STLtoday.com Forums
https://interact.stltoday.com/forums/
https://interact.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1516585
Good questions, and I would say it depends! If they invest in players like Goldschmidt and Arenado but fail to build more around them (pitching, e.g.), then squeak into the playoffs and get bounced right away, that to me is a failed model. Now, the emphasis appears to be on rebuilding with a younger core, and it will take a while for that plan to bear fruit. But if they do make the wild card in 2027, that to me would be a step in the right direction if they keep building on that incremental success so that they could be a serious WS contender in the years that follow.CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 14:08 pmAgree on the bad business model and lack of direction for sure. But what does the alternative or right way look like? Say the moves the team makes this offseason, result in a wildcard berth but they get bounced quickly, will the moves they made be viewed as half measures that didn’t work out, or natural incremental progress?sp25 wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 13:44 pmThis exactly. People point to 2006 as a lucky team to make the postseason, then caught lightning and won the WS.Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 13:12 pm Win if you can. I'm not opposed to making the wildcard. I'm opposed to building a team with that goal in mind.
That's not how that year went. Preseason the Cardinals and Mets were favorites, and midseason the Cardinals were living up to that billing. Injuries started to catch up to them, especially in September, so they struggled to the finish line and barely won the division.
But they were also getting healthy again (except for Isringhausen), so the team that won October baseball was more similar to the first half favorites than to the last half beat up group.
Besides, they had the last year of MV3, and they were due to fulfull their destiny.
It seems that what happened in 2006 became a model for the Cardinals: just get in, and anything can happen. To me, that is not a good business model.
Sounds like your of the mindset - slow and steady wins the race - which I can comprehend better than tank-to-win.sp25 wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 15:20 pmGood questions, and I would say it depends! If they invest in players like Goldschmidt and Arenado but fail to build more around them (pitching, e.g.), then squeak into the playoffs and get bounced right away, that to me is a failed model. Now, the emphasis appears to be on rebuilding with a younger core, and it will take a while for that plan to bear fruit. But if they do make the wild card in 2027, that to me would be a step in the right direction if they keep building on that incremental success so that they could be a serious WS contender in the years that follow.CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 14:08 pmAgree on the bad business model and lack of direction for sure. But what does the alternative or right way look like? Say the moves the team makes this offseason, result in a wildcard berth but they get bounced quickly, will the moves they made be viewed as half measures that didn’t work out, or natural incremental progress?sp25 wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 13:44 pmThis exactly. People point to 2006 as a lucky team to make the postseason, then caught lightning and won the WS.Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 13:12 pm Win if you can. I'm not opposed to making the wildcard. I'm opposed to building a team with that goal in mind.
That's not how that year went. Preseason the Cardinals and Mets were favorites, and midseason the Cardinals were living up to that billing. Injuries started to catch up to them, especially in September, so they struggled to the finish line and barely won the division.
But they were also getting healthy again (except for Isringhausen), so the team that won October baseball was more similar to the first half favorites than to the last half beat up group.
Besides, they had the last year of MV3, and they were due to fulfull their destiny.
It seems that what happened in 2006 became a model for the Cardinals: just get in, and anything can happen. To me, that is not a good business model.
I feel like shortening the season with the same amount of playoff spots would still present basically the same problem, but point taken. There is a watering down of competition.alw80 wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 14:34 pm Also, I think MLB needs to put more emphasis on the regular season. Winning the most games should be a major accomplishment akin to winning the WS. Because right now the regular season means very little and then theres a tournament that determines the "best" team. The regular season may as well be 80 games. Give teams an incentive to be as good as they can be instead of doing the bare minimum to grab a playoff spot.
I agree 12 of 30 teams make the playoffs. That is 40% of teams make the playoffs after playing 162 games that are nearly meaningless. Its not just good teams make the playoffs anymore. It is teams that are not bad make the playoffs. It is the mediocre teams and above.alw80 wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 14:34 pm Also, I think MLB needs to put more emphasis on the regular season. Winning the most games should be a major accomplishment akin to winning the WS. Because right now the regular season means very little and then theres a tournament that determines the "best" team. The regular season may as well be 80 games. Give teams an incentive to be as good as they can be instead of doing the bare minimum to grab a playoff spot.
