Why not lock up JJ Walker Scott and Winn.

[sikeston bulldog2]

Good morning.

Crazy idea of the day. Missed April Fools by a day. Still loony.

Why do I extend these four.

I’m sold on JJ. He only will get more expensive. Walker is a mess. But he’d come cheap. And it’s a gamble. A risk. Just like signing a bunch of broken power arms.

Scott. Defense plays. And it’s the all important up the middle position.

Winn. Glove and arm will play. Hits better than Maxvill but not as good as Edgar.

By signing these guys, you assume risk. The floor is a mediocre hitting strong defensive player. The ceiling is a top of league caliber player.

Build an instant core. As Matt Mitch mentioned, these low ball extensions are not disaster heavy for the team.

You lock them up cheap, this allows monies towards bigger bats.

Hey. Those bright diamonds once were stone.

Not going to argue about JJ. I wouldn’t do it but I understand the argument.

Walker. Yes he would be cheap meaning he probably wouldn’t want to extend thinking he will improve but honestly he would be the last player I would extend.

Scott???? I want to see consistent offense so I wouldn’t but he is solid in the field. And we have had center fielders with not much pop. But I would wait.

Winn is interesting and I’m a little confused on his contract status. I read one article projecting him at a value of $250 million. I assume ten years. That sounds high unless his bat improves but I would definitely discuss extension. Again I’m a little confused on his status.

It was not long ago people wanted to extend him but he was hitting then. Not sure what consensus is now.

Very good write. Thanx I agree. Remember the over arching theme here is to- lock up a super middle of field defensively and then cheap. Use the extra money to get a left fielder, third baseman, and ace pitcher.

[alw80]

No and No some more. The only reason guys like JJ are getting early deals are because they have excelled all the way up the ladder in a very short time. JJ was an accomplished college athlete before being drafted. He has lived up to the hype in most regards and anyone looking can see he has the tools to stick around. He is for sure someone that will cost 25+ mill a year in 5 years or so. These other guys on other teams are the same case for the most part. For sure, tested athletes showing 5 tool prospect skills.

There is no way you lock up guys like Walker, Winn and Scott early until they put together a solid 2 years or more in a row. None of those 3 has been able to do that. Once you start handing out those deals you now got in place and contracted players that when they suck you cannot move because money is tied to them. We just got out of that system with the Arenado's and Gray's on this team. A couple of good games does not qualify a career. I am not sold on any one of the 3 at this point personally. Let's see what they are doing on the backside of the lockout in 27 first.

+1

[mattmitchl44]

There is no way you lock up guys like Walker, Winn and Scott early until they put together a solid 2 years or more in a row. None of those 3 has been able to do that. Once you start handing out those deals you now got in place and contracted players that when they suck you cannot move because money is tied to them. We just got out of that system with the Arenado's and Gray's on this team. A couple of good games does not qualify a career. I am not sold on any one of the 3 at this point personally. Let's see what they are doing on the backside of the lockout in 27 first.

$5 million a year for Scott is NOT $25 million a year for Gray/Arenado.

[alw80]

There is no way you lock up guys like Walker, Winn and Scott early until they put together a solid 2 years or more in a row. None of those 3 has been able to do that. Once you start handing out those deals you now got in place and contracted players that when they suck you cannot move because money is tied to them. We just got out of that system with the Arenado's and Gray's on this team. A couple of good games does not qualify a career. I am not sold on any one of the 3 at this point personally. Let's see what they are doing on the backside of the lockout in 27 first.

$5 million a year for Scott is NOT $25 million a year for Gray/Arenado.

Is it necessary though? What are we really saving?

[rockondlouie]

OH H E L L NO on these three!

-Walker we all know about his issues

-VSII & Winn both have to show they're more than just great glove players who offer little offensively.

THE ONLY two payers I'd lock up early are I. Herrera (BUT only if he shows this season he can play 145+ games between DH & Catcher) and JJW (who I'd still wait until sometime during or after his second season).

