of the things that seperates us from those teams was our rabid fan base of 3 million plus fan going thru the turnstile every year.
If you are suggesting that the Cardinals can't abide losing, I'll repeat what I said elsewhere:
Let me be clear - I don't care about anyone's obsession with attendance numbers. The Cardinals organization has gone through lengthy dismal stretches (the 1970s, the 1990s) in my lifetime and fans ALWAYS come back when the team starts to win again.
Winning solves everything - but they need to take the time now and put the organization back on a solid foundation of player development where they can win consistently. Running around now and spending a lot of money to put band aids on the ML roster is exactly what they've been doing for the past decade that has landed them in the mess they are in.
Getting the organization healthy and back to the point they can win 90+ games on a pretty regular basis (and make 3+ million fans happy) is EXACTLY what I want them to the take the time to do over the next 2-3 years.
No short cuts.
No, I wasn't suggesting that the fans won't come back when they start winning. What I was referring to was the fact that we have, (or had in this case), additional revenue that those teams may not have had due to attendance differentials. I think Bill will make more revenue when he spends more revenue, thus the walk and chew gum situation all over again. I have no problem whatsoever in your approach, in fact, I think that is exactly what is needed for the future. Where we differentiate is the fact that I want Bill to spend the 180 million or so now as to have a competive team while we rebuild the farm. Not the alternative of fielding a less than competive team. You have stated that it is not the right time to spend and I simply disagree that you can have your cake and eat it too.
Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑18 Nov 2025 22:03 pm
Ok, then answer me this on timing. You say wait until 2028, 2029, 2030 before spending. Okay, but by the guys like Burleson, Herrera, Scott, and others are going to have their controlled years wasted. It seems like that will always be the case. Thoughts?
That's not a problem. As I've noted elsewhere, you PLAN to have a distribution of pre-ARB and ARB players:
- 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)
So, yeah, your "steady state" distribution will have guys like Herrera, Burleson, Scott, etc. being ARB-2 or ARB-3.
When you are in a healthy place, your farm system is delivering three more rookies the next year to take the place of any ARB-3 players that you don't choose to re-sign and bring back as part of your "8 full market value veterans" that fill out the 26 man roster.
You have to develop a Top 5 player development program that consistently feeds the ML team so that you can turn over the roster appropriately and keep to this "steady state" distribution that would let the Cardinals be truly competitive on a $170, $180 million payroll.
Good in theory, Matt. Will NEVER happen like that in real life. If we are waiting for that, we might as well wait to win the lottery too.
I of course give that as an idealized framework. You can have years where you matriculate four prospects to the majors, other years where you matriculate two, etc. - the real point is on average matriculating three per year.
And yes, that can be done because I guarantee you that Tampa Bay (8th in regular season wins in the last decade), Cleveland (4th in regular season wins), Milwaukee (5th in regular season wins) have to be doing that - and maybe more - in order to be consistently competitive on an even smaller ML payroll. If they can do it, the Cardinals can do it.
Matt,
One of the things that seperates us from those teams was our rabid fan base of 3 million plus fan going thru the turnstile every year.
If you are suggesting that the Cardinals can't abide losing, I'll repeat what I said elsewhere:
Let me be clear - I don't care about anyone's obsession with attendance numbers. The Cardinals organization has gone through lengthy dismal stretches (the 1970s, the 1990s) in my lifetime and fans ALWAYS come back when the team starts to win again.
Winning solves everything - but they need to take the time now and put the organization back on a solid foundation of player development where they can win consistently. Running around now and spending a lot of money to put band aids on the ML roster is exactly what they've been doing for the past decade that has landed them in the mess they are in.
Getting the organization healthy and back to the point they can win 90+ games on a pretty regular basis (and make 3+ million fans happy) is EXACTLY what I want them to the take the time to do over the next 2-3 years.
No short cuts.
No, I wasn't suggesting that the fans won't come back when they start winning. What I was referring to was the fact that we have, (or had in this case), additional revenue that those teams may not have had due to attendance differentials. I think Bill will make more revenue when he spends more revenue, thus the walk and chew gum situation all over again. I have no problem whatsoever in your approach, in fact, I think that is exactly what is needed for the future. Where we differentiate is the fact that I want Bill to spend the 180 million or so now as to have a competive team while we rebuild the farm. Not the alternative of fielding a less than competive team. You have stated that it is not the right time to spend and I simply disagree that you can have your cake and eat it too.
Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑18 Nov 2025 22:03 pm
Ok, then answer me this on timing. You say wait until 2028, 2029, 2030 before spending. Okay, but by the guys like Burleson, Herrera, Scott, and others are going to have their controlled years wasted. It seems like that will always be the case. Thoughts?
That's not a problem. As I've noted elsewhere, you PLAN to have a distribution of pre-ARB and ARB players:
- 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)
So, yeah, your "steady state" distribution will have guys like Herrera, Burleson, Scott, etc. being ARB-2 or ARB-3.
When you are in a healthy place, your farm system is delivering three more rookies the next year to take the place of any ARB-3 players that you don't choose to re-sign and bring back as part of your "8 full market value veterans" that fill out the 26 man roster.
You have to develop a Top 5 player development program that consistently feeds the ML team so that you can turn over the roster appropriately and keep to this "steady state" distribution that would let the Cardinals be truly competitive on a $170, $180 million payroll.
Good in theory, Matt. Will NEVER happen like that in real life. If we are waiting for that, we might as well wait to win the lottery too.
I of course give that as an idealized framework. You can have years where you matriculate four prospects to the majors, other years where you matriculate two, etc. - the real point is on average matriculating three per year.
And yes, that can be done because I guarantee you that Tampa Bay (8th in regular season wins in the last decade), Cleveland (4th in regular season wins), Milwaukee (5th in regular season wins) have to be doing that - and maybe more - in order to be consistently competitive on an even smaller ML payroll. If they can do it, the Cardinals can do it.
Matt,
One of the things that seperates us from those teams was our rabid fan base of 3 million plus fan going thru the turnstile every year.
If you are suggesting that the Cardinals can't abide losing, I'll repeat what I said elsewhere:
Let me be clear - I don't care about anyone's obsession with attendance numbers. The Cardinals organization has gone through lengthy dismal stretches (the 1970s, the 1990s) in my lifetime and fans ALWAYS come back when the team starts to win again.
Winning solves everything - but they need to take the time now and put the organization back on a solid foundation of player development where they can win consistently. Running around now and spending a lot of money to put band aids on the ML roster is exactly what they've been doing for the past decade that has landed them in the mess they are in.
Getting the organization healthy and back to the point they can win 90+ games on a pretty regular basis (and make 3+ million fans happy) is EXACTLY what I want them to the take the time to do over the next 2-3 years.
No short cuts.
No, I wasn't suggesting that the fans won't come back when they start winning. What I was referring to was the fact that we have, (or had in this case), additional revenue that those teams may not have had due to attendance differentials. I think Bill will make more revenue when he spends more revenue, thus the walk and chew gum situation all over again. I have no problem whatsoever in your approach, in fact, I think that is exactly what is needed for the future. Where we differentiate is the fact that I want Bill to spend the 180 million or so now as to have a competive team while we rebuild the farm. Not the alternative of fielding a less than competive team. You have stated that it is not the right time to spend and I simply disagree that you can have your cake and eat it too.
Zuck, we are in agreement!
Cardinals4Life it seems that most here believe that we can only do one of these things at a time. It is like everyone has taken Bill for a man who is almost broke! There is no excuse with all the other income that is side generated by this team, such as BPV, among others, that we cannot rebuild for the future and still field a competitive team. I don't mind spending Bill's huge amounts of cash, especially when I helped put it there by being a former season ticket holder. The key in that sentence was former! Since he is not going to spend, neither am I. No way am I signing up to see a AAA team in the meantime.
Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑18 Nov 2025 22:03 pm
Ok, then answer me this on timing. You say wait until 2028, 2029, 2030 before spending. Okay, but by the guys like Burleson, Herrera, Scott, and others are going to have their controlled years wasted. It seems like that will always be the case. Thoughts?
That's not a problem. As I've noted elsewhere, you PLAN to have a distribution of pre-ARB and ARB players:
- 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)
So, yeah, your "steady state" distribution will have guys like Herrera, Burleson, Scott, etc. being ARB-2 or ARB-3.
When you are in a healthy place, your farm system is delivering three more rookies the next year to take the place of any ARB-3 players that you don't choose to re-sign and bring back as part of your "8 full market value veterans" that fill out the 26 man roster.
