Cardinals successful with no long termed contracts?

[Alex Reyes Cy Young]

Instead of signing Winn, Wetherholt, Walker, Burley.

Running these guys up until year 4, 5, 6 and trading them for more prospects, rinse lather repeat. Walker turns out to be second coming of Judge, you get a Soto like haul.

Winn JJ Burley not so much but still a nice haul.

Is this the model? Does this become the north star of the St. Louis Cardinals?

While the Ray signed Lowe to a deal, they traded him and well Wander is Wander, which was a serious black swan. I would assume they will flip Cam once his ARB gets large and he gets to a state where it makes sense to flip him.

IF the Cardinals chose to go that route they could get a freakishly good minors.\

Swinging back to the point, can they be successful (defined as perennial) playoff contenders with this model. Truth be told I could careless if they cycle players out year in and out. Except for rare high WAR level talent.

[opti mist]

Could be related more to the expiring MLB agreement.

Wait to see what the Cardinals do once the agreement is settled.

Opti

[CorneliusWolfe]

It’s a good occasional approach when the minor league talent starts getting too thin due to several draft misses or a big wave of promotions.

Not good for winning the World Series though. Case in point…Milwaukee, Cleveland, Tampa, Pittsburgh

[Jatalk]

As a fan I hope not. I hope they develop a core of players long term. Players we can look forward to watching each year.

[AZ_Cardsfan]

Why would you assume they would not be part of a contender? And kept until extended or allowed to test free agency? Seems like a gloomy way to view the team.

[45s]

As a fan I hope not. I hope they develop a core of players long term. Players we can look forward to watching each year.

and the club ends up with a bunch of guys on the wrong side of thirty making big bux..

If memory serves, that philosophy was tried recently with less than stellar results..

[Jatalk]

As a fan I hope not. I hope they develop a core of players long term. Players we can look forward to watching each year.

and the club ends up with a bunch of guys on the wrong side of thirty making big bux..

If memory serves, that philosophy was tried recently with less than stellar results..

And you can be like the Pirates and never extend your best players.

[45s]

As a fan I hope not. I hope they develop a core of players long term. Players we can look forward to watching each year.

and the club ends up with a bunch of guys on the wrong side of thirty making big bux..

If memory serves, that philosophy was tried recently with less than stellar results..

And you can be like the Pirates and never extend your best players.

The pirates did not extend..

The cards did…

The results have been the same….

[Hoosier59]

As a fan I hope not. I hope they develop a core of players long term. Players we can look forward to watching each year.

and the club ends up with a bunch of guys on the wrong side of thirty making big bux..

If memory serves, that philosophy was tried recently with less than stellar results..

And you can be like the Pirates and never extend your best players.

The pirates did not extend..

The cards did…

The results have been the same….

So Mr. Genius, you are saying no team should ever extend any players over the age of 30ish? Is that correct?
Look at the top rated teams in baseball, such as the Dodgers and Yankees, among others, and see if them agree with you.

[ecleme22]

Alex brings up an excellent point.

While mattmitch is locking up everybody, Alex is on the other spectrum.

What I think: It's a mix.

Burleson, for example, is good. Do we need to sign him to an extension? No. We could trade him for mlb ready prospects next year and put Herrera at 1B.

Just an example. But not every good Cardinal right now needs to be locked up.

[Olemiss540]

You cant lockup players that dont want to be locked up.

They will lockup the players they can get excess value from in negotiations, tradeoff the players that aren't going to be extended before they hit FA, and (gasp) supplement the remaining roster with a nice sprinkling of FA signings.

Like the Brewers but with 30% higher budget.

[mattmitchl44]

You cant lockup players that dont want to be locked up.

They will lockup the players they can get excess value from in negotiations, tradeoff the players that aren't going to be extended before they hit FA, and (gasp) supplement the remaining roster with a nice sprinkling of FA signings.

Like the Brewers but with 30% higher budget.

Or the Braves with a 20% lower budget.

If the Cardinals found their long term roster management strategy bracketed between the Brewers and the Braves, that would likely be their best success path.

[mattmitchl44]

Alex brings up an excellent point.

While mattmitch is locking up everybody, Alex is on the other spectrum.

What I think: It's a mix.

Burleson, for example, is good. Do we need to sign him to an extension? No. We could trade him for mlb ready prospects next year and put Herrera at 1B.

Just an example. But not every good Cardinal right now needs to be locked up.

Just to be clear about what I've said - IMO you could make a case for locking up up to 15 players - any starting position player (inc. DH), SP, or closer - on your 26-man roster with young players signed to relatively cheap early extensions.

More realistically, you can maybe develop and come to a workable agreement with six, seven, eight such quality "core" young players at a time.

Six, seven, eight is right in the ballpark of how many the Braves have had signed at any one time.

[3dender]

Alex brings up an excellent point.

While mattmitch is locking up everybody, Alex is on the other spectrum.

What I think: It's a mix.

Burleson, for example, is good. Do we need to sign him to an extension? No. We could trade him for mlb ready prospects next year and put Herrera at 1B.

Just an example. But not every good Cardinal right now needs to be locked up.

I think this is right, although imo you're exaggerating how extreme mattmitch is on the topic.

OP plan is as sure a thing as the outcome of 1st round draft picks (let alone mid-late 1st round picks)... which is to say laughably uncertain.

[mattmitchl44]

Alex brings up an excellent point.

While mattmitch is locking up everybody, Alex is on the other spectrum.

What I think: It's a mix.

Burleson, for example, is good. Do we need to sign him to an extension? No. We could trade him for mlb ready prospects next year and put Herrera at 1B.

Just an example. But not every good Cardinal right now needs to be locked up.

I think this is right, although imo you're exaggerating how extreme mattmitch is on the topic.

OP plan is as sure a thing as the outcome of 1st round draft picks (let alone mid-late 1st round picks)... which is to say laughably uncertain.

Yeah, continually churning the roster is likely not a consistently feasible long term answer. The Cardinals are absolutely going to have to commit themselves to some players on long term deals.

The moral of the story here is that you should want to commit to young players, who you've had contact with in your organization for some number of years and who you should know well, who are on the ascending/stable part of their career arc - age 21 to age 30/31/32 - versus committing a lot of money to guys who are likely on the declining part of their career arc - age 32/33+.

[45s]

As a fan I hope not. I hope they develop a core of players long term. Players we can look forward to watching each year.

and the club ends up with a bunch of guys on the wrong side of thirty making big bux..

If memory serves, that philosophy was tried recently with less than stellar results..

And you can be like the Pirates and never extend your best players.

The pirates did not extend..

The cards did…

The results have been the same….

So Mr. Genius, you are saying no team should ever extend any players over the age of 30ish? Is that correct?
Look at the top rated teams in baseball, such as the Dodgers and Yankees, among others, and see if them agree with you.

Well….once again you have missed the point…no surprise

If a player is performing at a very high level at 30 ish short term contracts are warranted

The cards have a history of clinging to 30 plus players whose productive days are well past…

Our friend wants players he can watch for many years……reminds me of the legacy/ fan favorite/ personal record silliness