Rebuilding Checklist

[CCard]

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.

Well, we'll just agree to disagree. If the plan you're pushing worked then Tampa, Miami, Cincy, Pittsburgh would have at least one powerhouse amongst them. For every one "superteam" you talk about that managed to do it the way you profess I can show you a handful that don't and wind up being perpetual losers and basically farm clubs for the rich teams. As I've stated over and over, you can't gather that kind of talent unless you lose for years and years. Even if you did stockpile that talent they most likely wouldn't all be ready in that time frame. They would instead be a year, two, three apart. I must remind you, those players will have to be paid. Then you're in the same position again. Also, you are never going to acquire the top talent that the Yankees and Dodgers can. Until baseball addresses the disparity, you'll always be the underdog. Good news though. Underdogs do win occasionally. Give me the playoffs every year and a punchers chance as opposed to constant losing while trying to stockpile premium talent in the draft. We have a fundamental difference of opinion and we're never going to see eye to eye.

[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.

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.

Well, we'll just agree to disagree. If the plan you're pushing worked then Tampa, Miami, Cincy, Pittsburgh would have at least one powerhouse amongst them. For every one "superteam" you talk about that managed to do it the way you profess I can show you a handful that don't and wind up being perpetual losers and basically farm clubs for the rich teams. As I've stated over and over, you can't gather that kind of talent unless you lose for years and years. Even if you did stockpile that talent they most likely wouldn't all be ready in that time frame. They would instead be a year, two, three apart. I must remind you, those players will have to be paid. Then you're in the same position again. Also, you are never going to acquire the top talent that the Yankees and Dodgers can. Until baseball addresses the disparity, you'll always be the underdog. Good news though. Underdogs do win occasionally. Give me the playoffs every year and a punchers chance as opposed to constant losing while trying to stockpile premium talent in the draft. We have a fundamental difference of opinion and we're never going to see eye to eye.

CCard great post! Where are all those juggernauts at? It's like the Buffalo Sabres or the Detroit Red Wings in hockey. Tanked for years to get top draft picks, 10 years later, still drafting top draft picks with no Cup in sight!

[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.

Well, we'll just agree to disagree. If the plan you're pushing worked then Tampa, Miami, Cincy, Pittsburgh would have at least one powerhouse amongst them. For every one "superteam" you talk about that managed to do it the way you profess I can show you a handful that don't and wind up being perpetual losers and basically farm clubs for the rich teams. As I've stated over and over, you can't gather that kind of talent unless you lose for years and years. Even if you did stockpile that talent they most likely wouldn't all be ready in that time frame. They would instead be a year, two, three apart. I must remind you, those players will have to be paid. Then you're in the same position again. Also, you are never going to acquire the top talent that the Yankees and Dodgers can. Until baseball addresses the disparity, you'll always be the underdog. Good news though. Underdogs do win occasionally. Give me the playoffs every year and a punchers chance as opposed to constant losing while trying to stockpile premium talent in the draft. We have a fundamental difference of opinion and we're never going to see eye to eye.

Tampa and Pittsburgh haver never had a payroll in excess of $100 million.
Miami has only had payroll over $102 million once.
Cincinnati topped out one year at $122 million.
Cleveland has only had payroll in excess of $100 million twice.
Milwaukee had a payroll of $131 million one year, and $122 million another, but otherwise less than that.

Do you think that that just MAY have something to do with why those teams cannot "get over the hump" even with great prospect development (in some cases)?

Combine dedication to prospect development with a future $170, $180 million payroll and see where that gets you.

[rockondlouie]

Combine dedication to prospect development with a future $170, $180 million payroll and see where that gets you.

Riddle me this matt.....

How are you going to get BDWJr back to that $180M by losing for the next two-three-four years which will equal attendance at or under 2M KNOWING that BDWJr has ALWAYS stated that ATTENDANCE DETERMINES PAYROLL?

2M or less = under $130M payroll.

You really see him adding $50+M the season after drawing 2M?

Not me when the man has told us for decades ATTENDANCE DETERMINES PAYROLL.