You have to develop a Top 5 player development program that consistently feeds the ML team so that you can turn over the roster appropriately and keep to this "steady state" distribution that would let the Cardinals be truly competitive on a $170, $180 million payroll.
Good in theory, Matt. Will NEVER happen like that in real life. If we are waiting for that, we might as well wait to win the lottery too.
I of course give that as an idealized framework. You can have years where you matriculate four prospects to the majors, other years where you matriculate two, etc. - the real point is on average matriculating three per year.
And yes, that can be done because I guarantee you that Tampa Bay (8th in regular season wins in the last decade), Cleveland (4th in regular season wins), Milwaukee (5th in regular season wins) have to be doing that - and maybe more - in order to be consistently competitive on an even smaller ML payroll. If they can do it, the Cardinals can do it.
Matt,
One of the things that seperates us from those teams was our rabid fan base of 3 million plus fan going thru the turnstile every year.
If you are suggesting that the Cardinals can't abide losing, I'll repeat what I said elsewhere:
Let me be clear - I don't care about anyone's obsession with attendance numbers. The Cardinals organization has gone through lengthy dismal stretches (the 1970s, the 1990s) in my lifetime and fans ALWAYS come back when the team starts to win again.
Winning solves everything - but they need to take the time now and put the organization back on a solid foundation of player development where they can win consistently. Running around now and spending a lot of money to put band aids on the ML roster is exactly what they've been doing for the past decade that has landed them in the mess they are in.
Getting the organization healthy and back to the point they can win 90+ games on a pretty regular basis (and make 3+ million fans happy) is EXACTLY what I want them to the take the time to do over the next 2-3 years.
No short cuts.
No, I wasn't suggesting that the fans won't come back when they start winning. What I was referring to was the fact that we have, (or had in this case), additional revenue that those teams may not have had due to attendance differentials. I think Bill will make more revenue when he spends more revenue, thus the walk and chew gum situation all over again. I have no problem whatsoever in your approach, in fact, I think that is exactly what is needed for the future. Where we differentiate is the fact that I want Bill to spend the 180 million or so now as to have a competive team while we rebuild the farm. Not the alternative of fielding a less than competive team. You have stated that it is not the right time to spend and I simply disagree that you can have your cake and eat it too.
Zuck, we are in agreement!
Cardinals4Life it seems that most here believe that we can only do one of these things at a time. It is like everyone has taken Bill for a man who is almost broke! There is no excuse with all the other income that is side generated by this team, such as BPV, among others, that we cannot rebuild for the future and still field a competitive team. I don't mind spending Bill's huge amounts of cash, especially when I helped put it there by being a former season ticket holder. The key in that sentence was former! Since he is not going to spend, neither am I. No way am I signing up to see a AAA team in the meantime.
I don't want to see them commit to another "Nolan Arenado" this offseason who, by the time they are really ready to be competitive again in 2028, will be the "shell of Nolan Arenado" with two years left on their contact like the one they are trying to deal right now.
Wait until after the 2027 season, know what you need, and then go get guys who are in their prime then and try to win in 2028, 2029.
Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑18 Nov 2025 22:03 pm
Ok, then answer me this on timing. You say wait until 2028, 2029, 2030 before spending. Okay, but by the guys like Burleson, Herrera, Scott, and others are going to have their controlled years wasted. It seems like that will always be the case. Thoughts?
That's not a problem. As I've noted elsewhere, you PLAN to have a distribution of pre-ARB and ARB players:
- 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)
So, yeah, your "steady state" distribution will have guys like Herrera, Burleson, Scott, etc. being ARB-2 or ARB-3.
When you are in a healthy place, your farm system is delivering three more rookies the next year to take the place of any ARB-3 players that you don't choose to re-sign and bring back as part of your "8 full market value veterans" that fill out the 26 man roster.
You have to develop a Top 5 player development program that consistently feeds the ML team so that you can turn over the roster appropriately and keep to this "steady state" distribution that would let the Cardinals be truly competitive on a $170, $180 million payroll.
Good in theory, Matt. Will NEVER happen like that in real life. If we are waiting for that, we might as well wait to win the lottery too.
I of course give that as an idealized framework. You can have years where you matriculate four prospects to the majors, other years where you matriculate two, etc. - the real point is on average matriculating three per year.
