STLtoday.com

I will be disappointed if the Cardinals end up with Castellanos under any circumstances.

Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 11:45 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 06:21 am It wouldn't accomplish anything.

The point should be to eat part of Arenado's contract in order to get prospects back, not just moving his contract to save money.

Wouldn't a Castellanos for Arenado trade also open up 3B? And save money for next year?

Eating money and trading Arenado for prospects also opens up 3B and doesn't require taking back Castellanos.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:15 pm

Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 11:45 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 06:21 am It wouldn't accomplish anything.

The point should be to eat part of Arenado's contract in order to get prospects back, not just moving his contract to save money.

Wouldn't a Castellanos for Arenado trade also open up 3B? And save money for next year?

Eating money and trading Arenado for prospects also opens up 3B and doesn't require taking back Castellanos.

What prospects?

ecleme22 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:21 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:15 pm

Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 11:45 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 06:21 am It wouldn't accomplish anything.

The point should be to eat part of Arenado's contract in order to get prospects back, not just moving his contract to save money.

Wouldn't a Castellanos for Arenado trade also open up 3B? And save money for next year?

Eating money and trading Arenado for prospects also opens up 3B and doesn't require taking back Castellanos.

What prospects?

Exactly, I think we are assuming here, that there aren’t any deals of this sort available.
Arenado has two more years on his contract, Castellanos only one. Any money saved on the deal is the ultimate goal, and if Castellanos does have a decent first half, there is a higher chance of recouping a better player in return at the deadline, than Arenado does right now.

Hoosier59 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:30 pm

ecleme22 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:21 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:15 pm

Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 11:45 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 06:21 am It wouldn't accomplish anything.

The point should be to eat part of Arenado's contract in order to get prospects back, not just moving his contract to save money.

Wouldn't a Castellanos for Arenado trade also open up 3B? And save money for next year?

Eating money and trading Arenado for prospects also opens up 3B and doesn't require taking back Castellanos.

What prospects?

Exactly, I think we are assuming here, that there aren’t any deals of this sort available.
Arenado has two more years on his contract, Castellanos only one. Any money saved on the deal is the ultimate goal, and if Castellanos does have a decent first half, there is a higher chance of recouping a better player in return at the deadline, than Arenado does right now.

You say that - if he has a good first half. But you use a today Nado as your measuring stick. Isn’t it possible that he too rebounds and makes a nice deadline piece.

ecleme22 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:21 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:15 pm

Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 11:45 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 06:21 am It wouldn't accomplish anything.

The point should be to eat part of Arenado's contract in order to get prospects back, not just moving his contract to save money.

Wouldn't a Castellanos for Arenado trade also open up 3B? And save money for next year?

Eating money and trading Arenado for prospects also opens up 3B and doesn't require taking back Castellanos.

What prospects?

Arenado and enough money in 2026 to cover his entire remaining contact will bring back something in terms of prospects.

It's not about saving money, it's about getting prospects.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:49 pm

ecleme22 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:21 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:15 pm

Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 11:45 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 06:21 am It wouldn't accomplish anything.

The point should be to eat part of Arenado's contract in order to get prospects back, not just moving his contract to save money.

Wouldn't a Castellanos for Arenado trade also open up 3B? And save money for next year?

Eating money and trading Arenado for prospects also opens up 3B and doesn't require taking back Castellanos.

What prospects?

Arenado and enough money in 2026 to cover his entire remaining contact will bring back something in terms of prospects.

It's not about saving money, it's about getting prospects.

I never said it was primarily about saving money.

It's a bet...Who lands you the better prospects?
1. Arenado now?
2. A rebounded NC at the 2026 deadline?

You may "NC may not rebound!" Okay then, what can get you Arenado NOW? NA is owed 37mil the next 2 years. What max amount of money are you eating? And what are you getting in return?

ecleme22 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 13:33 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:49 pm

ecleme22 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:21 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:15 pm

Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 11:45 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 06:21 am It wouldn't accomplish anything.

The point should be to eat part of Arenado's contract in order to get prospects back, not just moving his contract to save money.

Wouldn't a Castellanos for Arenado trade also open up 3B? And save money for next year?