This is why you need to field a competitive team, within reason and while not losing site of the LT goal, while re-building.

[mattmitchl44]

Combine dedication to prospect development with a future $170, $180 million payroll and see where that gets you.

Riddle me this matt.....

How are you going to get BDWJr back to that $180M by losing for the next two-three-four years which will equal attendance at or under 2M KNOWING that BDWJr has ALWAYS stated that ATTENDANCE DETERMINES PAYROLL?

2M or less = under $130M payroll.

You really see him adding $50+M the season after drawing 2M?

Not me when the man has told us for decades ATTENDANCE DETERMINES PAYROLL.

This is why you need to field a competitive team, within reason and while not losing site of the LT goal, while re-building.

I've said over and over again - ownership needs to be prepared to "advance spend" by one offseason when the team is ready to come out of this rebuilding phase.

Whatever money has been "saved" during the rebuild should be put towards bringing in the necessary players once the foundation of young players is in place, but maybe one offseason before attendance jumps back up to 2.5M, 3M, etc.

[zuck698]

Combine dedication to prospect development with a future $170, $180 million payroll and see where that gets you.

Riddle me this matt.....

How are you going to get BDWJr back to that $180M by losing for the next two-three-four years which will equal attendance at or under 2M KNOWING that BDWJr has ALWAYS stated that ATTENDANCE DETERMINES PAYROLL?

2M or less = under $130M payroll.

You really see him adding $50+M the season after drawing 2M?

Not me when the man has told us for decades ATTENDANCE DETERMINES PAYROLL.

This is why you need to field a competitive team, within reason and while not losing site of the LT goal, while re-building.

I've said over and over again - ownership needs to be prepared to "advance spend" by one offseason when the team is ready to come out of this rebuilding phase.

Whatever money has been "saved" during the rebuild should be put towards bringing in the necessary players once the foundation of young players is in place, but maybe one offseason before attendance jumps back up to 2.5M, 3M, etc.

Save your breath Rock! Apparently there is only one way and it's Matt's way. I will not comment anymore.

[mattmitchl44]

Combine dedication to prospect development with a future $170, $180 million payroll and see where that gets you.

Riddle me this matt.....

How are you going to get BDWJr back to that $180M by losing for the next two-three-four years which will equal attendance at or under 2M KNOWING that BDWJr has ALWAYS stated that ATTENDANCE DETERMINES PAYROLL?

2M or less = under $130M payroll.

You really see him adding $50+M the season after drawing 2M?

Not me when the man has told us for decades ATTENDANCE DETERMINES PAYROLL.

This is why you need to field a competitive team, within reason and while not losing site of the LT goal, while re-building.

I've said over and over again - ownership needs to be prepared to "advance spend" by one offseason when the team is ready to come out of this rebuilding phase.

Whatever money has been "saved" during the rebuild should be put towards bringing in the necessary players once the foundation of young players is in place, but maybe one offseason before attendance jumps back up to 2.5M, 3M, etc.

Save your breath Rock! Apparently there is only one way and it's Matt's way. I will not comment anymore.

You don't want them to have a Top 5 player development system and spend to a $170, $180 million payroll?

[zuck698]

Combine dedication to prospect development with a future $170, $180 million payroll and see where that gets you.

Riddle me this matt.....

How are you going to get BDWJr back to that $180M by losing for the next two-three-four years which will equal attendance at or under 2M KNOWING that BDWJr has ALWAYS stated that ATTENDANCE DETERMINES PAYROLL?

2M or less = under $130M payroll.

You really see him adding $50+M the season after drawing 2M?

Not me when the man has told us for decades ATTENDANCE DETERMINES PAYROLL.

This is why you need to field a competitive team, within reason and while not losing site of the LT goal, while re-building.

I've said over and over again - ownership needs to be prepared to "advance spend" by one offseason when the team is ready to come out of this rebuilding phase.

Whatever money has been "saved" during the rebuild should be put towards bringing in the necessary players once the foundation of young players is in place, but maybe one offseason before attendance jumps back up to 2.5M, 3M, etc.

