Question for those not wanting to Rebuild

[dugoutrex]

For those anti trading Gray and entering a rebuild I have a question. What realistic moves would you have made this offseason to make the Cardinals serious World Series contenders in 2026?

Get real, obviously try to get the club back to a 90+ win team that can win this weak division and hope for a hot streak into the playoffs where anything can happen. Get a couple more Dustin May and maybe a Pete Alonzo type slugger and go get this division. Can't do it when you losers don't show up and root for them.

What part of my post asked people to avoid going to games to protest. I raised concerns years ago about how this team was run. I was called entitled for questioning a franchise with a winning past. How has the team done the last four years?

I am 100% on board with building this correctly to get a team who can win 90+ games and has a legit chance in the playoffs. That doesn’t take spending wildly. It does take building a young core.

They tried the let’s compete in a bad division and hope to make the playoffs and hope for a magical run. It failed miserably. They need to stop lying to themselves and rebuild this correctly.

Fair, I want better too just like I'm certain the Cards organization wanted also. That's why you go out and get a Goldy, Nado, Gray, Contreras etc and try to build winning teams (90+ on paper) instead of trading them away for prospects that get you hopefully 75 wins on paper and the fans don't want to see.

Can you even beat the Reds today?

I sat here for years blasting them for the one big move an offseason and not adding to it. They allowed the core to age to the point they are at now. There was nothing reasonable available this offseason to turn it around. Turning this around in one offseason would have required adding at least five high priced impact players.

The team had way too many massive holes to fill with band aids and expect more than mediocrity.

I will raise the [nonsense] flag on this nonsense! Wacha can beat Kershaw, David Freese can beat the Rangers! You just saw the blue Jay's take them to the edge and were ahead, I get it's baseball and anything can happen, but what do you haters want? GO REBUILD, THE BEST YOU WILL GET IS WHAT WE HAD!

The game evolves. Going back ten years and comparing it to today is a joke as the economics have changed.

The Jays are a far deeper team than the Cards. Not the equivalent.

You all want to leave the team stuck in mediocrity to avoid a couple tough seasons. They tried the mediocrity route hoping for a magical run the last five years and it failed miserably.

Side note? Why does wanting to see this team excel make me a hater? That makes zero sense.

it doesn't but ... you guys wanted this so you better get your butts into the seats at Busch

[Stlcardsblues]

For those anti trading Gray and entering a rebuild I have a question. What realistic moves would you have made this offseason to make the Cardinals serious World Series contenders in 2026?

Get real, obviously try to get the club back to a 90+ win team that can win this weak division and hope for a hot streak into the playoffs where anything can happen. Get a couple more Dustin May and maybe a Pete Alonzo type slugger and go get this division. Can't do it when you losers don't show up and root for them.

What part of my post asked people to avoid going to games to protest. I raised concerns years ago about how this team was run. I was called entitled for questioning a franchise with a winning past. How has the team done the last four years?

I am 100% on board with building this correctly to get a team who can win 90+ games and has a legit chance in the playoffs. That doesn’t take spending wildly. It does take building a young core.

They tried the let’s compete in a bad division and hope to make the playoffs and hope for a magical run. It failed miserably. They need to stop lying to themselves and rebuild this correctly.

Fair, I want better too just like I'm certain the Cards organization wanted also. That's why you go out and get a Goldy, Nado, Gray, Contreras etc and try to build winning teams (90+ on paper) instead of trading them away for prospects that get you hopefully 75 wins on paper and the fans don't want to see.

Can you even beat the Reds today?

I sat here for years blasting them for the one big move an offseason and not adding to it. They allowed the core to age to the point they are at now. There was nothing reasonable available this offseason to turn it around. Turning this around in one offseason would have required adding at least five high priced impact players.

The team had way too many massive holes to fill with band aids and expect more than mediocrity.

