Rebuilding Checklist

[mattmitchl44]

This HOPE that Bloom Farm fields a ML club full of almost All-Stars has to be one the most fantasy filled dreams from you good baseball people that I’ve read here since consistently reading posts from CT origination.

Fun fact - Zac Gallen, Sandy Alcantara, and Randy Arozarena have all been All-Stars. Unfortunately the Cardinals didn't hang on to them.

Brendan Donovan has been an All-Star. Masyn Winn will probably be an All-Star.

I'm sure I'm probably forgetting others.

So - yeah, it is entirely possible for a team's farm system to develop multiple All-Stars over a relatively short period of time.

Having 3+ All-Star level, or at least borderline All-Star level, young players who are in their pre-ARB or ARB years on your roster is certainly achievable. That and other 7 or so just solid young players who can be average ML regulars is what they need.

All other bad deals aside, it’s amazing how the latter MO era would look completely different without the Ozuna and Libby deals.

Talent evaluation is so important. Also important is to know that a perceived surplus at a position may not be one—-especially when the surplus are all unprovens

Yes, the Cardinals fundamental problem was that they banked too many of their prospect plans on too few a number of prospects. They were too willing to trade away prospect depth that that wasn't really excess depth to try to patch holes on the ML roster.

When they had a period in which a greater than usual number of prospects they did hang on to failed to pan out, their lack of prospect depth got exposed and their ability to feed the ML roster adequately became apparent.

Because you know you have to expect a certain percentage of prospects to not pan out, you have to acquire and develop MORE prospects, not FEWER.

Too many CT posters learn the wrong lesson - they think because you can't expect prospects to work out, you should depend on them less. But that's not the answer on a fixed payroll budget.

[rockondlouie]

Some people want to believe that Bloom can go out and beat the FA market by spending $75 million and getting 20 or 25 fWAR for it. But that's as hard, or harder, to do than going out and acquiring prospects that will be successful.

But it fits their narrative to believe you can systematically and consistently beat 29 other teams when it comes to valuing FAs even when everybody has a ton of reliable information about just how good a FA will or will not likely be.

Now replace "beat the FA market" with.............."beat the prospect market"

&

Replace "their narrative to believe you can systematically and consistently beat 29 other teams when it comes to valuing FAs"

with "your narrative to believe you can systematically and consistently beat 29 other teams when it comes to valuing prospects"

It is MUCH more possible to "beat the prospect market."

Because there is much more uncertainty with projecting prospects, there is much more value to be gained by being smarter in evaluating them. You can leverage being smarter to gain more of an advantage with prospects than established players.

Uncertainty is exactly the playing field where being smart operates.

Seeing the prospect that can be a 2.5 WAR player for you for six years of team control vs. other teams seeing them as a future 1 WAR player is a much bigger win than seeing the FA who can be a 2.5 WAR player for you vs. other teams seeing them as a 2 WAR player (because you are going to at least have to bid on them like they are a 2 WAR player like everybody else).

Because with advanced analytics all teams are now much more informed than ever before about evaluating established ML players with years of ML performance history, there is much less uncertainty with them in which to leverage being smart.

NO IT'S NOT!

80+% of prospects become nothing but SUSPECTS never seeing an inning in MLB.

With free agents you are acquiring a PROVEN major league player with a PROVEN major league track record.

That is nowhere near an equivalence.

Again I'm going to turn your opinion right back on you:

Because with advanced analytics all teams are now much more informed than ever before about evaluating PROSPECTS!

I could keep trying to explain why having more uncertainty magnifies the value of being smarter, but you're not going to get it. So Im going to stop now.

There's nothing for me to get, your "explanations" are nothing more than faulty opinions and there's certainly nothing you could ever teach me.

Oh, I think we know that is FAR from true.

Youre..........

de·lu·sion·al

adjective

characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.......

If you think your baseball knowledge is superior to mine.

[mattmitchl44]

Some people want to believe that Bloom can go out and beat the FA market by spending $75 million and getting 20 or 25 fWAR for it. But that's as hard, or harder, to do than going out and acquiring prospects that will be successful.

But it fits their narrative to believe you can systematically and consistently beat 29 other teams when it comes to valuing FAs even when everybody has a ton of reliable information about just how good a FA will or will not likely be.

Now replace "beat the FA market" with.............."beat the prospect market"

&

Replace "their narrative to believe you can systematically and consistently beat 29 other teams when it comes to valuing FAs"

with "your narrative to believe you can systematically and consistently beat 29 other teams when it comes to valuing prospects"

It is MUCH more possible to "beat the prospect market."

Because there is much more uncertainty with projecting prospects, there is much more value to be gained by being smarter in evaluating them. You can leverage being smarter to gain more of an advantage with prospects than established players.

Uncertainty is exactly the playing field where being smart operates.

Seeing the prospect that can be a 2.5 WAR player for you for six years of team control vs. other teams seeing them as a future 1 WAR player is a much bigger win than seeing the FA who can be a 2.5 WAR player for you vs. other teams seeing them as a 2 WAR player (because you are going to at least have to bid on them like they are a 2 WAR player like everybody else).

Because with advanced analytics all teams are now much more informed than ever before about evaluating established ML players with years of ML performance history, there is much less uncertainty with them in which to leverage being smart.

NO IT'S NOT!

80+% of prospects become nothing but SUSPECTS never seeing an inning in MLB.

With free agents you are acquiring a PROVEN major league player with a PROVEN major league track record.

That is nowhere near an equivalence.

Again I'm going to turn your opinion right back on you:

Because with advanced analytics all teams are now much more informed than ever before about evaluating PROSPECTS!

I could keep trying to explain why having more uncertainty magnifies the value of being smarter, but you're not going to get it. So Im going to stop now.

There's nothing for me to get, your "explanations" are nothing more than faulty opinions and there's certainly nothing you could ever teach me.

Oh, I think we know that is FAR from true.

Youre..........

de·lu·sion·al

adjective

characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.......

If you think your baseball knowledge is superior to mine.

