STLtoday.com

Melville wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 19:01 pm

Shady wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 13:33 pm If the Cardinals knew then how the Arenado deal would turn out. Would they have still made the trade?

Outstanding question.
Very interesting.
One of the rare trades in which both teams lost - badly.
It is true the Rockies rid themselves of a malcontent cancer - but the return never worked out for them.
It is also true that STL gained a "me first, never a leader" personal stat counter - but he did not make the team a post season threat as intended.
Right now, both teams are suffering from the fallout.
The Rockies turned to Kris Bryant as the bat to replace N/A - and that has been a disaster for them.
And it is now the Cardinals who are stuck with a malcontent cancer.
If both organizations had a crystal ball, neither would have pulled the trigger on the deal.
Then again, Super Slo Mo isn't very bright and when he falls in love, he falls hard....

renostl wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 22:25 pm

Melville wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 21:33 pm

renostl wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 20:01 pm

Melville wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 19:01 pm

Shady wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 13:33 pm If the Cardinals knew then how the Arenado deal would turn out. Would they have still made the trade?

Outstanding question.
Very interesting.
One of the rare trades in which both teams lost - badly.
It is true the Rockies rid themselves of a malcontent cancer - but the return never worked out for them.
It is also true that STL gained a "me first, never a leader" personal stat counter - but he did not make the team a post season threat as intended.
Right now, both teams are suffering from the fallout.
The Rockies turned to Kris Bryant as the bat to replace N/A - and that has been a disaster for them.
And it is now the Cardinals who are stuck with a malcontent cancer.
If both organizations had a crystal ball, neither would have pulled the trigger on the deal.
Then again, Super Slo Mo isn't very bright and when he falls in love, he falls hard....

Enough with the cancer analogy.
Cancer is serious.

This is baseball and the player is gone in a couple years at most.

Does high pay equate to leadership? I think that ideally it does, but it's
not a prerequisite. Are Ohtani, Soto, Trout, Guerrero, Seager or Judge overt leaders on their own teams?
That's questionable, but since they are putting up massive numbers it
doesn't become a question.

Ideally, IMO, ideally, NA would be a fantastic overt leader for us all to
see. I, unlike yourself, can accept that he isn't an overt leader even
when he unknowingly is. We have seen how the man does when he just
plays ball.

Is it on him not being what you, I, and others may like
from him or in the management in not continuing to complete the roster?
It's a question, after decades of developing staffs I place on myself. You might assume
after years of dialog that I may have developed staffs in different
genres.

I've had NA's on staff. HOF'ers that I hoped for but didn't receive that next step that I wished for.
When I put them back in their zone, I got the production needed for the job, the great
production that made me want more from them in the first place.
i.e. we don't ask WC, BD, AB, Libs, to be our leaders, they're not HOF, we ask HOF or highest paid
to be leaders, instead of assessing if they are.

A few points.
Let's not be overly sensitive.
The word "cancer" is not an analogy.
It has meanings other than the medical application.
Now, as to N/A - I am agnostic with all players.
Never for, never against.
N/A himself stated that he is no leader and begged Super Slo Mo to acquire others to fill that role.
It is not incorrect therefore to say what he himself has stated.
Nor is there anything wrong with stating unvarnished truth - he failed the organization's goal of being a post-season threat (and yes, he has admitted that as well).
Over the past 4 decades, I have employed thousands of associates.
Further, I have been a consultant (and still am) to billion-dollar companies who employee thousands of their own employees.
Success is quite literally my business.
It is never about others being what I want them to be (that, of course, has long been one of Mo's fatal flaws as I was first to understand and explain to all who gather here) - I am far too good a leader for that.
But it is about correctly understanding individuals for who they are - their strengths, their weaknesses, their potential - and placing each in a position which maximizes their contribution to the organization's goals.
And identifying those who will seek their own personal goals and agenda rather than that of the organization.
N/A has a 13 year record of words, deeds, and results by which to evaluate him.
My original analysis above is both fair and accurate.
And my overall reply to Shady was spot on.

You have no more right to
insensitivity than I to being overly sensitive.
To move on.

We have some like views of NA some very different.

In NA 12 PA's as a Cardinal he has almost no production. That's a given
but not the point. Nor is what either of what we have done in our careers.
Those can range from falsehoods to fact irrelevant but should be respected.