I will raise the [nonsense] flag on this nonsense! Wacha can beat Kershaw, David Freese can beat the Rangers! You just saw the blue Jay's take them to the edge and were ahead, I get it's baseball and anything can happen, but what do you haters want? GO REBUILD, THE BEST YOU WILL GET IS WHAT WE HAD!

The game evolves. Going back ten years and comparing it to today is a joke as the economics have changed.

The Jays are a far deeper team than the Cards. Not the equivalent.

You all want to leave the team stuck in mediocrity to avoid a couple tough seasons. They tried the mediocrity route hoping for a magical run the last five years and it failed miserably.

Side note? Why does wanting to see this team excel make me a hater? That makes zero sense.

it doesn't but ... you guys wanted this so you better get your butts into the seats at Busch

It’s a bit of a hike for me. The stadium is 18 hours from me if I hit no traffic.

[mattmitchl44]

Simply put, I'd prefer they follow an approach that ended up in them winning 96 and 76 games in alternating years than one in which they won 86 games every year.

When you look across the landscape of baseball in 2025 and see how many loaded teams there are going to be every year because of how much of a payroll advantage the top 5 or 6 teams have on everybody else, for the Cardinals to run the gauntlet to a WS with an 86 win team today seems more unlikely than ever. Even if you would make the playoffs less often going 96-76-96-76, etc., I expect they would have a better chance of pushing one of those 96 win teams across the finish line to another WS championship.

Now, in reality, with at $175, $180, etc. million payroll, I think they can probably do better in this idealized hypothetical than that, say 96 win teams three out of every five years, or maybe even four out of every six, instead of one out of two.

[AnExParrot]

Simply put, I'd prefer they follow an approach that ended up in them winning 96 and 76 games in alternating years than one in which they won 86 games every year.

When you look across the landscape of baseball in 2025 and see how many loaded teams there are going to be every year because of how much of a payroll advantage the top 5 or 6 teams have on everybody else, for the Cardinals to run the gauntlet to a WS with an 86 win team today seems more unlikely than ever. Even if you would make the playoffs less often going 96-76-96-76, etc., I expect they would have a better chance of pushing one of those 96 win teams across the finish line to another WS championship.

Now, in reality, with at $175, $180, etc. million payroll, I think they can probably do better in this idealized hypothetical than that, say 96 win teams three out of every five years, or maybe even four out of every six, instead of one out of two.

1 out of 2 works out to 3 out of 5 if you start with a 96 and end on a 96. 96, 76, 96, 76, 96

[mattmitchl44]

Simply put, I'd prefer they follow an approach that ended up in them winning 96 and 76 games in alternating years than one in which they won 86 games every year.

When you look across the landscape of baseball in 2025 and see how many loaded teams there are going to be every year because of how much of a payroll advantage the top 5 or 6 teams have on everybody else, for the Cardinals to run the gauntlet to a WS with an 86 win team today seems more unlikely than ever. Even if you would make the playoffs less often going 96-76-96-76, etc., I expect they would have a better chance of pushing one of those 96 win teams across the finish line to another WS championship.

Now, in reality, with at $175, $180, etc. million payroll, I think they can probably do better in this idealized hypothetical than that, say 96 win teams three out of every five years, or maybe even four out of every six, instead of one out of two.

1 out of 2 works out to 3 out of 5 if you start with a 96 and end on a 96. 96, 76, 96, 76, 96

Well now you're going to make half of CT rail about how statistics lie and can give you any answer you want.

[AnExParrot]

Simply put, I'd prefer they follow an approach that ended up in them winning 96 and 76 games in alternating years than one in which they won 86 games every year.

When you look across the landscape of baseball in 2025 and see how many loaded teams there are going to be every year because of how much of a payroll advantage the top 5 or 6 teams have on everybody else, for the Cardinals to run the gauntlet to a WS with an 86 win team today seems more unlikely than ever. Even if you would make the playoffs less often going 96-76-96-76, etc., I expect they would have a better chance of pushing one of those 96 win teams across the finish line to another WS championship.