[craviduce]

I don't know if any position player, outside of Wetherholt, is in our future plans. You get a draft like this 2026 draft coming up once in a blue moon....6 picks in the first 3 rounds in what is being described as the best offensive draft in years. The damage (good way) we could do in 3 months could be organizationally/lineup altering. It also doesn't help Winn, Walker, and VS2's case that they've haven't taken off offensively....and their arb years start to kick in next season (Winn and Walker). We also have a plethora of good pitchers in the system at all levels...that's huge stock pile of trade fodder....fodder we can use to upgrade the offense.

I've said before and made a good case for extending McGreevy. He's a workhorse. He takes the ball every 5 days and gives you on average 5-6 IP. He hasn't been injured, and he's 3-4 type starter, with probably 2 seasons as a #2 starter. There's some really good value there. Libby is in year 1 of 4 in arb years now...so you might be able to get him to give you an year or two of FA on a 5 year deal? Maybe, not likely...after year 4 of his arb years, he'll be 30....I'd want to test the FA market if I were him...that's prime contract years for a pitcher...he can really cash in, imo...if he maintains his current trajectory. I'd still try to lock him up to some type of contract....he's a good fit into the future. The only reliever I'd think about extending is Gastelum...lock him up young if you can. Other than that, relievers have a 4 year shelf life...then they're usually toast...they're the Running Back of Major League baseball. Occasionally, you'll get an outlier that gives you 5 or 6 years. But for the most part, relievers grow on trees...easy to find and easy to replace.

[mattmitchl44]

There is no way you lock up guys like Walker, Winn and Scott early until they put together a solid 2 years or more in a row. None of those 3 has been able to do that. Once you start handing out those deals you now got in place and contracted players that when they suck you cannot move because money is tied to them. We just got out of that system with the Arenado's and Gray's on this team. A couple of good games does not qualify a career. I am not sold on any one of the 3 at this point personally. Let's see what they are doing on the backside of the lockout in 27 first.

$5 million a year for Scott is NOT $25 million a year for Gray/Arenado.

Is it necessary though? What are we really saving?

If you are even saving $3, $4, $5 million a year, do that four or five times and you've "saved" enough to go out and sign a pretty good FA if you need one to put you over the top.

[C-Unit]

Build an instant core. As Matt Mitch mentioned, these low ball extensions are not disaster heavy for the team.

That's the key of it.

The one I'm primarily interested in is Winn. The main pro-argument I see to extend him is he looks like a franchise face type of player. Not necessarily the best player on the team, but the face that's gonna end up on the most billboards around St. Louis. The organization seems to be pushing him that way, and the fans do seem to like him. So you could do a lot worse then planning for him to be the SS longterm. You know the defense will be steady. And he's arb-eligible next year. So if you went two more years without extending him, you might be faced with the decision to trade him with two years (or one year left) like we did with Donovan. You have to break that cycle with a few extensions to players you're committed to.

The other side is you would want to keep it cheap enough that he could still be tradeable IF he struggles or if the plans of the organization change (let's say down the road 1) Winn stagnates offensively, 2) the team ends up with a convincing option at 2B, and then 3) they decide Wetherholt would be best used at SS, then they might hope Winn has appeal on the trade market).

But that chance seems pretty slim. I think it's pretty safe to say he'd be the best SS choice we have for the next several years and I like the idea of integrating him as part of what the long-term core looks like. So I'd be in favor of the extension. But let's keep it reasonable.

2027 (arb year 1): 4M
2028 (arb year 2): 6.5-8M
2029 (arb year 3): 8-10M
2030-2033: 11-14M per year

As you can see, I'm kind of guessing at what I think the fair salary would be to replace those arb years. And then in the free agent years, do you want to be on the hook paying 14M+ AAV to him for several more years if he never improves offensively from where he is currently? It could become less of a bargain. Maybe you include incentives that can take the contract from my baseline numbers to the max numbers.

So using the figures I put, that would be a 7 year deal worth anywhere between 62.5M and 78M based on performance incentives. No idea if that's agreeable for both sides. It's my best guess.