Drafts are wildly unpredictable.Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 14:30 pmDefinitely don't lose for draft position. It's actually hard to be as bad as the Rockies and the White Sox, etc.. We would lose more than we gain by dropping down that far.CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 14:18 pmThe 2006 blueprint did seem to incorrectly become a new model with the fallacy being the lack of star power and/or depth. What if we have decent depth and an MV1 or MV2 over the next few seasons and squeek in but fall short? Is the experience worth it, or would you rather them continue to lose for better draft position, and is that even feasible without disrespect to the game and competition in general? Is there a natural progression in the views of the contend-or-bust crowd?sp25 wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 13:44 pmThis exactly. People point to 2006 as a lucky team to make the postseason, then caught lightning and won the WS.Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 13:12 pm Win if you can. I'm not opposed to making the wildcard. I'm opposed to building a team with that goal in mind.
That's not how that year went. Preseason the Cardinals and Mets were favorites, and midseason the Cardinals were living up to that billing. Injuries started to catch up to them, especially in September, so they struggled to the finish line and barely won the division.
But they were also getting healthy again (except for Isringhausen), so the team that won October baseball was more similar to the first half favorites than to the last half beat up group.
Besides, they had the last year of MV3, and they were due to fulfull their destiny.
It seems that what happened in 2006 became a model for the Cardinals: just get in, and anything can happen. To me, that is not a good business model.
Going out early in the playoffs is like kissing your sister. No thanks. Go for the ring or bust. Build the future that way. This ownership group does not lack the assets to compete. They choose not to go for it.Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 13:12 pm Win if you can. I'm not opposed to making the wildcard. I'm opposed to building a team with that goal in mind.
So HOW do you bust exactly? As has been pointed out in this thread 40% of MLB makes the playoffs so if you already have a .500 team core that is generally young and make sensible moves, you’re probably going to find yourself in the WC race anyway.ClassicO wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 21:51 pmGoing out early in the playoffs is like kissing your sister. No thanks. Go for the ring or bust. Build the future that way. This ownership group does not lack the assets to compete. They choose not to go for it.Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 13:12 pm Win if you can. I'm not opposed to making the wildcard. I'm opposed to building a team with that goal in mind.
Look no further than the NL Wild Card race for several teams hovering around .500 battling for the third Wild Card. Yippee! And MLB wants to add more Wild Cards.CardsBest wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 21:06 pmI agree 12 of 30 teams make the playoffs. That is 40% of teams make the playoffs after playing 162 games that are nearly meaningless. Its not just good teams make the playoffs anymore. It is teams that are not bad make the playoffs. It is the mediocre teams and above.alw80 wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 14:34 pm Also, I think MLB needs to put more emphasis on the regular season. Winning the most games should be a major accomplishment akin to winning the WS. Because right now the regular season means very little and then theres a tournament that determines the "best" team. The regular season may as well be 80 games. Give teams an incentive to be as good as they can be instead of doing the bare minimum to grab a playoff spot.
There are far to many things to do in life and to spend your money on than to wate your time and money on a team that doesn’t care to try to win the division or try to be a top 3 team in their league.
With the expansion of the playoffs the regular season means less and less. They want parity and randomness so there is no need to have a 162 game season. Cut it in half and just have your random tournament to decide a "champion". Its really a shame.CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 18:01 pmI feel like shortening the season with the same amount of playoff spots would still present basically the same problem, but point taken. There is a watering down of competition.alw80 wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 14:34 pm Also, I think MLB needs to put more emphasis on the regular season. Winning the most games should be a major accomplishment akin to winning the WS. Because right now the regular season means very little and then theres a tournament that determines the "best" team. The regular season may as well be 80 games. Give teams an incentive to be as good as they can be instead of doing the bare minimum to grab a playoff spot.
MLB wants parity to keep more fans engaged and not watching big market teams take turns handing the trophy back and forth between them, yet they also won’t institute a salary cap. I don’t think they’re going to get it both ways like they want.