Now, in reality, with at $175, $180, etc. million payroll, I think they can probably do better in this idealized hypothetical than that, say 96 win teams three out of every five years, or maybe even four out of every six, instead of one out of two.

1 out of 2 works out to 3 out of 5 if you start with a 96 and end on a 96. 96, 76, 96, 76, 96

Well now you're going to make half of CT rail about how statistics lie and can give you any answer you want.

They'll do that whether I make a single keystroke or 10 million.

[CCard]

If your numbers are right, they would need some luck to make the playoffs but it's possible. Add a little more and they make the playoffs probably. Once in the playoffs they have a chance to make a run. Teams can and have done that. Competitive teams draw more fans so not only does it lift a team but it actually lifts a teams bottom line. Losing doesn't do that. Losing Gray hurts. Losing Donovan hurts. But if they get top talent in return then not so much. Losing Mikolas and Matz is a plus. Any replacement is likely to do as well or better IMO. Easing the pressure on Walker and Scott by improving the team can only help them at worst. This team should add quality free agents to help and make the playoffs.

The Cardinals are trying to build an organizational future that isn't so dependent on luck.

And, no, if you have a consistently Top 5 farm system, basing your roster construction on the annual development of prospects isn't "luck."

The problem is you can't consistently keep a top 5 farm system. You're subject to the eccentricities of the draft. You draft good it helps you win, you win you get a worse draft position. This up and down process can be mitigated with good free agent signings but success will always leave you in a poorer draft position. You can hope for lightning from lower picks and supplement with free agents or you can put your eggs into losing and drafting high. We see the Pittsburghs and Miami's getting these high picks but it never seems to make them winners. I wonder why.

You can consistently draft better than average. At every point that the Cardinals draft there are future major leaguers available to be drafted. The teams that do a better job of identifying and developing them (and international signings) will always have an advantage in their farm systems.

Because Pittsburgh and Miami have ~$100 million less in ML payroll than the Cardinals to put into:

1) aggressively locking up the players they do develop with lower cost, long term contracts and
2) selectively adding key FAs at the right time

Not really. No one knows if a player will break out. The consistent winners use their minors as trading cards to land major talent. Occasionally a young stud filters through. Depending mostly on minor league talent is why the lesser teams constantly lose. When you stick someone like Siani into the lineup for 400-500 at bats it's always going to end bad. That's why he can't stick anywhere. My proposal is to not cut salary at all. Instead play your hand every single year. If you absolutely must trade away top talent (Gray), it's a must to get top talent that is very near major league ready. Why not compete every single year? There just isn't a good excuse not to.

Siani is a horrible example.

The Cards opened the season w injuries, tried using VS in CF, but he was too green. All they had left was Siani.

If anything, Siani is an example of poor, thin roster construction by Mo. He’s not an example of a hole in Blooms plan…

You can't tell me there wasn't better options in the minors. That's a bull (bleep) excuse. "Ohh, it was injuries."

[CCard]

If your numbers are right, they would need some luck to make the playoffs but it's possible. Add a little more and they make the playoffs probably. Once in the playoffs they have a chance to make a run. Teams can and have done that. Competitive teams draw more fans so not only does it lift a team but it actually lifts a teams bottom line. Losing doesn't do that. Losing Gray hurts. Losing Donovan hurts. But if they get top talent in return then not so much. Losing Mikolas and Matz is a plus. Any replacement is likely to do as well or better IMO. Easing the pressure on Walker and Scott by improving the team can only help them at worst. This team should add quality free agents to help and make the playoffs.

The Cardinals are trying to build an organizational future that isn't so dependent on luck.

And, no, if you have a consistently Top 5 farm system, basing your roster construction on the annual development of prospects isn't "luck."