Eating money and trading Arenado for prospects also opens up 3B and doesn't require taking back Castellanos.

What prospects?

Arenado and enough money in 2026 to cover his entire remaining contact will bring back something in terms of prospects.

It's not about saving money, it's about getting prospects.

I never said it was primarily about saving money.

It's a bet...Who lands you the better prospects?
1. Arenado now?
2. A rebounded NC at the 2026 deadline?

You may "NC may not rebound!" Okay then, what can get you Arenado NOW? NA is owed 37mil the next 2 years. What max amount of money are you eating? And what are you getting in return?

I really lack having a dog is this fight.

Why is there much thought process that says...."IF they pay all of his remaining salary then he will bring back prospects"
Teams that don't want him won't change their POV. Teams that have their own internal options won't change. NA with his NTC
isn't going to sign on to a last guy on the bench role. Contenders value roster spots and production more than a free player
they have a MiLB player that's nearly free.

Nick in my opinion has at the very least the potential to bring back as much as NA does now. IF they need to pay a part
of his salary at the TD to get that better prospect they can. It'd be like paying Nick less than $20M, maybe $16 vs paying
$40M toward NA for zero production if traded and paying full.

I need help understanding to position.

ecleme22 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 13:33 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:49 pm

ecleme22 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:21 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:15 pm

Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 11:45 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 06:21 am It wouldn't accomplish anything.

The point should be to eat part of Arenado's contract in order to get prospects back, not just moving his contract to save money.

Wouldn't a Castellanos for Arenado trade also open up 3B? And save money for next year?

Eating money and trading Arenado for prospects also opens up 3B and doesn't require taking back Castellanos.

What prospects?

Arenado and enough money in 2026 to cover his entire remaining contact will bring back something in terms of prospects.

It's not about saving money, it's about getting prospects.

I never said it was primarily about saving money.

It's a bet...Who lands you the better prospects?
1. Arenado now?
2. A rebounded NC at the 2026 deadline?

You may "NC may not rebound!" Okay then, what can get you Arenado NOW? NA is owed 37mil the next 2 years. What max amount of money are you eating? And what are you getting in return?

We'll have to wait and see. If you ate all $37 million, that would move you to +22 in BTV (Arenado is -15.1). That could/should bring you back somebody like a Mike Sirota (+21.8, FV 45+) or a River Ryan (+14.8, FV 50, but injured) from the Dodgers, plus another lesser prospect.

So, basically, one prospect just outside the Top 100 in MLB, if you ate all, or close to all of Arenado's remaining salary.

On principle, if I'm the Cardinals, I don't care how much of my 2026 payroll budget I eat up by sending money with Gray, Arenado, and Contreras, I'm not competing anyway in 2026 and my only goal is to accumulate as much prospect value as possible.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 15:42 pm

ecleme22 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 13:33 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:49 pm

ecleme22 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:21 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:15 pm

Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 11:45 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 06:21 am It wouldn't accomplish anything.

The point should be to eat part of Arenado's contract in order to get prospects back, not just moving his contract to save money.

Wouldn't a Castellanos for Arenado trade also open up 3B? And save money for next year?

Eating money and trading Arenado for prospects also opens up 3B and doesn't require taking back Castellanos.

What prospects?

Arenado and enough money in 2026 to cover his entire remaining contact will bring back something in terms of prospects.

It's not about saving money, it's about getting prospects.

I never said it was primarily about saving money.

It's a bet...Who lands you the better prospects?
1. Arenado now?
2. A rebounded NC at the 2026 deadline?

You may "NC may not rebound!" Okay then, what can get you Arenado NOW? NA is owed 37mil the next 2 years. What max amount of money are you eating? And what are you getting in return?

We'll have to wait and see. If you ate all $37 million, that would move you to +22 in BTV (Arenado is -15.1). That could/should bring you back somebody like a Mike Sirota (+21.8, FV 45+) or a River Ryan (+14.8, FV 50, but injured) from the Dodgers, plus another lesser prospect.

So, basically, one prospect just outside the Top 100 in MLB, if you ate all, or close to all of Arenado's remaining salary.

On principle, if I'm the Cardinals, I don't care how much of my 2026 payroll budget I eat up by sending money with Gray, Arenado, and Contreras, I'm not competing anyway in 2026 and my only goal is to accumulate as much prospect value as possible.