And yes, that can be done because I guarantee you that Tampa Bay (8th in regular season wins in the last decade), Cleveland (4th in regular season wins), Milwaukee (5th in regular season wins) have to be doing that - and maybe more - in order to be consistently competitive on an even smaller ML payroll. If they can do it, the Cardinals can do it.
Matt,
One of the things that seperates us from those teams was our rabid fan base of 3 million plus fan going thru the turnstile every year.
If you are suggesting that the Cardinals can't abide losing, I'll repeat what I said elsewhere:
Let me be clear - I don't care about anyone's obsession with attendance numbers. The Cardinals organization has gone through lengthy dismal stretches (the 1970s, the 1990s) in my lifetime and fans ALWAYS come back when the team starts to win again.
Winning solves everything - but they need to take the time now and put the organization back on a solid foundation of player development where they can win consistently. Running around now and spending a lot of money to put band aids on the ML roster is exactly what they've been doing for the past decade that has landed them in the mess they are in.
Getting the organization healthy and back to the point they can win 90+ games on a pretty regular basis (and make 3+ million fans happy) is EXACTLY what I want them to the take the time to do over the next 2-3 years.
No short cuts.
No, I wasn't suggesting that the fans won't come back when they start winning. What I was referring to was the fact that we have, (or had in this case), additional revenue that those teams may not have had due to attendance differentials. I think Bill will make more revenue when he spends more revenue, thus the walk and chew gum situation all over again. I have no problem whatsoever in your approach, in fact, I think that is exactly what is needed for the future. Where we differentiate is the fact that I want Bill to spend the 180 million or so now as to have a competive team while we rebuild the farm. Not the alternative of fielding a less than competive team. You have stated that it is not the right time to spend and I simply disagree that you can have your cake and eat it too.
Zuck, we are in agreement!
Cardinals4Life it seems that most here believe that we can only do one of these things at a time. It is like everyone has taken Bill for a man who is almost broke! There is no excuse with all the other income that is side generated by this team, such as BPV, among others, that we cannot rebuild for the future and still field a competitive team. I don't mind spending Bill's huge amounts of cash, especially when I helped put it there by being a former season ticket holder. The key in that sentence was former! Since he is not going to spend, neither am I. No way am I signing up to see a AAA team in the meantime.
I don't want to see them commit to another "Nolan Arenado" this offseason who, by the time they are really ready to be competitive again in 2028, will be the "shell of Nolan Arenado" with two years left on their contact like the one they are trying to deal right now.
Wait until after the 2027 season, know what you need, and then go get guys who are in their prime then and try to win in 2028, 2029.
Who says they won't be competitive now if they spend their money wisely on free agents or trades? It does not have to be an Arenado type contract. Who says that your plan of not spending money now, will work in 2028 or 2029? Just have more minor league baseball like play until 2033 or 2034? Like I have said before, I agree with your plan Mattmitch, but I just don't agree on not making this team competive now. Maybe not a world series winner now, but let's at least make it entertaining by winning more than 70-75 games a year, with not spending Bill's dry powder. We really can do both if the will is there.
Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑18 Nov 2025 22:03 pm
Ok, then answer me this on timing. You say wait until 2028, 2029, 2030 before spending. Okay, but by the guys like Burleson, Herrera, Scott, and others are going to have their controlled years wasted. It seems like that will always be the case. Thoughts?
That's not a problem. As I've noted elsewhere, you PLAN to have a distribution of pre-ARB and ARB players:
- 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)
So, yeah, your "steady state" distribution will have guys like Herrera, Burleson, Scott, etc. being ARB-2 or ARB-3.
When you are in a healthy place, your farm system is delivering three more rookies the next year to take the place of any ARB-3 players that you don't choose to re-sign and bring back as part of your "8 full market value veterans" that fill out the 26 man roster.
You have to develop a Top 5 player development program that consistently feeds the ML team so that you can turn over the roster appropriately and keep to this "steady state" distribution that would let the Cardinals be truly competitive on a $170, $180 million payroll.
Good in theory, Matt. Will NEVER happen like that in real life. If we are waiting for that, we might as well wait to win the lottery too.
I of course give that as an idealized framework. You can have years where you matriculate four prospects to the majors, other years where you matriculate two, etc. - the real point is on average matriculating three per year.