The problem is you can't consistently keep a top 5 farm system. You're subject to the eccentricities of the draft. You draft good it helps you win, you win you get a worse draft position. This up and down process can be mitigated with good free agent signings but success will always leave you in a poorer draft position. You can hope for lightning from lower picks and supplement with free agents or you can put your eggs into losing and drafting high. We see the Pittsburghs and Miami's getting these high picks but it never seems to make them winners. I wonder why.

You can consistently draft better than average. At every point that the Cardinals draft there are future major leaguers available to be drafted. The teams that do a better job of identifying and developing them (and international signings) will always have an advantage in their farm systems.

Because Pittsburgh and Miami have ~$100 million less in ML payroll than the Cardinals to put into:

1) aggressively locking up the players they do develop with lower cost, long term contracts and
2) selectively adding key FAs at the right time

Not really. No one knows if a player will break out. The consistent winners use their minors as trading cards to land major talent. Occasionally a young stud filters through. Depending mostly on minor league talent is why the lesser teams constantly lose. When you stick someone like Siani into the lineup for 400-500 at bats it's always going to end bad. That's why he can't stick anywhere. My proposal is to not cut salary at all. Instead play your hand every single year. If you absolutely must trade away top talent (Gray), it's a must to get top talent that is very near major league ready. Why not compete every single year? There just isn't a good excuse not to.

Then how have teams like Cleveland, Tampa Bay, and Milwaukee consistently get more production out of young players on their rosters - and have been in the Top 10 in regular season wins over the last decade?

They do it because they are consistently better at identifying, acquiring, and developing young talent. Of the Top 10 batters and Top 10 pitchers for those teams over the last decade (60 total players), 35 (58%) came to the majors with those teams and another 22 (37%) were acquired by trade as pre-ARB or ARB years players.

Those are the models. Then add tens of millions more in payroll on top of that.

Without delving into the history of those clubs and seeing their specific builds over the years I really can't speak strongly to their circumstances, but I will say, what did they win in that period? Any championship's? I will say that Tampa had some novel strategy with using openers for games and some other things and getting players like Garcia(I think) hot in the playoffs helped, but they won't spend and if they had supplemented their teams during those times they might very well have a Championship. They did come up with some wicked pitching during that time also. As for the Brewers, well, they have had an exceptional run of luck acquiring mediocre players that played way above average for them. I don't know if it has to do with the park they play in or just great luck, but remember that guy "Yelich" that's a superstar? Without him who knows. They did develop some pitching and that always helps but again, they won the Central. That's far from a championship and during most of that time the Central was considered the weak sister.

[CCard]

If your numbers are right, they would need some luck to make the playoffs but it's possible. Add a little more and they make the playoffs probably. Once in the playoffs they have a chance to make a run. Teams can and have done that. Competitive teams draw more fans so not only does it lift a team but it actually lifts a teams bottom line. Losing doesn't do that. Losing Gray hurts. Losing Donovan hurts. But if they get top talent in return then not so much. Losing Mikolas and Matz is a plus. Any replacement is likely to do as well or better IMO. Easing the pressure on Walker and Scott by improving the team can only help them at worst. This team should add quality free agents to help and make the playoffs.

The Cardinals are trying to build an organizational future that isn't so dependent on luck.

And, no, if you have a consistently Top 5 farm system, basing your roster construction on the annual development of prospects isn't "luck."

The problem is you can't consistently keep a top 5 farm system. You're subject to the eccentricities of the draft. You draft good it helps you win, you win you get a worse draft position. This up and down process can be mitigated with good free agent signings but success will always leave you in a poorer draft position. You can hope for lightning from lower picks and supplement with free agents or you can put your eggs into losing and drafting high. We see the Pittsburghs and Miami's getting these high picks but it never seems to make them winners. I wonder why.

100% my opinion here.
Based on experiences.

There is less difference between players that don't have a MLB career
than the ones that have a solid career than we often acknowledge. Sometimes
it is what happens in a 30 day call up. The players that make AA and beyond all
have skills.
There are things inside a player that are difficult to measure. Just because a player

does not make it does not mean that they do not possess that quality. Sometimes it
just hasn't yet been optimized or "clicked". Most of us have experienced this.
We are fantastic at absolute measures, height, weight, speed, etc. Measuring those
internals not as good. That partially due to almost all these cats have had very little failure.
They are the best.