Save your breath Rock! Apparently there is only one way and it's Matt's way. I will not comment anymore.

You don't want them to have a Top 5 player development system and spend to a $170, $180 million payroll?

Is that even a serious question? Of course, who doesn't! I just don't want to "shirt" baseball for the next 5 years while your plan develops. And then there is this little issue with your plan. What happens if your plan is not successful? 5 more years of rebuilding after that? And just what happens when you get this big beautiful plan completed, what guarantee do you have that Bill will spend the money when attendance has been down during this wonderful rebuild? Not sure you are a hockey fan Mitch, but sometime look up the Buffalo Sabres. They have been rebuilding for over a decade with super "suspect" after "suspect"! I went to every game that the Cards played in 06. We barely won more than we lost at 83-78. But you know what, the team was competive and at least was fun to watch. Plus, I wouldn't give up the experience of winning the trophy for all the prospects in the world!

[CCard]

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.

Well, we'll just agree to disagree. If the plan you're pushing worked then Tampa, Miami, Cincy, Pittsburgh would have at least one powerhouse amongst them. For every one "superteam" you talk about that managed to do it the way you profess I can show you a handful that don't and wind up being perpetual losers and basically farm clubs for the rich teams. As I've stated over and over, you can't gather that kind of talent unless you lose for years and years. Even if you did stockpile that talent they most likely wouldn't all be ready in that time frame. They would instead be a year, two, three apart. I must remind you, those players will have to be paid. Then you're in the same position again. Also, you are never going to acquire the top talent that the Yankees and Dodgers can. Until baseball addresses the disparity, you'll always be the underdog. Good news though. Underdogs do win occasionally. Give me the playoffs every year and a punchers chance as opposed to constant losing while trying to stockpile premium talent in the draft. We have a fundamental difference of opinion and we're never going to see eye to eye.

Tampa and Pittsburgh haver never had a payroll in excess of $100 million.
Miami has only had payroll over $102 million once.
Cincinnati topped out one year at $122 million.
Cleveland has only had payroll in excess of $100 million twice.
Milwaukee had a payroll of $131 million one year, and $122 million another, but otherwise less than that.

Do you think that that just MAY have something to do with why those teams cannot "get over the hump" even with great prospect development (in some cases)?

Combine dedication to prospect development with a future $170, $180 million payroll and see where that gets you.

We both want the Cards to succeed, we just have differing visions of how to do that. You want to bide time and build up a basket full of eggs before spending "some" money to finish off some great team. I want to use what we have, of course draft wisely as we can, supplement the team right now with the best possible acquirable talent and try to win along the way. One never knows when lightning might strike.

[CCard]

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.

Well, we'll just agree to disagree. If the plan you're pushing worked then Tampa, Miami, Cincy, Pittsburgh would have at least one powerhouse amongst them. For every one "superteam" you talk about that managed to do it the way you profess I can show you a handful that don't and wind up being perpetual losers and basically farm clubs for the rich teams. As I've stated over and over, you can't gather that kind of talent unless you lose for years and years. Even if you did stockpile that talent they most likely wouldn't all be ready in that time frame. They would instead be a year, two, three apart. I must remind you, those players will have to be paid. Then you're in the same position again. Also, you are never going to acquire the top talent that the Yankees and Dodgers can. Until baseball addresses the disparity, you'll always be the underdog. Good news though. Underdogs do win occasionally. Give me the playoffs every year and a punchers chance as opposed to constant losing while trying to stockpile premium talent in the draft. We have a fundamental difference of opinion and we're never going to see eye to eye.

CCard great post! Where are all those juggernauts at? It's like the Buffalo Sabres or the Detroit Red Wings in hockey. Tanked for years to get top draft picks, 10 years later, still drafting top draft picks with no Cup in sight!