What's Nicks if you eat his?
A big IF, IF he's a RH bat on a 20 HR pace at the TD and free
seems he'd have a market.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 15:42 pm

ecleme22 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 13:33 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:49 pm

ecleme22 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:21 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:15 pm

Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 11:45 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 06:21 am It wouldn't accomplish anything.

The point should be to eat part of Arenado's contract in order to get prospects back, not just moving his contract to save money.

Wouldn't a Castellanos for Arenado trade also open up 3B? And save money for next year?

Eating money and trading Arenado for prospects also opens up 3B and doesn't require taking back Castellanos.

What prospects?

Arenado and enough money in 2026 to cover his entire remaining contact will bring back something in terms of prospects.

It's not about saving money, it's about getting prospects.

I never said it was primarily about saving money.

It's a bet...Who lands you the better prospects?
1. Arenado now?
2. A rebounded NC at the 2026 deadline?

You may "NC may not rebound!" Okay then, what can get you Arenado NOW? NA is owed 37mil the next 2 years. What max amount of money are you eating? And what are you getting in return?

We'll have to wait and see. If you ate all $37 million, that would move you to +22 in BTV (Arenado is -15.1). That could/should bring you back somebody like a Mike Sirota (+21.8, FV 45+) or a River Ryan (+14.8, FV 50, but injured) from the Dodgers, plus another lesser prospect.

So, basically, one prospect just outside the Top 100 in MLB, if you ate all, or close to all of Arenado's remaining salary.

On principle, if I'm the Cardinals, I don't care how much of my 2026 payroll budget I eat up by sending money with Gray, Arenado, and Contreras, I'm not competing anyway in 2026 and my only goal is to accumulate as much prospect value as possible.

I, too, care very little about payroll. I want to accumulate prospects.

But you are willing to eat 37mil in order to get back a prospect just outside of the top 100.

Why not trade for NC (20mil), sign Quintana (9mil) maybe a vet reliever (4mil? Think Maton last year) and suddenly you're spending only 33mil and have the opportunity to get 3 prospects (or more) back at the deal, while saving the prorated money from trading them? Then, still using the Arenado fund, have about 4-6 million to do the same thing in 2027?

Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 11:45 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 06:21 am It wouldn't accomplish anything.

The point should be to eat part of Arenado's contract in order to get prospects back, not just moving his contract to save money.

Wouldn't a Castellanos for Arenado trade also open up 3B? And save money for next year?

Yes

Hoosier59 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:30 pm

ecleme22 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:21 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:15 pm

Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 11:45 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 06:21 am It wouldn't accomplish anything.

The point should be to eat part of Arenado's contract in order to get prospects back, not just moving his contract to save money.

Wouldn't a Castellanos for Arenado trade also open up 3B? And save money for next year?

Eating money and trading Arenado for prospects also opens up 3B and doesn't require taking back Castellanos.

What prospects?

Exactly, I think we are assuming here, that there aren’t any deals of this sort available.
Arenado has two more years on his contract, Castellanos only one. Any money saved on the deal is the ultimate goal, and if Castellanos does have a decent first half, there is a higher chance of recouping a better player in return at the deadline, than Arenado does right now.

Exactly.
Getting one year of Castellanos off the books is faster and cleaner than getting 2 years of Arenado off the books.

ecleme22 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 15:53 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 15:42 pm

ecleme22 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 13:33 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:49 pm

ecleme22 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:21 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:15 pm

Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 11:45 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 06:21 am It wouldn't accomplish anything.

The point should be to eat part of Arenado's contract in order to get prospects back, not just moving his contract to save money.

Wouldn't a Castellanos for Arenado trade also open up 3B? And save money for next year?

Eating money and trading Arenado for prospects also opens up 3B and doesn't require taking back Castellanos.

What prospects?

Arenado and enough money in 2026 to cover his entire remaining contact will bring back something in terms of prospects.

It's not about saving money, it's about getting prospects.

I never said it was primarily about saving money.

It's a bet...Who lands you the better prospects?
1. Arenado now?
2. A rebounded NC at the 2026 deadline?