I would not extend Scott II. We have a lot of outfielders in the system. I think it's very possible Scott would become a 4th/5th OFer, and might be the type of guy that ends up bouncing around the league to many different teams in a niche role. He's just a role player to me. I personally am high on Tai Peete eventually being the CF. He seems athletic like Scott but also with the ability to hit 20 homers. We will see. We know Baez will factor into the OF. Walker is still a toss up. If Walker finished the season with acceptable numbers (lets say .270/20+/80+) then I could see offering him something to buy out the 3 remaining arb years, and then maybe 1 or 2 free agent years, or just some team options. So that would be some type of 5-6 year deal at a very reasonable amount. I could go either way on Walker.

I think Winn being a stable defensive player at a premium position lends itself to far less risk with an extension than Walker. If you are going to pay Walker 12-15M one day, then you need to be pretty well convinced he's going to hit 25-30 hr and drive in 90+ every year.

[C-Unit]

There is no way you lock up guys like Walker, Winn and Scott early until they put together a solid 2 years or more in a row. None of those 3 has been able to do that. Once you start handing out those deals you now got in place and contracted players that when they suck you cannot move because money is tied to them. We just got out of that system with the Arenado's and Gray's on this team. A couple of good games does not qualify a career. I am not sold on any one of the 3 at this point personally. Let's see what they are doing on the backside of the lockout in 27 first.

$5 million a year for Scott is NOT $25 million a year for Gray/Arenado.

Is it necessary though? What are we really saving?

If you are even saving $3, $4, $5 million a year, do that four or five times and you've "saved" enough to go out and sign a pretty good FA if you need one to put you over the top.

That's a really good point. With Scott II, how would you consider his role on the team over the next several years. It's pretty hard to tell by the time he would reach FA whether he would be anywhere from a starting caliber CF to a 5th OF/specialty player. Consider the other OFs that may be in the picture. I see the benefit of locking him in at a certain price, what would that certain price be?

[sikeston bulldog2]

Build an instant core. As Matt Mitch mentioned, these low ball extensions are not disaster heavy for the team.

That's the key of it.

The one I'm primarily interested in is Winn. The main pro-argument I see to extend him is he looks like a franchise face type of player. Not necessarily the best player on the team, but the face that's gonna end up on the most billboards around St. Louis. The organization seems to be pushing him that way, and the fans do seem to like him. So you could do a lot worse then planning for him to be the SS longterm. You know the defense will be steady. And he's arb-eligible next year. So if you went two more years without extending him, you might be faced with the decision to trade him with two years (or one year left) like we did with Donovan. You have to break that cycle with a few extensions to players you're committed to.

The other side is you would want to keep it cheap enough that he could still be tradeable IF he struggles or if the plans of the organization change (let's say down the road 1) Winn stagnates offensively, 2) the team ends up with a convincing option at 2B, and then 3) they decide Wetherholt would be best used at SS, then they might hope Winn has appeal on the trade market).

But that chance seems pretty slim. I think it's pretty safe to say he'd be the best SS choice we have for the next several years and I like the idea of integrating him as part of what the long-term core looks like. So I'd be in favor of the extension. But let's keep it reasonable.

2027 (arb year 1): 4M
2028 (arb year 2): 6.5-8M
2029 (arb year 3): 8-10M
2030-2033: 11-14M per year

As you can see, I'm kind of guessing at what I think the fair salary would be to replace those arb years. And then in the free agent years, do you want to be on the hook paying 14M+ AAV to him for several more years if he never improves offensively from where he is currently? It could become less of a bargain. Maybe you include incentives that can take the contract from my baseline numbers to the max numbers.

So using the figures I put, that would be a 7 year deal worth anywhere between 62.5M and 78M based on performance incentives. No idea if that's agreeable for both sides. It's my best guess.



I would not extend Scott II. We have a lot of outfielders in the system. I think it's very possible Scott would become a 4th/5th OFer, and might be the type of guy that ends up bouncing around the league to many different teams in a niche role. He's just a role player to me. I personally am high on Tai Peete eventually being the CF. He seems athletic like Scott but also with the ability to hit 20 homers. We will see. We know Baez will factor into the OF. Walker is still a toss up. If Walker finished the season with acceptable numbers (lets say .270/20+/80+) then I could see offering him something to buy out the 3 remaining arb years, and then maybe 1 or 2 free agent years, or just some team options. So that would be some type of 5-6 year deal at a very reasonable amount. I could go either way on Walker.