The idea is not to turn all these players into all-stars, it's just not a realistic outcome. It is
to create the best environment possible so a higher percentage reach their individual
pinnacle of a baseball player. Capturing just one or 2 of these players a season impacts a team.
Regardless of any top 5 ranking. Mitch and I are not in total agreement in some things.
But at this we are in total agreement. I totally embrace the Donovan, Edman, Jay, Schumakers, of
baseball. We really should be able to create a few more every 5-6 seasons though and also
help the elite reach their potential faster if by only a season.

But we have those players (until they're traded away or let go). It's not the quantity that the Cards lack, it's the quality. Still, you can get by with some average players if you have adequate to really good pitching. The pitching is what will turn this team around if it turns around. Most teams can scratch out a run or two but not 6 or 8 a night. Every team in MLB has a minor league system with some pieces in it. Most never reach stardom but just fill in. This team right now will struggle if they don't get some decent pitching, instead they're intent on signing cast offs and hoping for lightning in a bottle. Carpenters don't come around too often.

Only if you think 3-4 WAR players are a dime a dozen.
The Cardinals will definitely be better with elite. Nobody is saying otherwise. I think it was mentioned to attempt to develop them faster. Never have I proclaimed winning happen by only a homegrown team. It doesn't happen.
Seattle with all that pitching, in a pitchers park finally broke through, finally. They had how many homegrown position players and still added at the TD. They are imo, in real danger of regression if they go cheap and they likely will. Too timid to spend either in prospects or money. Players had career years.

The NYY got blessed with their version of Pujols. Multiple additions and they continue to need to add.
Winning doesn't have a single recipe. For sustainability as division favorites. The system has to provide players and use every method to obtain them.

The Yankees really messed up with some of their signings and they've strayed too far away from dominant pitching. Still they are the cream of the crop in the Al and always have a target on their backs. Their owners did take a step back in payroll somewhat but I expect them to be in the playoffs every year.

[Ronnie Dobbs]

Without delving into the history of those clubs and seeing their specific builds over the years I really can't speak strongly to their circumstances, but I will say, what did they win in that period? Any championship's? I will say that Tampa had some novel strategy with using openers for games and some other things and getting players like Garcia(I think) hot in the playoffs helped, but they won't spend and if they had supplemented their teams during those times they might very well have a Championship. They did come up with some wicked pitching during that time also. As for the Brewers, well, they have had an exceptional run of luck acquiring mediocre players that played way above average for them. I don't know if it has to do with the park they play in or just great luck, but remember that guy "Yelich" that's a superstar? Without him who knows. They did develop some pitching and that always helps but again, they won the Central. That's far from a championship and during most of that time the Central was considered the weak sister.

Yes, but the whole point of this is that, unlike the Brewers, TB, and Cleveland is that they do not have the capability to spend in the top 10 to top 1/3 of teams in the league, but the Cardinals do. Nobody here, or with the Cardinals, who are in favor of this model are saying that they have to drop their payroll to the level of those teams. Why do people keep overlooking this?

If the Cardinals are able to build a system that allows them to get production out of young players year after year, they can aford to spend more on more established players when the time comes.They spend as they historically always have under this ownership group once they are able to get their infrastructure in place. Yes, it might take a year or two to get the infrastructure in place to do this, but people have to be patient, or at least try to understand what they are doing.

It's literally what they have done for the years when the organization has had the most success.

[AZ_Cardsfan]

Yes, but the whole point of this is that, unlike the Brewers, TB, and Cleveland is that they do not have the capability to spend in the top 10 to top 1/3 of teams in the league, but the Cardinals do. Nobody here, or with the Cardinals, who are in favor of this model are saying that they have to drop their payroll to the level of those teams. Why do people keep overlooking this?