Indeed. Drafting is a cornerstone to developing and winning but it's not the only cornerstone. Acquiring talent by any means necessary is the goal, in a push to win every single time you take the field. Give fans a reason to come to the stadium. They've shown that they'll support the effort to win. That's all most of us ask. Draft picks are a highly volatile resource. Just as likely to fail as to succeed. They should be used to supplement a team not build a team.

[juan good eye]

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.

Well, we'll just agree to disagree. If the plan you're pushing worked then Tampa, Miami, Cincy, Pittsburgh would have at least one powerhouse amongst them. For every one "superteam" you talk about that managed to do it the way you profess I can show you a handful that don't and wind up being perpetual losers and basically farm clubs for the rich teams. As I've stated over and over, you can't gather that kind of talent unless you lose for years and years. Even if you did stockpile that talent they most likely wouldn't all be ready in that time frame. They would instead be a year, two, three apart. I must remind you, those players will have to be paid. Then you're in the same position again. Also, you are never going to acquire the top talent that the Yankees and Dodgers can. Until baseball addresses the disparity, you'll always be the underdog. Good news though. Underdogs do win occasionally. Give me the playoffs every year and a punchers chance as opposed to constant losing while trying to stockpile premium talent in the draft. We have a fundamental difference of opinion and we're never going to see eye to eye.

CCard great post! Where are all those juggernauts at? It's like the Buffalo Sabres or the Detroit Red Wings in hockey. Tanked for years to get top draft picks, 10 years later, still drafting top draft picks with no Cup in sight!

My fat (donkey) neighbor and his big back wife can’t stick with a healthy diet or exercise program. He says after years of trying it’s too darn difficult. I guess that means I shouldn’t bother eating healthy and exercising either.

[mattmitchl44]

We both want the Cards to succeed, we just have differing visions of how to do that. You want to bide time and build up a basket full of eggs before spending "some" money to finish off some great team. I want to use what we have, of course draft wisely as we can, supplement the team right now with the best possible acquirable talent and try to win along the way. One never knows when lightning might strike.

To within this idea:

I have said over and over and over again - yes, they can and likely 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.

I agree with what you stated.

As long as the "best possible talent" they are signing this offseason does not require them to make 5, 6, 7, etc. year commitments, in particular to players over age 30 right now, then they can/will sign a few FAs to fill out the roster and try to win a few more games.

[rockondlouie]

Combine dedication to prospect development with a future $170, $180 million payroll and see where that gets you.

Riddle me this matt.....

How are you going to get BDWJr back to that $180M by losing for the next two-three-four years which will equal attendance at or under 2M KNOWING that BDWJr has ALWAYS stated that ATTENDANCE DETERMINES PAYROLL?

2M or less = under $130M payroll.

You really see him adding $50+M the season after drawing 2M?

Not me when the man has told us for decades ATTENDANCE DETERMINES PAYROLL.

This is why you need to field a competitive team, within reason and while not losing site of the LT goal, while re-building.

I've said over and over again - ownership needs to be prepared to "advance spend" by one offseason when the team is ready to come out of this rebuilding phase.

Whatever money has been "saved" during the rebuild should be put towards bringing in the necessary players once the foundation of young players is in place, but maybe one offseason before attendance jumps back up to 2.5M, 3M, etc.

You can "say" it all you want matt, you're not BDWJr.

And we all know what Dewitt has said since he bought the team, also echoed by Fredo (aka: BDWIII):

ATTENDANCE DETERMINES PAYROLL

Tank for three-four seasons (you even said if this crop of prospects fails, then tank until 2031/2032 ) like you've been calling for months for them to do and attendance will continue to plummet.

That cascading attendance will keep payroll (likely) well under $130M and Dewitt WILL NOT (unless he's had a Christmas Carol like visit) raise the payroll to $180M UNTIL he gets 3+M attending.

C. Bloom knows this, why he's said even though he won't take his eye off the LT goal he also won't concede any season, including 2026!

[mattmitchl44]

Combine dedication to prospect development with a future $170, $180 million payroll and see where that gets you.

Riddle me this matt.....