See:

viewtopic.php?p=13190317#p13190317

[rockondlouie]

Some people want to believe that Bloom can go out and beat the FA market by spending $75 million and getting 20 or 25 fWAR for it. But that's as hard, or harder, to do than going out and acquiring prospects that will be successful.

But it fits their narrative to believe you can systematically and consistently beat 29 other teams when it comes to valuing FAs even when everybody has a ton of reliable information about just how good a FA will or will not likely be.

Now replace "beat the FA market" with.............."beat the prospect market"

&

Replace "their narrative to believe you can systematically and consistently beat 29 other teams when it comes to valuing FAs"

with "your narrative to believe you can systematically and consistently beat 29 other teams when it comes to valuing prospects"

It is MUCH more possible to "beat the prospect market."

Because there is much more uncertainty with projecting prospects, there is much more value to be gained by being smarter in evaluating them. You can leverage being smarter to gain more of an advantage with prospects than established players.

Uncertainty is exactly the playing field where being smart operates.

Seeing the prospect that can be a 2.5 WAR player for you for six years of team control vs. other teams seeing them as a future 1 WAR player is a much bigger win than seeing the FA who can be a 2.5 WAR player for you vs. other teams seeing them as a 2 WAR player (because you are going to at least have to bid on them like they are a 2 WAR player like everybody else).

Because with advanced analytics all teams are now much more informed than ever before about evaluating established ML players with years of ML performance history, there is much less uncertainty with them in which to leverage being smart.

NO IT'S NOT!

80+% of prospects become nothing but SUSPECTS never seeing an inning in MLB.

With free agents you are acquiring a PROVEN major league player with a PROVEN major league track record.

That is nowhere near an equivalence.

Again I'm going to turn your opinion right back on you:

Because with advanced analytics all teams are now much more informed than ever before about evaluating PROSPECTS!

I could keep trying to explain why having more uncertainty magnifies the value of being smarter, but you're not going to get it. So Im going to stop now.

There's nothing for me to get, your "explanations" are nothing more than faulty opinions and there's certainly nothing you could ever teach me.

Oh, I think we know that is FAR from true.

Youre..........

de·lu·sion·al

adjective

characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.......

If you think your baseball knowledge is superior to mine.

See:

viewtopic.php?p=13190317#p13190317

I love these type of moon shots!

Just the type of moves I've been saying for a long time C. Bloom would make that Mo wouldn't be sharper enough to find.

[mattmitchl44]

Some people want to believe that Bloom can go out and beat the FA market by spending $75 million and getting 20 or 25 fWAR for it. But that's as hard, or harder, to do than going out and acquiring prospects that will be successful.

But it fits their narrative to believe you can systematically and consistently beat 29 other teams when it comes to valuing FAs even when everybody has a ton of reliable information about just how good a FA will or will not likely be.

Now replace "beat the FA market" with.............."beat the prospect market"

&

Replace "their narrative to believe you can systematically and consistently beat 29 other teams when it comes to valuing FAs"

with "your narrative to believe you can systematically and consistently beat 29 other teams when it comes to valuing prospects"

It is MUCH more possible to "beat the prospect market."

Because there is much more uncertainty with projecting prospects, there is much more value to be gained by being smarter in evaluating them. You can leverage being smarter to gain more of an advantage with prospects than established players.

Uncertainty is exactly the playing field where being smart operates.

Seeing the prospect that can be a 2.5 WAR player for you for six years of team control vs. other teams seeing them as a future 1 WAR player is a much bigger win than seeing the FA who can be a 2.5 WAR player for you vs. other teams seeing them as a 2 WAR player (because you are going to at least have to bid on them like they are a 2 WAR player like everybody else).

Because with advanced analytics all teams are now much more informed than ever before about evaluating established ML players with years of ML performance history, there is much less uncertainty with them in which to leverage being smart.

NO IT'S NOT!

80+% of prospects become nothing but SUSPECTS never seeing an inning in MLB.

With free agents you are acquiring a PROVEN major league player with a PROVEN major league track record.

That is nowhere near an equivalence.

Again I'm going to turn your opinion right back on you:

Because with advanced analytics all teams are now much more informed than ever before about evaluating PROSPECTS!

I could keep trying to explain why having more uncertainty magnifies the value of being smarter, but you're not going to get it. So Im going to stop now.

There's nothing for me to get, your "explanations" are nothing more than faulty opinions and there's certainly nothing you could ever teach me.

Oh, I think we know that is FAR from true.

Youre..........

de·lu·sion·al

adjective

characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.......

If you think your baseball knowledge is superior to mine.

See:

viewtopic.php?p=13190317#p13190317

I love these type of moon shots!

Just the type of moves I've been saying for a long time C. Bloom would make that Mo wouldn't be sharper enough to find.

Then you should understand the point I've been making - systematically getting many more of those low cost/high payoff decisions right - the ones with high uncertainty - is where "being smarter" than everyone else pays off the most, not in picking and choosing established ML players to sign - decisions with much lower uncertainty.

See - maybe you can learn something.

[rockondlouie]

Some people want to believe that Bloom can go out and beat the FA market by spending $75 million and getting 20 or 25 fWAR for it. But that's as hard, or harder, to do than going out and acquiring prospects that will be successful.

But it fits their narrative to believe you can systematically and consistently beat 29 other teams when it comes to valuing FAs even when everybody has a ton of reliable information about just how good a FA will or will not likely be.

Now replace "beat the FA market" with.............."beat the prospect market"

&

Replace "their narrative to believe you can systematically and consistently beat 29 other teams when it comes to valuing FAs"

with "your narrative to believe you can systematically and consistently beat 29 other teams when it comes to valuing prospects"

It is MUCH more possible to "beat the prospect market."

Because there is much more uncertainty with projecting prospects, there is much more value to be gained by being smarter in evaluating them. You can leverage being smarter to gain more of an advantage with prospects than established players.

Uncertainty is exactly the playing field where being smart operates.