If the Cardinals are able to build a system that allows them to get production out of young players year after year, they can aford to spend more on more established players when the time comes.They spend as they historically always have under this ownership group once they are able to get their infrastructure in place. Yes, it might take a year or two to get the infrastructure in place to do this, but people have to be patient, or at least try to understand what they are doing.

It's literally what they have done for the years when the organization has had the most success.

It is a bit frustrating the people who think the intent or support for a PIT type model going forward is it. No, STL is in rebuild and will be cheap this year. But once the farm is fixed and productive they should (and will I believe) return to spending middle to top third of the pack making them a contender.

Think great farm AND $200 mil from 2028 onward.

[mattmitchl44]

If your numbers are right, they would need some luck to make the playoffs but it's possible. Add a little more and they make the playoffs probably. Once in the playoffs they have a chance to make a run. Teams can and have done that. Competitive teams draw more fans so not only does it lift a team but it actually lifts a teams bottom line. Losing doesn't do that. Losing Gray hurts. Losing Donovan hurts. But if they get top talent in return then not so much. Losing Mikolas and Matz is a plus. Any replacement is likely to do as well or better IMO. Easing the pressure on Walker and Scott by improving the team can only help them at worst. This team should add quality free agents to help and make the playoffs.

The Cardinals are trying to build an organizational future that isn't so dependent on luck.

And, no, if you have a consistently Top 5 farm system, basing your roster construction on the annual development of prospects isn't "luck."

The problem is you can't consistently keep a top 5 farm system. You're subject to the eccentricities of the draft. You draft good it helps you win, you win you get a worse draft position. This up and down process can be mitigated with good free agent signings but success will always leave you in a poorer draft position. You can hope for lightning from lower picks and supplement with free agents or you can put your eggs into losing and drafting high. We see the Pittsburghs and Miami's getting these high picks but it never seems to make them winners. I wonder why.

You can consistently draft better than average. At every point that the Cardinals draft there are future major leaguers available to be drafted. The teams that do a better job of identifying and developing them (and international signings) will always have an advantage in their farm systems.

Because Pittsburgh and Miami have ~$100 million less in ML payroll than the Cardinals to put into:

1) aggressively locking up the players they do develop with lower cost, long term contracts and
2) selectively adding key FAs at the right time

Not really. No one knows if a player will break out. The consistent winners use their minors as trading cards to land major talent. Occasionally a young stud filters through. Depending mostly on minor league talent is why the lesser teams constantly lose. When you stick someone like Siani into the lineup for 400-500 at bats it's always going to end bad. That's why he can't stick anywhere. My proposal is to not cut salary at all. Instead play your hand every single year. If you absolutely must trade away top talent (Gray), it's a must to get top talent that is very near major league ready. Why not compete every single year? There just isn't a good excuse not to.

Then how have teams like Cleveland, Tampa Bay, and Milwaukee consistently get more production out of young players on their rosters - and have been in the Top 10 in regular season wins over the last decade?

They do it because they are consistently better at identifying, acquiring, and developing young talent. Of the Top 10 batters and Top 10 pitchers for those teams over the last decade (60 total players), 35 (58%) came to the majors with those teams and another 22 (37%) were acquired by trade as pre-ARB or ARB years players.

Those are the models. Then add tens of millions more in payroll on top of that.

Without delving into the history of those clubs and seeing their specific builds over the years I really can't speak strongly to their circumstances, but I will say, what did they win in that period? Any championship's? I will say that Tampa had some novel strategy with using openers for games and some other things and getting players like Garcia(I think) hot in the playoffs helped, but they won't spend and if they had supplemented their teams during those times they might very well have a Championship. They did come up with some wicked pitching during that time also. As for the Brewers, well, they have had an exceptional run of luck acquiring mediocre players that played way above average for them. I don't know if it has to do with the park they play in or just great luck, but remember that guy "Yelich" that's a superstar? Without him who knows. They did develop some pitching and that always helps but again, they won the Central. That's far from a championship and during most of that time the Central was considered the weak sister.