And yes, that can be done because I guarantee you that Tampa Bay (8th in regular season wins in the last decade), Cleveland (4th in regular season wins), Milwaukee (5th in regular season wins) have to be doing that - and maybe more - in order to be consistently competitive on an even smaller ML payroll. If they can do it, the Cardinals can do it.
Matt,
One of the things that seperates us from those teams was our rabid fan base of 3 million plus fan going thru the turnstile every year.
If you are suggesting that the Cardinals can't abide losing, I'll repeat what I said elsewhere:
Let me be clear - I don't care about anyone's obsession with attendance numbers. The Cardinals organization has gone through lengthy dismal stretches (the 1970s, the 1990s) in my lifetime and fans ALWAYS come back when the team starts to win again.
Winning solves everything - but they need to take the time now and put the organization back on a solid foundation of player development where they can win consistently. Running around now and spending a lot of money to put band aids on the ML roster is exactly what they've been doing for the past decade that has landed them in the mess they are in.
Getting the organization healthy and back to the point they can win 90+ games on a pretty regular basis (and make 3+ million fans happy) is EXACTLY what I want them to the take the time to do over the next 2-3 years.
No short cuts.
No, I wasn't suggesting that the fans won't come back when they start winning. What I was referring to was the fact that we have, (or had in this case), additional revenue that those teams may not have had due to attendance differentials. I think Bill will make more revenue when he spends more revenue, thus the walk and chew gum situation all over again. I have no problem whatsoever in your approach, in fact, I think that is exactly what is needed for the future. Where we differentiate is the fact that I want Bill to spend the 180 million or so now as to have a competive team while we rebuild the farm. Not the alternative of fielding a less than competive team. You have stated that it is not the right time to spend and I simply disagree that you can have your cake and eat it too.
Zuck, we are in agreement!
Cardinals4Life it seems that most here believe that we can only do one of these things at a time. It is like everyone has taken Bill for a man who is almost broke! There is no excuse with all the other income that is side generated by this team, such as BPV, among others, that we cannot rebuild for the future and still field a competitive team. I don't mind spending Bill's huge amounts of cash, especially when I helped put it there by being a former season ticket holder. The key in that sentence was former! Since he is not going to spend, neither am I. No way am I signing up to see a AAA team in the meantime.
I don't want to see them commit to another "Nolan Arenado" this offseason who, by the time they are really ready to be competitive again in 2028, will be the "shell of Nolan Arenado" with two years left on their contact like the one they are trying to deal right now.
Wait until after the 2027 season, know what you need, and then go get guys who are in their prime then and try to win in 2028, 2029.
Who says they won't be competitive now if they spend their money wisely on free agents or trades? It does not have to be an Arenado type contract. Who says that your plan of not spending money now, will work in 2028 or 2029? Just have more minor league baseball like play until 2033 or 2034? Like I have said before, I agree with your plan Mattmitch, but I just don't agree on not making this team competive now. Maybe not a world series winner now, but let's at least make it entertaining by winning more than 70-75 games a year, with not spending Bill's dry powder. We really can do both if the will is there.
I'm good with the Cardinals choosing 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."
Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑18 Nov 2025 22:03 pm
Ok, then answer me this on timing. You say wait until 2028, 2029, 2030 before spending. Okay, but by the guys like Burleson, Herrera, Scott, and others are going to have their controlled years wasted. It seems like that will always be the case. Thoughts?
That's not a problem. As I've noted elsewhere, you PLAN to have a distribution of pre-ARB and ARB players:
- 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)
So, yeah, your "steady state" distribution will have guys like Herrera, Burleson, Scott, etc. being ARB-2 or ARB-3.
When you are in a healthy place, your farm system is delivering three more rookies the next year to take the place of any ARB-3 players that you don't choose to re-sign and bring back as part of your "8 full market value veterans" that fill out the 26 man roster.
You have to develop a Top 5 player development program that consistently feeds the ML team so that you can turn over the roster appropriately and keep to this "steady state" distribution that would let the Cardinals be truly competitive on a $170, $180 million payroll.
Good in theory, Matt. Will NEVER happen like that in real life. If we are waiting for that, we might as well wait to win the lottery too.