Seeing the prospect that can be a 2.5 WAR player for you for six years of team control vs. other teams seeing them as a future 1 WAR player is a much bigger win than seeing the FA who can be a 2.5 WAR player for you vs. other teams seeing them as a 2 WAR player (because you are going to at least have to bid on them like they are a 2 WAR player like everybody else).

Because with advanced analytics all teams are now much more informed than ever before about evaluating established ML players with years of ML performance history, there is much less uncertainty with them in which to leverage being smart.

NO IT'S NOT!

80+% of prospects become nothing but SUSPECTS never seeing an inning in MLB.

With free agents you are acquiring a PROVEN major league player with a PROVEN major league track record.

That is nowhere near an equivalence.

Again I'm going to turn your opinion right back on you:

Because with advanced analytics all teams are now much more informed than ever before about evaluating PROSPECTS!

I could keep trying to explain why having more uncertainty magnifies the value of being smarter, but you're not going to get it. So Im going to stop now.

There's nothing for me to get, your "explanations" are nothing more than faulty opinions and there's certainly nothing you could ever teach me.

Oh, I think we know that is FAR from true.

Youre..........

de·lu·sion·al

adjective

characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.......

If you think your baseball knowledge is superior to mine.

See:

viewtopic.php?p=13190317#p13190317

I love these type of moon shots!

Just the type of moves I've been saying for a long time C. Bloom would make that Mo wouldn't be sharper enough to find.

Then you should understand the point I've been making - systematically getting many more of those low cost/high payoff decisions right - the ones with high uncertainty - is where "being smarter" than everyone else pays off the most, not in picking and choosing established ML players to sign - decisions with much lower uncertainty.

See - maybe you can learn something.

Matt, it's not that I don't understand your opinion.......just that I think it's to narrow and doesn't take into account (as I've said multiple times) that C. Bloom is perfectly capable (unlike Mo) of WALKING (doing as you suggest, building the minor league system) & CHEWING GUM (as I suggest, still adding young/inexpensive major league talent with years of control thru trades & free agency that can help the 2026 team).

And please, enough of the "learn" (bleep) as you're choosing to ignore my over fifty years of baseball knowledge that includes sixteen years of playing thru college which makes you look both arrogant and foolish.

[riff raff]

It's getting pretty deep in here

[mattmitchl44]

Some people want to believe that Bloom can go out and beat the FA market by spending $75 million and getting 20 or 25 fWAR for it. But that's as hard, or harder, to do than going out and acquiring prospects that will be successful.

But it fits their narrative to believe you can systematically and consistently beat 29 other teams when it comes to valuing FAs even when everybody has a ton of reliable information about just how good a FA will or will not likely be.

Now replace "beat the FA market" with.............."beat the prospect market"

&

Replace "their narrative to believe you can systematically and consistently beat 29 other teams when it comes to valuing FAs"

with "your narrative to believe you can systematically and consistently beat 29 other teams when it comes to valuing prospects"

It is MUCH more possible to "beat the prospect market."

Because there is much more uncertainty with projecting prospects, there is much more value to be gained by being smarter in evaluating them. You can leverage being smarter to gain more of an advantage with prospects than established players.

Uncertainty is exactly the playing field where being smart operates.

Seeing the prospect that can be a 2.5 WAR player for you for six years of team control vs. other teams seeing them as a future 1 WAR player is a much bigger win than seeing the FA who can be a 2.5 WAR player for you vs. other teams seeing them as a 2 WAR player (because you are going to at least have to bid on them like they are a 2 WAR player like everybody else).

Because with advanced analytics all teams are now much more informed than ever before about evaluating established ML players with years of ML performance history, there is much less uncertainty with them in which to leverage being smart.

NO IT'S NOT!

80+% of prospects become nothing but SUSPECTS never seeing an inning in MLB.

With free agents you are acquiring a PROVEN major league player with a PROVEN major league track record.

That is nowhere near an equivalence.

Again I'm going to turn your opinion right back on you:

Because with advanced analytics all teams are now much more informed than ever before about evaluating PROSPECTS!

I could keep trying to explain why having more uncertainty magnifies the value of being smarter, but you're not going to get it. So Im going to stop now.

There's nothing for me to get, your "explanations" are nothing more than faulty opinions and there's certainly nothing you could ever teach me.

Oh, I think we know that is FAR from true.

Youre..........

de·lu·sion·al

adjective

characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.......

If you think your baseball knowledge is superior to mine.

See:

viewtopic.php?p=13190317#p13190317

I love these type of moon shots!

Just the type of moves I've been saying for a long time C. Bloom would make that Mo wouldn't be sharper enough to find.

Then you should understand the point I've been making - systematically getting many more of those low cost/high payoff decisions right - the ones with high uncertainty - is where "being smarter" than everyone else pays off the most, not in picking and choosing established ML players to sign - decisions with much lower uncertainty.

See - maybe you can learn something.

Matt, it's not that I don't understand your opinion.......just that I think it's to narrow and doesn't take into account (as I've said multiple times) that C. Bloom is perfectly capable (unlike Mo) of WALKING (doing as you suggest, building the minor league system) & CHEWING GUM (as I suggest, still adding young/inexpensive major league talent with years of control thru trades & free agency that can help the 2026 team).

And please, enough of the "learn" (bleep) as you're choosing to ignore my over fifty years of baseball knowledge that includes sixteen years of playing thru college which makes you look both arrogant and foolish.

As I've said multiple times, yes, they will have to use all available avenues to add talent - eventually.

What I've said is:

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.

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.

And if you get a young player with years of team control back, yes, you are populating the distribution that I've said needs to exist:

- 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, I've still covered everything you said.

But, in terms of volume, you'll likely be able to get more in prospects who are just ML-ready than young players who have already proven themselves to some degree for 1-2 years.

[Goldfan]

Now replace "beat the FA market" with.............."beat the prospect market"

&

Replace "their narrative to believe you can systematically and consistently beat 29 other teams when it comes to valuing FAs"

with "your narrative to believe you can systematically and consistently beat 29 other teams when it comes to valuing prospects"

It is MUCH more possible to "beat the prospect market."