When NA says he isn't a leader why not accept what he says and be
the agnostic self you are claiming? Money and contracts do not mean leader. Sometimes even ideally
they may. Agnostics certainly wouldn't conclude that a player what a player
intentions are and why that player wanted to leave a losing organization
in order to go to a winning organization. He was after all accumulating
every personal achievement he could want in an ideal environment for
him in CO.

Do I have issue in a player not wanting to be a part of the solution. Absolutely.

Is there reason for a player to be a malcontent about his very own extremely
short career that organizations don't much concern themselves with? Again
absolutely. Neither the Rockies or the Cardinals have been committed to winning
on NA's tenure as certainly MO promised during their LA meeting when NA had a opt out.
There was a verbal that MO didn't adhere to and now he's a malcontent.


The Cards won that trade. They were attempting to win and lost nothing in acquiring NA.

ICCFIM2 wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 23:09 pm

Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 22:40 pm

ICCFIM2 wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 16:09 pm

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 15:55 pm

rockondlouie wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 14:23 pm Gave up nothing

Rockies pitched in $55M

First three years average season as a Cardinal:
30 HR
100 RBI
.271 .328 .495 .824
126 OPS+
All-Star (3)
Gold Gloves (2)
Silver Slugger (1)
3rd in MVP Voting (22')

I'd still make that trade 100/100 times.

Completely agree. We had a chance to win a pennant in 2022 with both Goldie and Nado having MVP seasons. Plus we had Pujols, Yadi, Wainwright. It could have been magical but Mo decided to mail it in at the deadline and not get those 1 or 2 more pieces that could have put us over the top. And also Oli’s awful managing.

Watching the trade deadlines the last several years, almost every team that is in condition adds at least 2 bullpen pieces with at least 1 be a closer level pitcher. MO added Quintana in 2022, which was a nice add, but no bullpen pieces. I had to sit through that horrible game against the Phillies where Helsley imploded and Oli did not have other great options. He should have still taken Helsley out. But, had MO fortified the back-end of the bullpen like he should have at the trade deadline, there is a very good chance the Cards advance further into the 2022 playoffs.

Or just left Quintana in who was dealing!

He was, but he wasn't going to go 9...

Shady wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 13:33 pm If the Cardinals knew then how the Arenado deal would turn out. Would they have still made the trade?

Wattage wrote: ↑08 Aug 2025 07:30 am

ICCFIM2 wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 23:09 pm

Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 22:40 pm

ICCFIM2 wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 16:09 pm

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 15:55 pm

rockondlouie wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 14:23 pm Gave up nothing

Rockies pitched in $55M

First three years average season as a Cardinal:
30 HR
100 RBI
.271 .328 .495 .824
126 OPS+
All-Star (3)
Gold Gloves (2)
Silver Slugger (1)
3rd in MVP Voting (22')

I'd still make that trade 100/100 times.

Completely agree. We had a chance to win a pennant in 2022 with both Goldie and Nado having MVP seasons. Plus we had Pujols, Yadi, Wainwright. It could have been magical but Mo decided to mail it in at the deadline and not get those 1 or 2 more pieces that could have put us over the top. And also Oli’s awful managing.

Watching the trade deadlines the last several years, almost every team that is in condition adds at least 2 bullpen pieces with at least 1 be a closer level pitcher. MO added Quintana in 2022, which was a nice add, but no bullpen pieces. I had to sit through that horrible game against the Phillies where Helsley imploded and Oli did not have other great options. He should have still taken Helsley out. But, had MO fortified the back-end of the bullpen like he should have at the trade deadline, there is a very good chance the Cards advance further into the 2022 playoffs.

Or just left Quintana in who was dealing!

He was, but he wasn't going to go 9...

Yeah but had they left him in, helsley.likely wouldnt have had to go 2 innings if they let quintana pitch deeper.

Remember helsley came in during the 8th in ing and was fine. Helsley.was in his 2nd inning of work when he melted down after coming off a minor injury in his last appearance of season.

Helsley also always hated going multiple innings. It was stupid all around the way oli managed that game

sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2025 07:23 am

Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑08 Aug 2025 07:18 am

sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2025 07:15 am

Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑08 Aug 2025 07:10 am The mistake was not the trade. The trade was a great one, actually.

The mistake was when MO went to Southern California to sell Nado on how he was going to bring in players that fortified the team and make them a title contender. He sold Nado on the future so Nado would not opt out. The win would have been the trade, and then Nado opting out.