I of course give that as an idealized framework. You can have years where you matriculate four prospects to the majors, other years where you matriculate two, etc. - the real point is on average matriculating three per year.
And yes, that can be done because I guarantee you that Tampa Bay (8th in regular season wins in the last decade), Cleveland (4th in regular season wins), Milwaukee (5th in regular season wins) have to be doing that - and maybe more - in order to be consistently competitive on an even smaller ML payroll. If they can do it, the Cardinals can do it.
Matt,
One of the things that seperates us from those teams was our rabid fan base of 3 million plus fan going thru the turnstile every year.
If you are suggesting that the Cardinals can't abide losing, I'll repeat what I said elsewhere:
Let me be clear - I don't care about anyone's obsession with attendance numbers. The Cardinals organization has gone through lengthy dismal stretches (the 1970s, the 1990s) in my lifetime and fans ALWAYS come back when the team starts to win again.
Winning solves everything - but they need to take the time now and put the organization back on a solid foundation of player development where they can win consistently. Running around now and spending a lot of money to put band aids on the ML roster is exactly what they've been doing for the past decade that has landed them in the mess they are in.
Getting the organization healthy and back to the point they can win 90+ games on a pretty regular basis (and make 3+ million fans happy) is EXACTLY what I want them to the take the time to do over the next 2-3 years.
No short cuts.
No, I wasn't suggesting that the fans won't come back when they start winning. What I was referring to was the fact that we have, (or had in this case), additional revenue that those teams may not have had due to attendance differentials. I think Bill will make more revenue when he spends more revenue, thus the walk and chew gum situation all over again. I have no problem whatsoever in your approach, in fact, I think that is exactly what is needed for the future. Where we differentiate is the fact that I want Bill to spend the 180 million or so now as to have a competive team while we rebuild the farm. Not the alternative of fielding a less than competive team. You have stated that it is not the right time to spend and I simply disagree that you can have your cake and eat it too.
Zuck, we are in agreement!
Cardinals4Life it seems that most here believe that we can only do one of these things at a time. It is like everyone has taken Bill for a man who is almost broke! There is no excuse with all the other income that is side generated by this team, such as BPV, among others, that we cannot rebuild for the future and still field a competitive team. I don't mind spending Bill's huge amounts of cash, especially when I helped put it there by being a former season ticket holder. The key in that sentence was former! Since he is not going to spend, neither am I. No way am I signing up to see a AAA team in the meantime.
I don't want to see them commit to another "Nolan Arenado" this offseason who, by the time they are really ready to be competitive again in 2028, will be the "shell of Nolan Arenado" with two years left on their contact like the one they are trying to deal right now.
Wait until after the 2027 season, know what you need, and then go get guys who are in their prime then and try to win in 2028, 2029.
Who says they won't be competitive now if they spend their money wisely on free agents or trades? It does not have to be an Arenado type contract. Who says that your plan of not spending money now, will work in 2028 or 2029? Just have more minor league baseball like play until 2033 or 2034? Like I have said before, I agree with your plan Mattmitch, but I just don't agree on not making this team competive now. Maybe not a world series winner now, but let's at least make it entertaining by winning more than 70-75 games a year, with not spending Bill's dry powder. We really can do both if the will is there.
I'm good with the Cardinals choosing 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."
Maybe that equates with what you are suggesting.
Don’t give 30+yr old FA’s long term contracts…..then you won’t have a diminished NA dragging around
The chances of fielding Bloom Farm prospects in ‘29 are less than observed talent we have on the team NOW
You don’t even know the names of the players that might be your ARB arsenal in ‘29
We know what Winn, Burly, Herrera, WC, and even JJ will produce
So waiting for this great unknown may produce less talent than what I wrote above.
Use the talent here and now and supplement them, if your Bloom Farm Allstars come to fruition then great, half of today’s team will be gone by then anyway.
You guys are wasting your time arguing with Matt on this. He thoroughly believes the Cardinals are simply trying to regroup for the next few years and then everything will just be hunky dory again. He won’t accept the “ fact “ that the DeWitts are cutting as much payroll as they can until after the lockout is over. Then, depending on the outcome of that, they’ll either start trying again when it’s cheaper to do so, or sell the team to someone who will. This rebuild stuff and accumulating prospects is all just a smokescreen to hide this! This is of course just my opinion!