Because there is much more uncertainty with projecting prospects, there is much more value to be gained by being smarter in evaluating them. You can leverage being smarter to gain more of an advantage with prospects than established players.

Uncertainty is exactly the playing field where being smart operates.

Seeing the prospect that can be a 2.5 WAR player for you for six years of team control vs. other teams seeing them as a future 1 WAR player is a much bigger win than seeing the FA who can be a 2.5 WAR player for you vs. other teams seeing them as a 2 WAR player (because you are going to at least have to bid on them like they are a 2 WAR player like everybody else).

Because with advanced analytics all teams are now much more informed than ever before about evaluating established ML players with years of ML performance history, there is much less uncertainty with them in which to leverage being smart.

NO IT'S NOT!

80+% of prospects become nothing but SUSPECTS never seeing an inning in MLB.

With free agents you are acquiring a PROVEN major league player with a PROVEN major league track record.

That is nowhere near an equivalence.

Again I'm going to turn your opinion right back on you:

Because with advanced analytics all teams are now much more informed than ever before about evaluating PROSPECTS!

I could keep trying to explain why having more uncertainty magnifies the value of being smarter, but you're not going to get it. So Im going to stop now.

There's nothing for me to get, your "explanations" are nothing more than faulty opinions and there's certainly nothing you could ever teach me.

Oh, I think we know that is FAR from true.

Youre..........

de·lu·sion·al

adjective

characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.......

If you think your baseball knowledge is superior to mine.

See:

viewtopic.php?p=13190317#p13190317

I love these type of moon shots!

Just the type of moves I've been saying for a long time C. Bloom would make that Mo wouldn't be sharper enough to find.

Then you should understand the point I've been making - systematically getting many more of those low cost/high payoff decisions right - the ones with high uncertainty - is where "being smarter" than everyone else pays off the most, not in picking and choosing established ML players to sign - decisions with much lower uncertainty.

See - maybe you can learn something.

Matt, it's not that I don't understand your opinion.......just that I think it's to narrow and doesn't take into account (as I've said multiple times) that C. Bloom is perfectly capable (unlike Mo) of WALKING (doing as you suggest, building the minor league system) & CHEWING GUM (as I suggest, still adding young/inexpensive major league talent with years of control thru trades & free agency that can help the 2026 team).

And please, enough of the "learn" (bleep) as you're choosing to ignore my over fifty years of baseball knowledge that includes sixteen years of playing thru college which makes you look both arrogant and foolish.

As I've said multiple times, yes, they will have to use all available avenues to add talent - eventually.

What I've said is:

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.

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.

And if you get a young player with years of team control back, yes, you are populating the distribution that I've said needs to exist:

- 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, I've still covered everything you said.

But, in terms of volume, you'll likely be able to get more in prospects who are just ML-ready than young players who have already proven themselves to some degree for 1-2 years.

And what if Bloom prospects are more like Walker, Carlson, TO, Bader, Gorman, Pages,……then you entire ARB pyramid crumbles and you’re extending out another 3-5 yr……might as well lock the doors at Busch

[CCard]

This has been buried in other threads, but I'll give it its own airtime.

Here's is my checklist of when you'll know the Cardinals have amassed a critical mass of young talent (pre-ARB year and ARB year players) to be ready to think about adding by aggressively, but selectively, adding expensive talent from outside the organization to be able to compete with the Dodgers, etc. again.

1. a ~4 fWAR position player (i.e., borderline A-S) - M. Winn
2. a ~4 fWAR position player - ?
3. a ~3.5 to 4 fWAR starting pitcher (i.e., front of rotation SP) - ?

4. a 2+ fWAR position player (i.e., solid, league average player) - I. Herrera
5. a 2+ fWAR position player - A. Burleson
6. a 2+ fWAR position player - B. Donovan (unless traded)
7. a 2+ fWAR position player - ? (if V. Scott improves, he might slide into this spot)
8. a 2+ fWAR position player - ?
9. a 2+ fWAR SP (#4/#3 SP) - ? (if M. Liberatore improves, he will probably slide into this spot)
10. a 2+ fWAR SP - ?

11. a ML average bench player - ? (if T. Saggese improves he will probably slide into this spot)
12. a ML average bench player - ? (you could say P. Pages fills this)
13. a ML average bench player - ?
14. a ML average middle reliever - R. O'Brien if he builds on last year
15. a ML average middle reliever - G. Graceffo if he builds on last year (was better than his ERA)
16. a ML average middle reliever - M. Svanson
17. a ML average middle reliever - J. Romero (unless traded)
18. a ML average middle reliever - ? (maybe Pallante could move into this slot if he goes to the bullpen)

The most immediate hopes over the next couple of years would be:

JJ Wetherholt develops and fills slot (2.)
L. Doyle develops and fills slot (3.)
V. Scott improves and locks down slot (7.)
N. Gorman and/or J. Walker (or Nootbaar) turn it around and fill slot (8.) [and maybe they need to fill slot (6.) if Donovan is traded]
M. McGreevy develops and fills slot (10.)
and finding two or three more average bench players or middle relievers

So their timeline for when this "rebuild" will have been successful is likely determined by when Wetherholt and Doyle can make it to the majors and be those young, borderline A-S players needed at the top of this list.

But this is kind of the minimum that needs to happen for them to potentially assemble a roster 90, 92, 94 win talent that could really challenge the big market teams.

That sure is a lot of "Ifs" in your checklist. LOL Tell us, how many years must we suffer until this "critical mass" happens? And if there's some bad luck with injuries and poor play, how many more years must we wait? LOL

As I already noted:

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.

The priority is to add more prospects so you achieve that critical mass even if/when some fail.

Just for a second, imagine you're the other teams GM. What would you be willing to give for any of those players? Considering the money owed on their contracts, the Cards would have to pay heavily to get any return like you're talking about, so why not just use the premium player then? Also, you're talking about basically lotter tickets. Unproven minor league players with possibilities. The Cards are already covered up with those types of players. What they need is proven talent. A sure top end starter. A proven rbi bat, probably in left field. At least one or two shutdown relievers. This team could be a contender that easily. Instead, they want to lose for years in the hopes of fielding some cheap superstar team that will be broken up a few years in anyway.