How are you going to get BDWJr back to that $180M by losing for the next two-three-four years which will equal attendance at or under 2M KNOWING that BDWJr has ALWAYS stated that ATTENDANCE DETERMINES PAYROLL?

2M or less = under $130M payroll.

You really see him adding $50+M the season after drawing 2M?

Not me when the man has told us for decades ATTENDANCE DETERMINES PAYROLL.

This is why you need to field a competitive team, within reason and while not losing site of the LT goal, while re-building.

I've said over and over again - ownership needs to be prepared to "advance spend" by one offseason when the team is ready to come out of this rebuilding phase.

Whatever money has been "saved" during the rebuild should be put towards bringing in the necessary players once the foundation of young players is in place, but maybe one offseason before attendance jumps back up to 2.5M, 3M, etc.

You can "say" it all you want matt, you're not BDWJr.

And we all know what Dewitt has said since he bought the team, also echoed by Fredo (aka: BDWIII):

ATTENDANCE DETERMINES PAYROLL

Tank for three-four seasons (you even said if this crop of prospects fails, then tank until 2031/2032 ) like you've been calling for months for them to do and attendance will continue to plummet.

That cascading attendance will keep payroll (likely) well under $130M and Dewitt WILL NOT (unless he's had a Christmas Carol like visit) raise the payroll to $180M UNTIL he gets 3+M attending.

C. Bloom knows this, why he's said even though he won't take his eye off the LT goal he also won't concede any season, including 2026!

I know what you have said because you say it every time.

Whatever has been said in the past belongs in the context of the past when the Cardinals payroll never systematically dropped by 40% or 50% for a few years. Now the organization appears to be taking off on an entirely different philosophy, and with that big change in philosophy your rigorous statement "attendance determines payroll" can - and should- become much less rigid.

You can continue to believe it is a rigid, unwavering truth. I do not.

You basically can't launch off on the direction they are obviously going and expect to be successful at the end of it unless you are willing to bend that principle in a few years. And I don't think they fail to understand that.

[rockondlouie]

Combine dedication to prospect development with a future $170, $180 million payroll and see where that gets you.

Riddle me this matt.....

How are you going to get BDWJr back to that $180M by losing for the next two-three-four years which will equal attendance at or under 2M KNOWING that BDWJr has ALWAYS stated that ATTENDANCE DETERMINES PAYROLL?

2M or less = under $130M payroll.

You really see him adding $50+M the season after drawing 2M?

Not me when the man has told us for decades ATTENDANCE DETERMINES PAYROLL.

This is why you need to field a competitive team, within reason and while not losing site of the LT goal, while re-building.

I've said over and over again - ownership needs to be prepared to "advance spend" by one offseason when the team is ready to come out of this rebuilding phase.

Whatever money has been "saved" during the rebuild should be put towards bringing in the necessary players once the foundation of young players is in place, but maybe one offseason before attendance jumps back up to 2.5M, 3M, etc.

You can "say" it all you want matt, you're not BDWJr.

And we all know what Dewitt has said since he bought the team, also echoed by Fredo (aka: BDWIII):

ATTENDANCE DETERMINES PAYROLL

Tank for three-four seasons (you even said if this crop of prospects fails, then tank until 2031/2032 ) like you've been calling for months for them to do and attendance will continue to plummet.

That cascading attendance will keep payroll (likely) well under $130M and Dewitt WILL NOT (unless he's had a Christmas Carol like visit) raise the payroll to $180M UNTIL he gets 3+M attending.

C. Bloom knows this, why he's said even though he won't take his eye off the LT goal he also won't concede any season, including 2026!

I know what you have said because you say it every time.

Whatever has been said in the past belongs in the context of the past when the Cardinals payroll never systematically dropped by 40% or 50% for a few years. Now the organization appears to be taking off on an entirely different philosophy, and with that big change in philosophy your rigorous statement "attendance determines payroll" can - and should- become much less rigid.

"rigorous" because it's doesn't fit your incorrect narrative.

And I'll continue to "repeat" it just like you repeat your same opinion that the team should tank for years in the dozens of threads/replies you start on this topic.