I think Winn being a stable defensive player at a premium position lends itself to far less risk with an extension than Walker. If you are going to pay Walker 12-15M one day, then you need to be pretty well convinced he's going to hit 25-30 hr and drive in 90+ every year.

I think this to be a superb entry. So we sorta agree on Walker And Winn, no on Scott. The outfield you mention I see more corner heavy. And with monies saved on these extensions i can buy that bigger bat or two.

Nice piece of work.

[imetsatchelpaige]

God, no.
You sound like Shady.

[mattmitchl44]

There is no way you lock up guys like Walker, Winn and Scott early until they put together a solid 2 years or more in a row. None of those 3 has been able to do that. Once you start handing out those deals you now got in place and contracted players that when they suck you cannot move because money is tied to them. We just got out of that system with the Arenado's and Gray's on this team. A couple of good games does not qualify a career. I am not sold on any one of the 3 at this point personally. Let's see what they are doing on the backside of the lockout in 27 first.

$5 million a year for Scott is NOT $25 million a year for Gray/Arenado.

Is it necessary though? What are we really saving?

If you are even saving $3, $4, $5 million a year, do that four or five times and you've "saved" enough to go out and sign a pretty good FA if you need one to put you over the top.

That's a really good point. With Scott II, how would you consider his role on the team over the next several years. It's pretty hard to tell by the time he would reach FA whether he would be anywhere from a starting caliber CF to a 5th OF/specialty player. Consider the other OFs that may be in the picture. I see the benefit of locking him in at a certain price, what would that certain price be?

With Scott it really depends on how far you want to go.

He's age 25 this year. If you want to do five years right now, through age 30, which I think would be ML min., ARB-1, ARB-2, ARB-3, and one FA year, it should be like $4-$5 million per, IMO. I think you're trying to offer about 50%-70% of what he might make year-to-year. So 5 yrs./$20 million is guessing that he might otherwise make like $30 million ($1 M, $2.5 M, $5 M, $8 M, $13.5 M) going year-to-year.

But then the more FA years you want to bring in after that, it would make it more expensive.

But if you are doing this at all, it is because you think he can be your starting CF for the next 5+ years.

[Carp4Cy]

Definitely wouldn't want to tie myself to Scott and would be hesitant to do the same with Winn.

Winn- will probably be a .240 hitter with 10 ish home runs. Classic short stop numbers. His D is good for the extension.

The problem is that SS position is not the classic SS position anymore.
Witt
Henderson
EDLC
Bichette
Lindor
Adames
Neto
Turner
Perdomo
eventually the Holliday brothers

These are all big time power or RBI bats during 2024 and or 25 or expect to be in the near future. The trend is putting the best 2 way athletes at SS during HS, so you are seeing tall strong quick athletes with great gloves and strong bats at that position. Classic glove first SS with "average bat" isn't going to measure up over the long term future as a top playoff lineup contributor.

If we truly want to rebuild into a top WS contender, then we need to actually focus on attaining some MVP candidate MOTOBs, faces of the league types, at that increasingly includes the SS position. So I'd not be inclined to block that (or CF/RF) with LT contracts for sub 100 OPS+ bats.

https://www.mlb.com/cardinals/news/card ... 0-ops-plus

[C-Unit]

Build an instant core. As Matt Mitch mentioned, these low ball extensions are not disaster heavy for the team.

That's the key of it.

The one I'm primarily interested in is Winn. The main pro-argument I see to extend him is he looks like a franchise face type of player. Not necessarily the best player on the team, but the face that's gonna end up on the most billboards around St. Louis. The organization seems to be pushing him that way, and the fans do seem to like him. So you could do a lot worse then planning for him to be the SS longterm. You know the defense will be steady. And he's arb-eligible next year. So if you went two more years without extending him, you might be faced with the decision to trade him with two years (or one year left) like we did with Donovan. You have to break that cycle with a few extensions to players you're committed to.

The other side is you would want to keep it cheap enough that he could still be tradeable IF he struggles or if the plans of the organization change (let's say down the road 1) Winn stagnates offensively, 2) the team ends up with a convincing option at 2B, and then 3) they decide Wetherholt would be best used at SS, then they might hope Winn has appeal on the trade market).