Yes the Cardinals will have to send substantial money with Gray, Arenado, etc. to get high floor/lower ceiling AA and AAA prospects that project to be solid 2+ fWAR players.

Donovan has considerably more (I think BTV puts him at a +32) trade value. You trade him and a Romero, etc. if need be to get a higher ceiling AA or AAA prospect from a contender wanting to go all in to win now.

And getting Valdez, Bellinger, etc. has already been thrown out and analyzed and it only gets them, in a mostly best case scenario, to high 80s in wins. Not enough talent to compete with LA, PHI, NYM, etc.

People just want to assert that they can just pick up a couple of expensive players and presto instant contender. They've been trying that for at least 5 or 6 years and it keeps not working. And you say what if they have bad luck with prospect injuries - you are just as liable to have bad luck with injuries to older expensive veterans.

Probably even more likely to have injuries with older players but the goal isn't to be some mythical juggernaut because that's always going to be the Dodgers or Yankees until some form of financial equalization is instituted. No, the goal is to win the division and failing that at least get into the dance. Once there you have a punchers chance. When a homerun or an error can decide a series. If somehow you did manage to build the mythical beast then you're on the clock to do it all over again in a few short years at most. Also you have to figure in arbitration. Cheap players get more espensive quickly. I don't see the game plan to get maybe a couple of good years in a decade and then lose the rest of them. That doesn't work for me and I don't think it will work for the fans as a whole.

[mattmitchl44]

And what if Bloom prospects are more like Walker, Carlson, TO, Bader, Gorman, Pages,……then you entire ARB pyramid crumbles and you’re extending out another 3-5 yr……might as well lock the doors at Busch

You can just as easily ask - what if he signs several expensive veterans to long term contracts who turn out to be Dexter Fowlers?

Any plan, implemented poorly, will fail.

But - if you plan for success - first being successful add adding young talent and then being successful at adding FA talent still in their prime to that foundation gives the greatest peak chance of being successful.

[mattmitchl44]

This has been buried in other threads, but I'll give it its own airtime.

Here's is my checklist of when you'll know the Cardinals have amassed a critical mass of young talent (pre-ARB year and ARB year players) to be ready to think about adding by aggressively, but selectively, adding expensive talent from outside the organization to be able to compete with the Dodgers, etc. again.

1. a ~4 fWAR position player (i.e., borderline A-S) - M. Winn
2. a ~4 fWAR position player - ?
3. a ~3.5 to 4 fWAR starting pitcher (i.e., front of rotation SP) - ?

4. a 2+ fWAR position player (i.e., solid, league average player) - I. Herrera
5. a 2+ fWAR position player - A. Burleson
6. a 2+ fWAR position player - B. Donovan (unless traded)
7. a 2+ fWAR position player - ? (if V. Scott improves, he might slide into this spot)
8. a 2+ fWAR position player - ?
9. a 2+ fWAR SP (#4/#3 SP) - ? (if M. Liberatore improves, he will probably slide into this spot)
10. a 2+ fWAR SP - ?

11. a ML average bench player - ? (if T. Saggese improves he will probably slide into this spot)
12. a ML average bench player - ? (you could say P. Pages fills this)
13. a ML average bench player - ?
14. a ML average middle reliever - R. O'Brien if he builds on last year
15. a ML average middle reliever - G. Graceffo if he builds on last year (was better than his ERA)
16. a ML average middle reliever - M. Svanson
17. a ML average middle reliever - J. Romero (unless traded)
18. a ML average middle reliever - ? (maybe Pallante could move into this slot if he goes to the bullpen)

The most immediate hopes over the next couple of years would be:

JJ Wetherholt develops and fills slot (2.)
L. Doyle develops and fills slot (3.)
V. Scott improves and locks down slot (7.)
N. Gorman and/or J. Walker (or Nootbaar) turn it around and fill slot (8.) [and maybe they need to fill slot (6.) if Donovan is traded]
M. McGreevy develops and fills slot (10.)
and finding two or three more average bench players or middle relievers

So their timeline for when this "rebuild" will have been successful is likely determined by when Wetherholt and Doyle can make it to the majors and be those young, borderline A-S players needed at the top of this list.

But this is kind of the minimum that needs to happen for them to potentially assemble a roster 90, 92, 94 win talent that could really challenge the big market teams.

That sure is a lot of "Ifs" in your checklist. LOL Tell us, how many years must we suffer until this "critical mass" happens? And if there's some bad luck with injuries and poor play, how many more years must we wait? LOL

As I already noted:

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.

The priority is to add more prospects so you achieve that critical mass even if/when some fail.

Just for a second, imagine you're the other teams GM. What would you be willing to give for any of those players? Considering the money owed on their contracts, the Cards would have to pay heavily to get any return like you're talking about, so why not just use the premium player then? Also, you're talking about basically lotter tickets. Unproven minor league players with possibilities. The Cards are already covered up with those types of players. What they need is proven talent. A sure top end starter. A proven rbi bat, probably in left field. At least one or two shutdown relievers. This team could be a contender that easily. Instead, they want to lose for years in the hopes of fielding some cheap superstar team that will be broken up a few years in anyway.

Yes the Cardinals will have to send substantial money with Gray, Arenado, etc. to get high floor/lower ceiling AA and AAA prospects that project to be solid 2+ fWAR players.

Donovan has considerably more (I think BTV puts him at a +32) trade value. You trade him and a Romero, etc. if need be to get a higher ceiling AA or AAA prospect from a contender wanting to go all in to win now.

And getting Valdez, Bellinger, etc. has already been thrown out and analyzed and it only gets them, in a mostly best case scenario, to high 80s in wins. Not enough talent to compete with LA, PHI, NYM, etc.