I believe that to be his point. Big trade no follow thru. Since. Nothing.

My point is that we should have been silently encouraging the opt-out.

That’s tough to do. Silently. Encouraging. Both are fine lines in this discussion.

Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑08 Aug 2025 07:36 am

sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2025 07:23 am

Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑08 Aug 2025 07:18 am

sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2025 07:15 am

Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑08 Aug 2025 07:10 am The mistake was not the trade. The trade was a great one, actually.

The mistake was when MO went to Southern California to sell Nado on how he was going to bring in players that fortified the team and make them a title contender. He sold Nado on the future so Nado would not opt out. The win would have been the trade, and then Nado opting out.

I believe that to be his point. Big trade no follow thru. Since. Nothing.

My point is that we should have been silently encouraging the opt-out.

That’s tough to do. Silently. Encouraging. Both are fine lines in this discussion.

It's not that hard. You tell him the truth. That you are not going to bring in enough players to will this team to championship contention(ENCOURAGE). This is a private one-on-one conversation(SILENT). Nado was the one threatening to explore his options if the team was not upgraded to his expectations. It is a game of poker. You call Nado's bluff. I am not saying the outcome would have changed. But I am also not saying it wouldn't have.

renostl wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 22:25 pm

Melville wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 21:33 pm

renostl wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 20:01 pm

Melville wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 19:01 pm

Shady wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 13:33 pm If the Cardinals knew then how the Arenado deal would turn out. Would they have still made the trade?

Outstanding question.
Very interesting.
One of the rare trades in which both teams lost - badly.
It is true the Rockies rid themselves of a malcontent cancer - but the return never worked out for them.
It is also true that STL gained a "me first, never a leader" personal stat counter - but he did not make the team a post season threat as intended.
Right now, both teams are suffering from the fallout.
The Rockies turned to Kris Bryant as the bat to replace N/A - and that has been a disaster for them.
And it is now the Cardinals who are stuck with a malcontent cancer.
If both organizations had a crystal ball, neither would have pulled the trigger on the deal.
Then again, Super Slo Mo isn't very bright and when he falls in love, he falls hard....

Enough with the cancer analogy.
Cancer is serious.

This is baseball and the player is gone in a couple years at most.

Does high pay equate to leadership? I think that ideally it does, but it's
not a prerequisite. Are Ohtani, Soto, Trout, Guerrero, Seager or Judge overt leaders on their own teams?
That's questionable, but since they are putting up massive numbers it
doesn't become a question.

Ideally, IMO, ideally, NA would be a fantastic overt leader for us all to
see. I, unlike yourself, can accept that he isn't an overt leader even
when he unknowingly is. We have seen how the man does when he just
plays ball.

Is it on him not being what you, I, and others may like
from him or in the management in not continuing to complete the roster?
It's a question, after decades of developing staffs I place on myself. You might assume
after years of dialog that I may have developed staffs in different
genres.

I've had NA's on staff. HOF'ers that I hoped for but didn't receive that next step that I wished for.
When I put them back in their zone, I got the production needed for the job, the great
production that made me want more from them in the first place.
i.e. we don't ask WC, BD, AB, Libs, to be our leaders, they're not HOF, we ask HOF or highest paid
to be leaders, instead of assessing if they are.

A few points.
Let's not be overly sensitive.
The word "cancer" is not an analogy.
It has meanings other than the medical application.
Now, as to N/A - I am agnostic with all players.
Never for, never against.
N/A himself stated that he is no leader and begged Super Slo Mo to acquire others to fill that role.
It is not incorrect therefore to say what he himself has stated.
Nor is there anything wrong with stating unvarnished truth - he failed the organization's goal of being a post-season threat (and yes, he has admitted that as well).
Over the past 4 decades, I have employed thousands of associates.
Further, I have been a consultant (and still am) to billion-dollar companies who employee thousands of their own employees.
Success is quite literally my business.
It is never about others being what I want them to be (that, of course, has long been one of Mo's fatal flaws as I was first to understand and explain to all who gather here) - I am far too good a leader for that.
But it is about correctly understanding individuals for who they are - their strengths, their weaknesses, their potential - and placing each in a position which maximizes their contribution to the organization's goals.
And identifying those who will seek their own personal goals and agenda rather than that of the organization.
N/A has a 13 year record of words, deeds, and results by which to evaluate him.
My original analysis above is both fair and accurate.
And my overall reply to Shady was spot on.

