STLtoday.com

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑10 May 2025 06:08 am

ICCFIM2 wrote: ↑10 May 2025 04:41 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑10 May 2025 04:28 am Hmmm....I didn't expect to read this thread this morning.

Should I be honored or frightened that people still remember what I said two years ago?

I, in turn, want to credit Branch Rickey, who I paraphrase as, "it is better to trade a player a year too early rather than a year too late."

Take credit where credit is due...I would however point out the game has changed a bit since Rickey was around. With the cost of free agency, you have to hold onto players to try and get them to pan out if you are a mid market team. It remains true only to the extent that your evaluation of the player and the player you will receive back in a trade is better than the other team's valuation. That is hard to do.

It is also interesting that as much criticism as MO takes on this board, much of it deserved, he may be leaving the franchise in better shape than it has been in since 2015 or so when he leaves.

The game has certainly changed - but it has changed in a direction that makes building around young, cost controlled talent even more important.

For a number of decades, going back to at least the 1980s ($1 million max, $30K min) and 1990s ($3.2 million max, $100K min), the highest paid MLB players made about 30x the MLB minimum. Then that ratio started to grow in the 2000s, 2010s, etc.

Today, with the ML minimum at $760,000, we're seeing multiple players at 50x that ($38+ million).

As that ratio grows, young, cost controlled talent - players making around the ML minimum or in early ARB years become ever more valuable in order for teams to balance payroll while still being competitive. That's why teams always have to look seriously at trading aging veterans - maybe even a year too early - to get back more and more prospects which are necessary to matriculate young, cost controlled players to your ML team.

And we know that not all prospects will work out as expected to become productive ML players, but that isn't a reason to acquire/trade for less of them, that's a reason to acquire/trade for MORE of them because you have to have a sufficient number of them work out even given some "losses" in those that fail to do so.

ICCFIM2 wrote: ↑11 May 2025 07:45 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑10 May 2025 06:08 am

ICCFIM2 wrote: ↑10 May 2025 04:41 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑10 May 2025 04:28 am Hmmm....I didn't expect to read this thread this morning.

Should I be honored or frightened that people still remember what I said two years ago?

I, in turn, want to credit Branch Rickey, who I paraphrase as, "it is better to trade a player a year too early rather than a year too late."

Take credit where credit is due...I would however point out the game has changed a bit since Rickey was around. With the cost of free agency, you have to hold onto players to try and get them to pan out if you are a mid market team. It remains true only to the extent that your evaluation of the player and the player you will receive back in a trade is better than the other team's valuation. That is hard to do.

It is also interesting that as much criticism as MO takes on this board, much of it deserved, he may be leaving the franchise in better shape than it has been in since 2015 or so when he leaves.

The game has certainly changed - but it has changed in a direction that makes building around young, cost controlled talent even more important.

For a number of decades, going back to at least the 1980s ($1 million max, $30K min) and 1990s ($3.2 million max, $100K min), the highest paid MLB players made about 30x the MLB minimum. Then that ratio started to grow in the 2000s, 2010s, etc.

Today, with the ML minimum at $760,000, we're seeing multiple players at 50x that ($38+ million).

As that ratio grows, young, cost controlled talent - players making around the ML minimum or in early ARB years become ever more valuable in order for teams to balance payroll while still being competitive. That's why teams always have to look seriously at trading aging veterans - maybe even a year too early - to get back more and more prospects which are necessary to matriculate young, cost controlled players to your ML team.

And we know that not all prospects will work out as expected to become productive ML players, but that isn't a reason to acquire/trade for less of them, that's a reason to acquire/trade for MORE of them because you have to have a sufficient number of them work out even given some "losses" in those that fail to do so.

While I appreciate your enthusiasm for the process of acquiring young talent, that has to be balanced with the goal of winning championships when the opportunity arises. In order to do that, teams like the Cards have to try and lock in young players through their arb years +2 years of free agency at reasonable prices. I know some of those contracts in the last few years, Dejong, CMart, etc. have not worked out. But, is has to be part of the model. Masyn Winn should be the first guy they are trying to lock down. If Mathew Liberatore keeps pitching like this, he should be on the list. Victor Scott II should be on the list. Maybe Herrera if he keeps hitting. Having a core that is cost managed is critical as well. I only think you should trade veterans if the window to win is closed.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑10 May 2025 07:44 am

thetank2 wrote: ↑10 May 2025 07:27 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑10 May 2025 06:08 am

ICCFIM2 wrote: ↑10 May 2025 04:41 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑10 May 2025 04:28 am Hmmm....I didn't expect to read this thread this morning.

Should I be honored or frightened that people still remember what I said two years ago?

I, in turn, want to credit Branch Rickey, who I paraphrase as, "it is better to trade a player a year too early rather than a year too late."

Take credit where credit is due...I would however point out the game has changed a bit since Rickey was around. With the cost of free agency, you have to hold onto players to try and get them to pan out if you are a mid market team. It remains true only to the extent that your evaluation of the player and the player you will receive back in a trade is better than the other team's valuation. That is hard to do.

It is also interesting that as much criticism as MO takes on this board, much of it deserved, he may be leaving the franchise in better shape than it has been in since 2015 or so when he leaves.

The game has certainly changed - but it has changed in a direction that makes building around young, cost controlled talent even more important.