People just want to assert that they can just pick up a couple of expensive players and presto instant contender. They've been trying that for at least 5 or 6 years and it keeps not working. And you say what if they have bad luck with prospect injuries - you are just as liable to have bad luck with injuries to older expensive veterans.

Probably even more likely to have injuries with older players but the goal isn't to be some mythical juggernaut because that's always going to be the Dodgers or Yankees until some form of financial equalization is instituted. No, the goal is to win the division and failing that at least get into the dance. Once there you have a punchers chance. When a homerun or an error can decide a series. If somehow you did manage to build the mythical beast then you're on the clock to do it all over again in a few short years at most. Also you have to figure in arbitration. Cheap players get more espensive quickly. I don't see the game plan to get maybe a couple of good years in a decade and then lose the rest of them. That doesn't work for me and I don't think it will work for the fans as a whole.

That's not my goal, and I believe the Cardinals mgmt. is trying to get away from it as theirs.

[CCard]

This has been buried in other threads, but I'll give it its own airtime.

Here's is my checklist of when you'll know the Cardinals have amassed a critical mass of young talent (pre-ARB year and ARB year players) to be ready to think about adding by aggressively, but selectively, adding expensive talent from outside the organization to be able to compete with the Dodgers, etc. again.

1. a ~4 fWAR position player (i.e., borderline A-S) - M. Winn
2. a ~4 fWAR position player - ?
3. a ~3.5 to 4 fWAR starting pitcher (i.e., front of rotation SP) - ?

4. a 2+ fWAR position player (i.e., solid, league average player) - I. Herrera
5. a 2+ fWAR position player - A. Burleson
6. a 2+ fWAR position player - B. Donovan (unless traded)
7. a 2+ fWAR position player - ? (if V. Scott improves, he might slide into this spot)
8. a 2+ fWAR position player - ?
9. a 2+ fWAR SP (#4/#3 SP) - ? (if M. Liberatore improves, he will probably slide into this spot)
10. a 2+ fWAR SP - ?

11. a ML average bench player - ? (if T. Saggese improves he will probably slide into this spot)
12. a ML average bench player - ? (you could say P. Pages fills this)
13. a ML average bench player - ?
14. a ML average middle reliever - R. O'Brien if he builds on last year
15. a ML average middle reliever - G. Graceffo if he builds on last year (was better than his ERA)
16. a ML average middle reliever - M. Svanson
17. a ML average middle reliever - J. Romero (unless traded)
18. a ML average middle reliever - ? (maybe Pallante could move into this slot if he goes to the bullpen)

The most immediate hopes over the next couple of years would be:

JJ Wetherholt develops and fills slot (2.)
L. Doyle develops and fills slot (3.)
V. Scott improves and locks down slot (7.)
N. Gorman and/or J. Walker (or Nootbaar) turn it around and fill slot (8.) [and maybe they need to fill slot (6.) if Donovan is traded]
M. McGreevy develops and fills slot (10.)
and finding two or three more average bench players or middle relievers

So their timeline for when this "rebuild" will have been successful is likely determined by when Wetherholt and Doyle can make it to the majors and be those young, borderline A-S players needed at the top of this list.

But this is kind of the minimum that needs to happen for them to potentially assemble a roster 90, 92, 94 win talent that could really challenge the big market teams.

That sure is a lot of "Ifs" in your checklist. LOL Tell us, how many years must we suffer until this "critical mass" happens? And if there's some bad luck with injuries and poor play, how many more years must we wait? LOL

As I already noted:

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.

The priority is to add more prospects so you achieve that critical mass even if/when some fail.

Just for a second, imagine you're the other teams GM. What would you be willing to give for any of those players? Considering the money owed on their contracts, the Cards would have to pay heavily to get any return like you're talking about, so why not just use the premium player then? Also, you're talking about basically lotter tickets. Unproven minor league players with possibilities. The Cards are already covered up with those types of players. What they need is proven talent. A sure top end starter. A proven rbi bat, probably in left field. At least one or two shutdown relievers. This team could be a contender that easily. Instead, they want to lose for years in the hopes of fielding some cheap superstar team that will be broken up a few years in anyway.

Yes the Cardinals will have to send substantial money with Gray, Arenado, etc. to get high floor/lower ceiling AA and AAA prospects that project to be solid 2+ fWAR players.

Donovan has considerably more (I think BTV puts him at a +32) trade value. You trade him and a Romero, etc. if need be to get a higher ceiling AA or AAA prospect from a contender wanting to go all in to win now.

And getting Valdez, Bellinger, etc. has already been thrown out and analyzed and it only gets them, in a mostly best case scenario, to high 80s in wins. Not enough talent to compete with LA, PHI, NYM, etc.

People just want to assert that they can just pick up a couple of expensive players and presto instant contender. They've been trying that for at least 5 or 6 years and it keeps not working. And you say what if they have bad luck with prospect injuries - you are just as liable to have bad luck with injuries to older expensive veterans.

Probably even more likely to have injuries with older players but the goal isn't to be some mythical juggernaut because that's always going to be the Dodgers or Yankees until some form of financial equalization is instituted. No, the goal is to win the division and failing that at least get into the dance. Once there you have a punchers chance. When a homerun or an error can decide a series. If somehow you did manage to build the mythical beast then you're on the clock to do it all over again in a few short years at most. Also you have to figure in arbitration. Cheap players get more espensive quickly. I don't see the game plan to get maybe a couple of good years in a decade and then lose the rest of them. That doesn't work for me and I don't think it will work for the fans as a whole.

That's not my goal, and I believe the Cardinals mgmt. is trying to get away from it as theirs.

Then what is your goal? To trade what talent we have for prospects and cut salary to the bone? Cause it sure seems like that's what you're promoting. Hopes of building some juggernaut through the draft may come to fruition but more than likely it won't. They may manage to stockpile some young cheap talent but it won't be cheap for long. Soon as arbitration kicks in they'll want to trade them also. It's a perpetual grinder of a couple of good years surrounding by a bunch of down years. Wouldn't it be better to keep the talent coming but in the meantime sign free agent talent and try to make the playoffs. You get a chance at a ring plus you give fans hope and something nice to watch at the same time.