You have no more right to
insensitivity than I to being overly sensitive.
To move on.

We have some like views of NA some very different.

In NA 12 PA's as a Cardinal he has almost no production. That's a given
but not the point. Nor is what either of what we have done in our careers.
Those can range from falsehoods to fact irrelevant but should be respected.

When NA says he isn't a leader why not accept what he says and be
the agnostic self you are claiming? Money and contracts do not mean leader. Sometimes even ideally
they may. Agnostics certainly wouldn't conclude that a player what a player
intentions are and why that player wanted to leave a losing organization
in order to go to a winning organization. He was after all accumulating
every personal achievement he could want in an ideal environment for
him in CO.

Do I have issue in a player not wanting to be a part of the solution. Absolutely.

Is there reason for a player to be a malcontent about his very own extremely
short career that organizations don't much concern themselves with? Again
absolutely. Neither the Rockies or the Cardinals have been committed to winning
on NA's tenure as certainly MO promised during their LA meeting when NA had a opt out.
There was a verbal that MO didn't adhere to and now he's a malcontent.


The Cards won that trade. They were attempting to win and lost nothing in acquiring NA.

Jatalk wrote: ↑08 Aug 2025 07:26 am

Melville wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 19:01 pm

Shady wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 13:33 pm If the Cardinals knew then how the Arenado deal would turn out. Would they have still made the trade?

Outstanding question.
Very interesting.
One of the rare trades in which both teams lost - badly.
It is true the Rockies rid themselves of a malcontent cancer - but the return never worked out for them.
It is also true that STL gained a "me first, never a leader" personal stat counter - but he did not make the team a post season threat as intended.
Right now, both teams are suffering from the fallout.
The Rockies turned to Kris Bryant as the bat to replace N/A - and that has been a disaster for them.
And it is now the Cardinals who are stuck with a malcontent cancer.
If both organizations had a crystal ball, neither would have pulled the trigger on the deal.
Then again, Super Slo Mo isn't very bright and when he falls in love, he falls hard....

Excellent post. Anyone that thinks this was a good trade does not understand team chemistry or realize guys like Arenado get paid to win championships not gold gloves. I realize it’s all 20/20 hindsight but no way this was a good trade.

Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑08 Aug 2025 08:11 am SBD- The org has hamstrung itself anyway. I don't know if Nado would have opted out or not, but I would have called his bluff in hoping he would have.

Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 22:38 pm

rockondlouie wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 14:23 pm Gave up nothing

Rockies pitched in $55M

First three years average season as a Cardinal:
30 HR
100 RBI
.271 .328 .495 .824
126 OPS+
All-Star (3)
Gold Gloves (2)
Silver Slugger (1)
3rd in MVP Voting (22')

I'd still make that trade 100/100 times.

Agreed. It was a no brainer. Still wish Nado would've given us another season or 2. (Or that the Cards wouldn't have wasted the prime years of Goldy/Nado with midget man in charge, running Goldy out in the 2 hole as a tablesetter for 3-4 straight years, but I digress!)

We gave up nothing for him. Probably a HOFer.

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 15:55 pm

rockondlouie wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 14:23 pm Gave up nothing

Rockies pitched in $55M

First three years average season as a Cardinal:
30 HR
100 RBI
.271 .328 .495 .824
126 OPS+
All-Star (3)
Gold Gloves (2)
Silver Slugger (1)
3rd in MVP Voting (22')

I'd still make that trade 100/100 times.

Completely agree. We had a chance to win a pennant in 2022 with both Goldie and Nado having MVP seasons. Plus we had Pujols, Yadi, Wainwright. It could have been magical but Mo decided to mail it in at the deadline and not get those 1 or 2 more pieces that could have put us over the top. And also Oli’s awful managing.

Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑08 Aug 2025 07:10 am The mistake was not the trade. The trade was a great one, actually.

The mistake was when MO went to Southern California to sell Nado on how he was going to bring in players that fortified the team and make them a title contender. He sold Nado on the future so Nado would not opt out. The win would have been the trade, and then Nado opting out.

Shady wrote: ↑07 Aug 2025 13:33 pm If the Cardinals knew then how the Arenado deal would turn out. Would they have still made the trade?