But that chance seems pretty slim. I think it's pretty safe to say he'd be the best SS choice we have for the next several years and I like the idea of integrating him as part of what the long-term core looks like. So I'd be in favor of the extension. But let's keep it reasonable.

2027 (arb year 1): 4M
2028 (arb year 2): 6.5-8M
2029 (arb year 3): 8-10M
2030-2033: 11-14M per year

As you can see, I'm kind of guessing at what I think the fair salary would be to replace those arb years. And then in the free agent years, do you want to be on the hook paying 14M+ AAV to him for several more years if he never improves offensively from where he is currently? It could become less of a bargain. Maybe you include incentives that can take the contract from my baseline numbers to the max numbers.

So using the figures I put, that would be a 7 year deal worth anywhere between 62.5M and 78M based on performance incentives. No idea if that's agreeable for both sides. It's my best guess.



I would not extend Scott II. We have a lot of outfielders in the system. I think it's very possible Scott would become a 4th/5th OFer, and might be the type of guy that ends up bouncing around the league to many different teams in a niche role. He's just a role player to me. I personally am high on Tai Peete eventually being the CF. He seems athletic like Scott but also with the ability to hit 20 homers. We will see. We know Baez will factor into the OF. Walker is still a toss up. If Walker finished the season with acceptable numbers (lets say .270/20+/80+) then I could see offering him something to buy out the 3 remaining arb years, and then maybe 1 or 2 free agent years, or just some team options. So that would be some type of 5-6 year deal at a very reasonable amount. I could go either way on Walker.

I think Winn being a stable defensive player at a premium position lends itself to far less risk with an extension than Walker. If you are going to pay Walker 12-15M one day, then you need to be pretty well convinced he's going to hit 25-30 hr and drive in 90+ every year.

I think this to be a superb entry. So we sorta agree on Walker And Winn, no on Scott. The outfield you mention I see more corner heavy. And with monies saved on these extensions i can buy that bigger bat or two.

Nice piece of work.

What if Scott II was able to replicate Michael Bourn's career.

Looks like Bourn was really able to get his career off the ground in 2009 at age 26. (Scott II is 25 this season). In 2008, Bourn stole 41 bases but only managed a .288 OBP which hurt his value. But from 2009-2012 he was able to have an OBP above .340 each year which saved his value. From 2009-2013: 4.7, 4.4, 3.7, 5.3, 1.7 fWar each of those seasons.

So Bourn was able to make a 5 year stretch of being a starting player with a very similar skillset to Scott II.

Bourn managed a walk rate around 9.0% during those seasons (Scott II was also above 9.0% in 2025, good sign). Bourn also posted a babip between .330-.360 for those seasons because he could beat out bunt singles.

So that tells you the guidelines of what Scott could do in order to justify being a starting player with his skillset. So perhaps Scott in CF could be justified as part of a longterm plan because of the other options corner heavy as you state. I'd find a 5 year deal to be ideal, maybe between 40-50M.

[Alex Reyes Cy Young]

You could do worse that locking up two guys in Winn and Scott who at least have high floors based on their well above average defense at two premium defensive positions (SS, CF).

As poorly as Scott hit in 2025, he was still a 1.7 fWAR player. Winn was 3.6 and 3.5 fWAR the past two seasons.

You always need to get a deal done at the right price, but it's not crazy to think about it.

I wouldn't mind locking up Winn as well. But JJ is the priority.

[ramfandan]

Since some of these guys got 8 yrs (with team option ) for a 9th .

Here is an idea : If they truly want to lock up JJ for the long term . Go Bold !

Sign him to a 10 yr. deal with team options for Years 11 & 12 IF he is very good, then you have him thru age 34 /35 years old .
If he , declines in early 30's , then Cards do not exercise the added two years and walk away after 10 years. ( there would be some buyout cost for Cardinals to cut ties after the 10 years but beats paying full price for years 11 & 12 ) .

If they just go the 8 years, JJ would be 31 years old and very unlikely they could resign him at that time as salaries will have escalated so much plus he would want a multi- year deal too of 3 or 4 years.
Tie up those latter years now .

Go Bloom !
Go Cardinals !