For a number of decades, going back to at least the 1980s ($1 million max, $30K min) and 1990s ($3.2 million max, $100K min), the highest paid MLB players made about 30x the MLB minimum. Then that ratio started to grow in the 2000s, 2010s, etc.

Today, with the ML minimum at $760,000, we're seeing multiple players at 50x that ($38+ million).

As that ratio grows, young, cost controlled talent - players making around the ML minimum or in early ARB years become ever more valuable in order for teams to balance payroll while still being competitive. That's why teams always have to look seriously at trading aging veterans - maybe even a year too early - to get back more and more prospects which are necessary to matriculate young, cost controlled players to your ML team.

And we know that not all prospects will work out as expected to become productive ML players, but that isn't a reason to acquire/trade for less of them, that's a reason to acquire/trade for MORE of them because you have to have a sufficient number of them work out even given some "losses" in those that fail to do so.

Keep in mind that if the Cards get 2 prospects for the 1 player traded we will have to release a player. Prospects unless the top ones are usually not worth it.

No, you don't, unless those prospects have to be put on the 40-man roster. But you can trade for very good prospects who don't yet have to be protected on the 40-man roster.

thetank2 wrote: ↑12 May 2025 15:34 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑10 May 2025 07:44 am

thetank2 wrote: ↑10 May 2025 07:27 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑10 May 2025 06:08 am

ICCFIM2 wrote: ↑10 May 2025 04:41 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑10 May 2025 04:28 am Hmmm....I didn't expect to read this thread this morning.

Should I be honored or frightened that people still remember what I said two years ago?

I, in turn, want to credit Branch Rickey, who I paraphrase as, "it is better to trade a player a year too early rather than a year too late."

Take credit where credit is due...I would however point out the game has changed a bit since Rickey was around. With the cost of free agency, you have to hold onto players to try and get them to pan out if you are a mid market team. It remains true only to the extent that your evaluation of the player and the player you will receive back in a trade is better than the other team's valuation. That is hard to do.

It is also interesting that as much criticism as MO takes on this board, much of it deserved, he may be leaving the franchise in better shape than it has been in since 2015 or so when he leaves.

The game has certainly changed - but it has changed in a direction that makes building around young, cost controlled talent even more important.

For a number of decades, going back to at least the 1980s ($1 million max, $30K min) and 1990s ($3.2 million max, $100K min), the highest paid MLB players made about 30x the MLB minimum. Then that ratio started to grow in the 2000s, 2010s, etc.

Today, with the ML minimum at $760,000, we're seeing multiple players at 50x that ($38+ million).

As that ratio grows, young, cost controlled talent - players making around the ML minimum or in early ARB years become ever more valuable in order for teams to balance payroll while still being competitive. That's why teams always have to look seriously at trading aging veterans - maybe even a year too early - to get back more and more prospects which are necessary to matriculate young, cost controlled players to your ML team.

And we know that not all prospects will work out as expected to become productive ML players, but that isn't a reason to acquire/trade for less of them, that's a reason to acquire/trade for MORE of them because you have to have a sufficient number of them work out even given some "losses" in those that fail to do so.

Keep in mind that if the Cards get 2 prospects for the 1 player traded we will have to release a player. Prospects unless the top ones are usually not worth it.

No, you don't, unless those prospects have to be put on the 40-man roster. But you can trade for very good prospects who don't yet have to be protected on the 40-man roster.

Because the Cards have been in nearly every pennant race since 2000 except 2023 the only top prospect we received was Adam Wainwright. Maybe Liberatore after 5 years for our OF prospect.

We are not getting (bleep) for our FAs that have millions on the books.

The Cards got Sagesse a couple of years ago. I was hopeful with Drew Rom.

Ronnie Dobbs wrote: ↑09 May 2025 15:19 pm I gotta credit this to Matt, since he's the guy who was preaching this the loudest back in 2023. Now I believed at the time, and I think you can still see that ownerships is incredibly resistant to this kind of thing, especially when it comes to trading guys like Goldschmidt and Arenado.

But look how encouraging this team is right now. Probably not enough to go anywhere, yet not enough in the minors that you could really acquire anyone of substance without selling out basically everyone in your system of value, and that would still be a tough climb to feel really good about winning in the playoffs. You can see that there is a good, young core, though.

Where would we be had we traded Arenado and Goldschmidt in 2023 at the deadline or in the offseason? They were both coming off MVP level years in 2022. They were both having amazing first halves in 2023. They would have gotten a pretty good haul of prospects. Probably at least one major league ready and one high level prospect each.

Last year too. What could we have gotten for Helsley? This year we are treating him exactly the same way we did last year in the hopes that he will stay healthy and replicate last season so that we can trade him at the deadline and get some prospects. Or what about Edman? Instead of Fedde, maybe he could have brought back a more longer-term prospect.

And not only that, but the second half of 2023 and all of 2024 is just more time to get that important playing time that we are trying to cram in this year for guys like Walker, Gorman, Burleson, Herrera, Saggese.

So what's my point? Look at how you can see the makings of a pretty good team coming together this year. You've got young guys coming into their own at the plate, on defense, and pitching. They may be a year or more off, but think if we had a few more good young pitchers and/or position players? We might be a year or two off of being really good instead of 3+ years. We avoided the inevitable and got nowhere in 2023 or 2024 when we could be getting somewhere now.

Or Mo could have made some lousy trades and screwed it all up. Who knows?