You may "NC may not rebound!" Okay then, what can get you Arenado NOW? NA is owed 37mil the next 2 years. What max amount of money are you eating? And what are you getting in return?

We'll have to wait and see. If you ate all $37 million, that would move you to +22 in BTV (Arenado is -15.1). That could/should bring you back somebody like a Mike Sirota (+21.8, FV 45+) or a River Ryan (+14.8, FV 50, but injured) from the Dodgers, plus another lesser prospect.

So, basically, one prospect just outside the Top 100 in MLB, if you ate all, or close to all of Arenado's remaining salary.

On principle, if I'm the Cardinals, I don't care how much of my 2026 payroll budget I eat up by sending money with Gray, Arenado, and Contreras, I'm not competing anyway in 2026 and my only goal is to accumulate as much prospect value as possible.

I, too, care very little about payroll. I want to accumulate prospects.

But you are willing to eat 37mil in order to get back a prospect just outside of the top 100.

Why not trade for NC (20mil), sign Quintana (9mil) maybe a vet reliever (4mil? Think Maton last year) and suddenly you're spending only 33mil and have the opportunity to get 3 prospects (or more) back at the deal, while saving the prorated money from trading them? Then, still using the Arenado fund, have about 4-6 million to do the same thing in 2027?

Simply put - because I'm not convinced of the probability that that approach would ultimately bring back more in prospect value than just trading Arenado, eating the $37 million, and getting a single prospect just outside the Top 100 now.

I can see where you could believe in that. I, however, do not.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑17 Dec 2025 03:57 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 15:53 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 15:42 pm

ecleme22 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 13:33 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:49 pm

ecleme22 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:21 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 12:15 pm

Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 11:45 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑16 Dec 2025 06:21 am It wouldn't accomplish anything.

The point should be to eat part of Arenado's contract in order to get prospects back, not just moving his contract to save money.

Wouldn't a Castellanos for Arenado trade also open up 3B? And save money for next year?

Eating money and trading Arenado for prospects also opens up 3B and doesn't require taking back Castellanos.

What prospects?

Arenado and enough money in 2026 to cover his entire remaining contact will bring back something in terms of prospects.

It's not about saving money, it's about getting prospects.

I never said it was primarily about saving money.

It's a bet...Who lands you the better prospects?
1. Arenado now?
2. A rebounded NC at the 2026 deadline?

You may "NC may not rebound!" Okay then, what can get you Arenado NOW? NA is owed 37mil the next 2 years. What max amount of money are you eating? And what are you getting in return?

We'll have to wait and see. If you ate all $37 million, that would move you to +22 in BTV (Arenado is -15.1). That could/should bring you back somebody like a Mike Sirota (+21.8, FV 45+) or a River Ryan (+14.8, FV 50, but injured) from the Dodgers, plus another lesser prospect.

So, basically, one prospect just outside the Top 100 in MLB, if you ate all, or close to all of Arenado's remaining salary.

On principle, if I'm the Cardinals, I don't care how much of my 2026 payroll budget I eat up by sending money with Gray, Arenado, and Contreras, I'm not competing anyway in 2026 and my only goal is to accumulate as much prospect value as possible.

I, too, care very little about payroll. I want to accumulate prospects.

But you are willing to eat 37mil in order to get back a prospect just outside of the top 100.

Why not trade for NC (20mil), sign Quintana (9mil) maybe a vet reliever (4mil? Think Maton last year) and suddenly you're spending only 33mil and have the opportunity to get 3 prospects (or more) back at the deal, while saving the prorated money from trading them? Then, still using the Arenado fund, have about 4-6 million to do the same thing in 2027?

Simply put - because I'm not convinced of the probability that that approach would ultimately bring back more in prospect value than just trading Arenado, eating the $37 million, and getting a single prospect just outside the Top 100 now.

I can see where you could believe in that. I, however, do not.

Your logic is essentially "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." But your best bird in the hand is a non-top 100 prospect for 37mil.

I'm guessing Bloom won't do my scenario, so we will see what he gets for Nolan...

They will eat 1/2 to 2/3 of his salary and the return will not be a top 100 prospect. In fact, his return may not be in a teams' top 30. JMO