[zuck698]

And what if Bloom prospects are more like Walker, Carlson, TO, Bader, Gorman, Pages,……then you entire ARB pyramid crumbles and you’re extending out another 3-5 yr……might as well lock the doors at Busch

You can just as easily ask - what if he signs several expensive veterans to long term contracts who turn out to be Dexter Fowlers?

Any plan, implemented poorly, will fail.

But - if you plan for success - first being successful add adding young talent and then being successful at adding FA talent still in their prime to that foundation gives the greatest peak chance of being successful.

Matt, as I have said numerous times on several threads, is that I don't think anyone here is really disagreeing with your strategy at all on rebuilding thru the cheaper prospect based direction. Where a good deal of us disagree, is that Daddy Bill can spend a little of his dry powder at the same time as rebuilding the farm system. Why not be a competitve baseball team while the youth percolate down on the farm. You seem to be channeled on one aspect as the main way to eventually build success, and a good many of us feel that you don't have to be so rigid with only going one direction. Some of us enjoy good competive baseball and would like to have our eggs in several baskets, not just the prospect basket. Sometimes I feel you are on Bill's payroll. I mean you seem to be trying to save him as much money as possible! I say spend some of it on a decent team while we grow the youth. He has it! All his crying poor in the world does not change the fact that he could spend 180-200 on a payroll and never have to stand in the soup line. We really can do both and I think that is the major disconnect in philosophies between your narrow width approach, and many of our broader strokes approach thru trades and free agency. I have no doubt your plan will be the one eventually implemented. I do not have any faith in current ownership as far as opening the purse strings past the implementation of the prospect model, for the forseeable future. I also appreciate the civilness of the discussion.

[mattmitchl44]

This has been buried in other threads, but I'll give it its own airtime.

Here's is my checklist of when you'll know the Cardinals have amassed a critical mass of young talent (pre-ARB year and ARB year players) to be ready to think about adding by aggressively, but selectively, adding expensive talent from outside the organization to be able to compete with the Dodgers, etc. again.

1. a ~4 fWAR position player (i.e., borderline A-S) - M. Winn
2. a ~4 fWAR position player - ?
3. a ~3.5 to 4 fWAR starting pitcher (i.e., front of rotation SP) - ?

4. a 2+ fWAR position player (i.e., solid, league average player) - I. Herrera
5. a 2+ fWAR position player - A. Burleson
6. a 2+ fWAR position player - B. Donovan (unless traded)
7. a 2+ fWAR position player - ? (if V. Scott improves, he might slide into this spot)
8. a 2+ fWAR position player - ?
9. a 2+ fWAR SP (#4/#3 SP) - ? (if M. Liberatore improves, he will probably slide into this spot)
10. a 2+ fWAR SP - ?

11. a ML average bench player - ? (if T. Saggese improves he will probably slide into this spot)
12. a ML average bench player - ? (you could say P. Pages fills this)
13. a ML average bench player - ?
14. a ML average middle reliever - R. O'Brien if he builds on last year
15. a ML average middle reliever - G. Graceffo if he builds on last year (was better than his ERA)
16. a ML average middle reliever - M. Svanson
17. a ML average middle reliever - J. Romero (unless traded)
18. a ML average middle reliever - ? (maybe Pallante could move into this slot if he goes to the bullpen)

The most immediate hopes over the next couple of years would be:

JJ Wetherholt develops and fills slot (2.)
L. Doyle develops and fills slot (3.)
V. Scott improves and locks down slot (7.)
N. Gorman and/or J. Walker (or Nootbaar) turn it around and fill slot (8.) [and maybe they need to fill slot (6.) if Donovan is traded]
M. McGreevy develops and fills slot (10.)
and finding two or three more average bench players or middle relievers

So their timeline for when this "rebuild" will have been successful is likely determined by when Wetherholt and Doyle can make it to the majors and be those young, borderline A-S players needed at the top of this list.

But this is kind of the minimum that needs to happen for them to potentially assemble a roster 90, 92, 94 win talent that could really challenge the big market teams.

That sure is a lot of "Ifs" in your checklist. LOL Tell us, how many years must we suffer until this "critical mass" happens? And if there's some bad luck with injuries and poor play, how many more years must we wait? LOL

As I already noted:

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.

The priority is to add more prospects so you achieve that critical mass even if/when some fail.

Just for a second, imagine you're the other teams GM. What would you be willing to give for any of those players? Considering the money owed on their contracts, the Cards would have to pay heavily to get any return like you're talking about, so why not just use the premium player then? Also, you're talking about basically lotter tickets. Unproven minor league players with possibilities. The Cards are already covered up with those types of players. What they need is proven talent. A sure top end starter. A proven rbi bat, probably in left field. At least one or two shutdown relievers. This team could be a contender that easily. Instead, they want to lose for years in the hopes of fielding some cheap superstar team that will be broken up a few years in anyway.

Yes the Cardinals will have to send substantial money with Gray, Arenado, etc. to get high floor/lower ceiling AA and AAA prospects that project to be solid 2+ fWAR players.

Donovan has considerably more (I think BTV puts him at a +32) trade value. You trade him and a Romero, etc. if need be to get a higher ceiling AA or AAA prospect from a contender wanting to go all in to win now.

And getting Valdez, Bellinger, etc. has already been thrown out and analyzed and it only gets them, in a mostly best case scenario, to high 80s in wins. Not enough talent to compete with LA, PHI, NYM, etc.

People just want to assert that they can just pick up a couple of expensive players and presto instant contender. They've been trying that for at least 5 or 6 years and it keeps not working. And you say what if they have bad luck with prospect injuries - you are just as liable to have bad luck with injuries to older expensive veterans.