I say it because it's a FACT and will continue to correct you when you fail to point this out.

And what on earth makes you think a turning 85 year old man in 2026 (most get even more conservative as they age) is going to change his spots when it comes to payroll? Even Fredo (aka: BDWIII) has stated this on multiple occasions!

From A.I. when asked how attendance affects BDWJr's view on payroll:

Revenue drives payroll: .
DeWitt Jr. explicitly stated, "It's a revenue game. If you have more revenue, you have an opportunity to spend more money," implying a direct link between gate and television revenue and payroll capabilities

Attendance affects future payroll:
A decline in fan attendance negatively impacts the team's revenue, which in turn limits the potential for future payroll increases

Recent cuts and performance:
Recent reports indicate a significant reduction in payroll, which has coincided with a drop in attendance.

This suggests that the team's recent performance has contributed to lower attendance, which then feeds into a cycle where payroll is reduced

[mattmitchl44]

Combine dedication to prospect development with a future $170, $180 million payroll and see where that gets you.

Riddle me this matt.....

How are you going to get BDWJr back to that $180M by losing for the next two-three-four years which will equal attendance at or under 2M KNOWING that BDWJr has ALWAYS stated that ATTENDANCE DETERMINES PAYROLL?

2M or less = under $130M payroll.

You really see him adding $50+M the season after drawing 2M?

Not me when the man has told us for decades ATTENDANCE DETERMINES PAYROLL.

This is why you need to field a competitive team, within reason and while not losing site of the LT goal, while re-building.

I've said over and over again - ownership needs to be prepared to "advance spend" by one offseason when the team is ready to come out of this rebuilding phase.

Whatever money has been "saved" during the rebuild should be put towards bringing in the necessary players once the foundation of young players is in place, but maybe one offseason before attendance jumps back up to 2.5M, 3M, etc.

You can "say" it all you want matt, you're not BDWJr.

And we all know what Dewitt has said since he bought the team, also echoed by Fredo (aka: BDWIII):

ATTENDANCE DETERMINES PAYROLL

Tank for three-four seasons (you even said if this crop of prospects fails, then tank until 2031/2032 ) like you've been calling for months for them to do and attendance will continue to plummet.

That cascading attendance will keep payroll (likely) well under $130M and Dewitt WILL NOT (unless he's had a Christmas Carol like visit) raise the payroll to $180M UNTIL he gets 3+M attending.

C. Bloom knows this, why he's said even though he won't take his eye off the LT goal he also won't concede any season, including 2026!

I know what you have said because you say it every time.

Whatever has been said in the past belongs in the context of the past when the Cardinals payroll never systematically dropped by 40% or 50% for a few years. Now the organization appears to be taking off on an entirely different philosophy, and with that big change in philosophy your rigorous statement "attendance determines payroll" can - and should- become much less rigid.

"rigorous" because it's doesn't fit your incorrect narrative.

And I'll continue to "repeat" it just like you repeat your same opinion that the team should tank for years in the dozens of threads/replies you start on this topic.

I say it because it's a FACT and will continue to correct you when you fail to point this out.

And what on earth makes you think a turning 85 year old man in 2026 (most get even more conservative as they age) is going to change his spots when it comes to payroll? Even Fredo (aka: BDWIII) has stated this on multiple occasions!

From A.I. when asked how attendance affects BDWJr's view on payroll:

Revenue drives payroll: .
DeWitt Jr. explicitly stated, "It's a revenue game. If you have more revenue, you have an opportunity to spend more money," implying a direct link between gate and television revenue and payroll capabilities

Attendance affects future payroll:
A decline in fan attendance negatively impacts the team's revenue, which in turn limits the potential for future payroll increases

Recent cuts and performance:
Recent reports indicate a significant reduction in payroll, which has coincided with a drop in attendance.

This suggests that the team's recent performance has contributed to lower attendance, which then feeds into a cycle where payroll is reduced

Revisit this topic in 2028, 2029. Let's see what the organization actually does if/when they are ready to exit this rebuild.