On one hand you want to say the Cardinals should "just get into the playoffs, it's a crapshoot" and on the other you want to downplay what Cleveland, Milwaukee, Tampa Bay have achieved because they didn't "win anything" in a crapshoot. But what they did win was a lot of regular season games, which would have frequently ensured they weren't getting super high 1st round draft picks - yet they still maintained an ability to consistently generate a lot of cost controlled young talent.

As has been stated over and over and over again - the Cardinals need to do what Cleveland, Milwaukee, Tampa Bay have shown can be done when it comes to developing young talent and then they need do to it BETTER by having greater payroll resources to add more expensive veteran players than those teams can afford.

[CCard]

If your numbers are right, they would need some luck to make the playoffs but it's possible. Add a little more and they make the playoffs probably. Once in the playoffs they have a chance to make a run. Teams can and have done that. Competitive teams draw more fans so not only does it lift a team but it actually lifts a teams bottom line. Losing doesn't do that. Losing Gray hurts. Losing Donovan hurts. But if they get top talent in return then not so much. Losing Mikolas and Matz is a plus. Any replacement is likely to do as well or better IMO. Easing the pressure on Walker and Scott by improving the team can only help them at worst. This team should add quality free agents to help and make the playoffs.

The Cardinals are trying to build an organizational future that isn't so dependent on luck.

And, no, if you have a consistently Top 5 farm system, basing your roster construction on the annual development of prospects isn't "luck."

The problem is you can't consistently keep a top 5 farm system. You're subject to the eccentricities of the draft. You draft good it helps you win, you win you get a worse draft position. This up and down process can be mitigated with good free agent signings but success will always leave you in a poorer draft position. You can hope for lightning from lower picks and supplement with free agents or you can put your eggs into losing and drafting high. We see the Pittsburghs and Miami's getting these high picks but it never seems to make them winners. I wonder why.

You can consistently draft better than average. At every point that the Cardinals draft there are future major leaguers available to be drafted. The teams that do a better job of identifying and developing them (and international signings) will always have an advantage in their farm systems.

Because Pittsburgh and Miami have ~$100 million less in ML payroll than the Cardinals to put into:

1) aggressively locking up the players they do develop with lower cost, long term contracts and
2) selectively adding key FAs at the right time

Not really. No one knows if a player will break out. The consistent winners use their minors as trading cards to land major talent. Occasionally a young stud filters through. Depending mostly on minor league talent is why the lesser teams constantly lose. When you stick someone like Siani into the lineup for 400-500 at bats it's always going to end bad. That's why he can't stick anywhere. My proposal is to not cut salary at all. Instead play your hand every single year. If you absolutely must trade away top talent (Gray), it's a must to get top talent that is very near major league ready. Why not compete every single year? There just isn't a good excuse not to.

Then how have teams like Cleveland, Tampa Bay, and Milwaukee consistently get more production out of young players on their rosters - and have been in the Top 10 in regular season wins over the last decade?

They do it because they are consistently better at identifying, acquiring, and developing young talent. Of the Top 10 batters and Top 10 pitchers for those teams over the last decade (60 total players), 35 (58%) came to the majors with those teams and another 22 (37%) were acquired by trade as pre-ARB or ARB years players.

Those are the models. Then add tens of millions more in payroll on top of that.

Without delving into the history of those clubs and seeing their specific builds over the years I really can't speak strongly to their circumstances, but I will say, what did they win in that period? Any championship's? I will say that Tampa had some novel strategy with using openers for games and some other things and getting players like Garcia(I think) hot in the playoffs helped, but they won't spend and if they had supplemented their teams during those times they might very well have a Championship. They did come up with some wicked pitching during that time also. As for the Brewers, well, they have had an exceptional run of luck acquiring mediocre players that played way above average for them. I don't know if it has to do with the park they play in or just great luck, but remember that guy "Yelich" that's a superstar? Without him who knows. They did develop some pitching and that always helps but again, they won the Central. That's far from a championship and during most of that time the Central was considered the weak sister.