Probably even more likely to have injuries with older players but the goal isn't to be some mythical juggernaut because that's always going to be the Dodgers or Yankees until some form of financial equalization is instituted. No, the goal is to win the division and failing that at least get into the dance. Once there you have a punchers chance. When a homerun or an error can decide a series. If somehow you did manage to build the mythical beast then you're on the clock to do it all over again in a few short years at most. Also you have to figure in arbitration. Cheap players get more espensive quickly. I don't see the game plan to get maybe a couple of good years in a decade and then lose the rest of them. That doesn't work for me and I don't think it will work for the fans as a whole.

That's not my goal, and I believe the Cardinals mgmt. is trying to get away from it as theirs.

Then what is your goal? To trade what talent we have for prospects and cut salary to the bone? Cause it sure seems like that's what you're promoting. Hopes of building some juggernaut through the draft may come to fruition but more than likely it won't. They may manage to stockpile some young cheap talent but it won't be cheap for long. Soon as arbitration kicks in they'll want to trade them also. It's a perpetual grinder of a couple of good years surrounding by a bunch of down years. Wouldn't it be better to keep the talent coming but in the meantime sign free agent talent and try to make the playoffs. You get a chance at a ring plus you give fans hope and something nice to watch at the same time.

My goal would be:

- (1) For the Cardinals organization to rebuild its player development system to be a Top 5 in the majors at delivering talent to the ML team on a perpetual basis (so that you constantly replenish the roster even when you have to let some players go when they reach FA)
- (2) For the Cardinals to recognize that they have to hold on to more of that young talent and matriculate it to the ML roster in St. Louis than ever before (and that means hold on to more depth in prospects and trading fewer to ensure this happens)
- (3) With the above, for the Cardinals to be able to have roughly 25-30 fWAR of talent on their roster - every year - that comes from cost controlled, pre-FA eligible players
- (4) Once capable of, and doing, that - then use the balance of their ML payroll space to selectively and smartly add more expensive piece from outside the organization to make the St. Louis roster one of the Top 3 in talent in the NL on a consistent basis.

The Cardinals do not have (1) yet. They are making progress toward it, but they haven't started to fully realize the impact at the ML level yet. And to accelerate this rebuilding, they have to trade present assets - Gray, Arenado, Donovan, likely Contraras - to obtain more ML-ready or near ML-ready prospects.

The Cardinals ML roster certainly isn't at the talent level of (3) yet. They were no more than maybe about 17-18 fWAR in such talent last year, which aligns with me noting that they are at least a couple of 4 fWAR players (hopefully Wetherholt and Doyle in 2-3 years) away from reaching that level. The more ML-ready or near ML-ready prospects they obtain now from trading Gray, Arenado, Donovan, likely Contraras the more chance they give themselves to get to that 25-30 fWAR talent level from cost controlled, pre-FA eligible players sooner.

When they get to (4) and can do then, then they can selectively and smartly add veterans to that foundation and get to a talent level where they can be a 92, 93, 94 win team again - and that kind of talent level gives them a much better chance of running the gauntlet of the Dodgers, Phillies, Mets, Braves, Padres, Yankees, Astros, etc. to another WS title.

[mattmitchl44]

And what if Bloom prospects are more like Walker, Carlson, TO, Bader, Gorman, Pages,……then you entire ARB pyramid crumbles and you’re extending out another 3-5 yr……might as well lock the doors at Busch

You can just as easily ask - what if he signs several expensive veterans to long term contracts who turn out to be Dexter Fowlers?

Any plan, implemented poorly, will fail.

But - if you plan for success - first being successful add adding young talent and then being successful at adding FA talent still in their prime to that foundation gives the greatest peak chance of being successful.

Matt, as I have said numerous times on several threads, is that I don't think anyone here is really disagreeing with your strategy at all on rebuilding thru the cheaper prospect based direction. Where a good deal of us disagree, is that Daddy Bill can spend a little of his dry powder at the same time as rebuilding the farm system. Why not be a competitve baseball team while the youth percolate down on the farm. You seem to be channeled on one aspect as the main way to eventually build success, and a good many of us feel that you don't have to be so rigid with only going one direction. Some of us enjoy good competive baseball and would like to have our eggs in several baskets, not just the prospect basket. Sometimes I feel you are on Bill's payroll. I mean you seem to be trying to save him as much money as possible! I say spend some of it on a decent team while we grow the youth. He has it! All his crying poor in the world does not change the fact that he could spend 180-200 on a payroll and never have to stand in the soup line. We really can do both and I think that is the major disconnect in philosophies between your narrow width approach, and many of our broader strokes approach thru trades and free agency. I have no doubt your plan will be the one eventually implemented. I do not have any faith in current ownership as far as opening the purse strings past the implementation of the prospect model, for the forseeable future. I also appreciate the civilness of the discussion.

Again, my definition of "competitive" isn't the same as yours. My definition of "competitive" isn't winning 80 to 89 games, maybe making it into the playoffs, and hoping for the best. If that's what you want, fine. But, IMO, that's what they've been doing for the better part of a decade and demonstrating that it doesn't work against the current "superteams" that they have to go against. I don't want to hear that building a "decent" team is the goal. Trying to do that now, IMO, is going down the same dead end that they've been going down for a decade and getting nowhere in the end.

I want to see them follow a strategy that gives them the opportunity to build really good teams, winning 92+ games a year on a regular basis (say 2 out of every 3 years) and being able to compete on a much more even footing with the "superteams" like the Dodgers in the postseason. But they don't have the young talent to be at that level yet, and it is going to take time to rebuild the organization to where they can get to this level.

I have said over and over and over again - yes, they can and like will spend a little now to get some lower level veteran players on 1 or 2 year contracts. But what I DON'T want to see them do right now is commit to more Nolan Arenados, Paul Goldschmidts, etc. 5, 6, 7 year contracts when whoever they sign now could be in significant decline in another 3 years and they would be wishing they were not handcuffed to them because they are preventing them from adding the talent they really need to get to being that 92+ win team.

Making big commitments now in order to get to your $180 million in payroll - when they aren't ready to be a really good team - may/will limit their options in the future. I don't want to them to tie their hands for 2028, 2029, 2030 just to try to field a "decent" team now.