This is pretty much how I feel. I think winning the WS isn't as cool or special as it once was. It used to be the very best teams playing to determine a champion now you might get one of the best teams against a team that finished third in their division. Not as fun.CardsBest wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 21:06 pmI agree 12 of 30 teams make the playoffs. That is 40% of teams make the playoffs after playing 162 games that are nearly meaningless. Its not just good teams make the playoffs anymore. It is teams that are not bad make the playoffs. It is the mediocre teams and above.alw80 wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 14:34 pm Also, I think MLB needs to put more emphasis on the regular season. Winning the most games should be a major accomplishment akin to winning the WS. Because right now the regular season means very little and then theres a tournament that determines the "best" team. The regular season may as well be 80 games. Give teams an incentive to be as good as they can be instead of doing the bare minimum to grab a playoff spot.
There are far to many things to do in life and to spend your money on than to wate your time and money on a team that doesn’t care to try to win the division or try to be a top 3 team in their league.
What incentive do you suggest. They get a bye, not much left to offer.alw80 wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025 06:50 amWith the expansion of the playoffs the regular season means less and less. They want parity and randomness so there is no need to have a 162 game season. Cut it in half and just have your random tournament to decide a "champion". Its really a shame.CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 18:01 pmI feel like shortening the season with the same amount of playoff spots would still present basically the same problem, but point taken. There is a watering down of competition.alw80 wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 14:34 pm Also, I think MLB needs to put more emphasis on the regular season. Winning the most games should be a major accomplishment akin to winning the WS. Because right now the regular season means very little and then theres a tournament that determines the "best" team. The regular season may as well be 80 games. Give teams an incentive to be as good as they can be instead of doing the bare minimum to grab a playoff spot.
MLB wants parity to keep more fans engaged and not watching big market teams take turns handing the trophy back and forth between them, yet they also won’t institute a salary cap. I don’t think they’re going to get it both ways like they want.
I honestly dont know, havent really thought it through that far. Maybe you're just automatically in the LCS but having all that time off can be bad. Having the best record should be a championship in itself. Whether you win the WS or not the team with the best record is the best team that year and I dont think these teams get the proper acknowledgement they deserve. You have the best record after after a six month season and all you get is a bye out of the WC round. Whats the point in playing 162 games?sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025 06:54 amWhat incentive do you suggest. They get a bye, not much left to offer.alw80 wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025 06:50 amWith the expansion of the playoffs the regular season means less and less. They want parity and randomness so there is no need to have a 162 game season. Cut it in half and just have your random tournament to decide a "champion". Its really a shame.CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 18:01 pmI feel like shortening the season with the same amount of playoff spots would still present basically the same problem, but point taken. There is a watering down of competition.alw80 wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 14:34 pm Also, I think MLB needs to put more emphasis on the regular season. Winning the most games should be a major accomplishment akin to winning the WS. Because right now the regular season means very little and then theres a tournament that determines the "best" team. The regular season may as well be 80 games. Give teams an incentive to be as good as they can be instead of doing the bare minimum to grab a playoff spot.
MLB wants parity to keep more fans engaged and not watching big market teams take turns handing the trophy back and forth between them, yet they also won’t institute a salary cap. I don’t think they’re going to get it both ways like they want.
Your points are well taken. Valid. That’s why back in the day, just winner of National verse American. Two best teams.alw80 wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025 07:02 amI honestly dont know, havent really thought it through that far. Maybe you're just automatically in the LCS but having all that time off can be bad. Having the best record should be a championship in itself. Whether you win the WS or not the team with the best record is the best team that year and I dont think these teams get the proper acknowledgement they deserve. You have the best record after after a six month season and all you get is a bye out of the WC round. Whats the point in playing 162 games?sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025 06:54 amWhat incentive do you suggest. They get a bye, not much left to offer.alw80 wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025 06:50 amWith the expansion of the playoffs the regular season means less and less. They want parity and randomness so there is no need to have a 162 game season. Cut it in half and just have your random tournament to decide a "champion". Its really a shame.CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 18:01 pmI feel like shortening the season with the same amount of playoff spots would still present basically the same problem, but point taken. There is a watering down of competition.alw80 wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 14:34 pm Also, I think MLB needs to put more emphasis on the regular season. Winning the most games should be a major accomplishment akin to winning the WS. Because right now the regular season means very little and then theres a tournament that determines the "best" team. The regular season may as well be 80 games. Give teams an incentive to be as good as they can be instead of doing the bare minimum to grab a playoff spot.
MLB wants parity to keep more fans engaged and not watching big market teams take turns handing the trophy back and forth between them, yet they also won’t institute a salary cap. I don’t think they’re going to get it both ways like they want.