On one hand you want to say the Cardinals should "just get into the playoffs, it's a crapshoot" and on the other you want to downplay what Cleveland, Milwaukee, Tampa Bay have achieved because they didn't "win anything" in a crapshoot. But what they did win was a lot of regular season games, which would have frequently ensured they weren't getting super high 1st round draft picks - yet they still maintained an ability to consistently generate a lot of cost controlled young talent.

As has been stated over and over and over again - the Cardinals need to do what Cleveland, Milwaukee, Tampa Bay have shown can be done when it comes to developing young talent and then they need do to it BETTER by having greater payroll resources to add more expensive veteran players than those teams can afford.

It's a "weighted" crapshoot. When you get in you always have a puncher's chance. It's better and more exciting than losing for years over some mythical rebuild bull. Over and over and over again, your way is by massively losing for years. My way is continually putting the best possible team within guidelines on the field for a chance to get in the playoffs. One doe NOT preclude the other. Bot can be done at the same time. The Cards are living proof of that concept. For a large period of time they were one of the most winning teams in baseball, a perennial playoff contender. That brought 3 million through the turnstiles consistently and kept them flush. Over that time their philosophy was to contend every year for a WS championship and they won a few. It's important to give fans at least a semblance of you trying to win in a season, otherwise why even play? They have the ability for do all the draft and develop (bleep) and still sign top tier talent at the same time. People like you are giving a false argument.

[ScotchMIrish]

We are now a revenue sharing franchise thanks in part to the botched tv deal. The question isn't whether to rebuild but how.

[CCard]

Without delving into the history of those clubs and seeing their specific builds over the years I really can't speak strongly to their circumstances, but I will say, what did they win in that period? Any championship's? I will say that Tampa had some novel strategy with using openers for games and some other things and getting players like Garcia(I think) hot in the playoffs helped, but they won't spend and if they had supplemented their teams during those times they might very well have a Championship. They did come up with some wicked pitching during that time also. As for the Brewers, well, they have had an exceptional run of luck acquiring mediocre players that played way above average for them. I don't know if it has to do with the park they play in or just great luck, but remember that guy "Yelich" that's a superstar? Without him who knows. They did develop some pitching and that always helps but again, they won the Central. That's far from a championship and during most of that time the Central was considered the weak sister.

Yes, but the whole point of this is that, unlike the Brewers, TB, and Cleveland is that they do not have the capability to spend in the top 10 to top 1/3 of teams in the league, but the Cardinals do. Nobody here, or with the Cardinals, who are in favor of this model are saying that they have to drop their payroll to the level of those teams. Why do people keep overlooking this?

If the Cardinals are able to build a system that allows them to get production out of young players year after year, they can aford to spend more on more established players when the time comes.They spend as they historically always have under this ownership group once they are able to get their infrastructure in place. Yes, it might take a year or two to get the infrastructure in place to do this, but people have to be patient, or at least try to understand what they are doing.

It's literally what they have done for the years when the organization has had the most success.

Again, another "but they can't walk and chew gum at the same time" post. When will you guys understand that they can do both every (bleep) season. They've proven they can because they did it and in the process won some championships.

[Ronnie Dobbs]

Again, another "but they can't walk and chew gum at the same time" post. When will you guys understand that they can do both every (bleep) season. They've proven they can because they did it and in the process won some championships.

Yes, and why did they do it? They didn't just start from scratch and were immediately successful. It took building of the developmental infrastructure to get it in place so that when they were at a point where they could be truly competitive, they could start bringing in those more established, potentially more expensive players.

We have to build that again (you know, reduild) to get to that point where we were in the past. Unless you think that we are producing players like we did in the first 10 years of the 2000s, then I would think you would agree that development needs more improvement.