STLtoday.com

sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025 07:06 am

alw80 wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025 07:02 am

sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025 06:54 am

alw80 wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025 06:50 am

CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 18:01 pm

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 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.

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.

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.

What incentive do you suggest. They get a bye, not much left to offer.

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?

Your points are well taken. Valid. That’s why back in the day, just winner of National verse American. Two best teams.

Then came tournament ball. At all levels. Ruined baseball.

Now as to what to do about it?

alw80 wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025 07:10 am

sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025 07:06 am

alw80 wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025 07:02 am

sikeston bulldog2 wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025 06:54 am

alw80 wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025 06:50 am

CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 18:01 pm

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 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.

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.

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.

What incentive do you suggest. They get a bye, not much left to offer.

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?

Your points are well taken. Valid. That’s why back in the day, just winner of National verse American. Two best teams.

Then came tournament ball. At all levels. Ruined baseball.

Now as to what to do about it?

Also, people seem to treat pro sports as if its wrestling and just entertainment and they don't really care about who the best teams/franchises are. Its more about randomness.

CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 22:07 pm

ClassicO wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 21:51 pm

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.

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.

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.

Are you saying purposely tank/lose if you find yourself dangerously close to making the postseason but feel you don’t have the goods to seal the deal?

If so, what does that do to the current player’s psyche that you want to be part of the team transformation to a champion? How do you know they wouldn’t have gone farther if they’re young and untested? Or if they can even be counted on to not fold under the pressure in the future?

CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 12:55 pm For those of the opinion it does no good to make the playoffs as a fringe wildcard contender, without a realistic shot to win the WS, I pose the following scenario for discussion.

Let’s assume the team takes the conservative and methodical approach you desire, such as not moving future assets/prospects, only sign short term and inexpensive free agents that doesn’t block or affect developmental opportunities and makes sensible trades with team control in mind. In essence, they do not mortgage the future. I’d even say this is the likely course of action.

With the team already being around .500 and there being 3 wildcard spots, it isn’t far-fetched that making the right moves and some developmental progress of young vets and prospects, they could improve enough to reach a record that might not win the division or be considered a WS favorite, but could accidentally land in the playoff mix.

What would be your take on such a development? Would you want them to “tank” games to avoid the playoffs and jockey for better draft positioning?

Building for the future without building on success also seems an unrealistic approach. Do you suggest “laying low” and suddenly emerge a contender?

Not trying to poke the bear here, as I know many astute posters share the anti-fringe contention mindset. I’m just curious how you see your version of the plan unfolding.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025 18:55 pm

CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 12:55 pm For those of the opinion it does no good to make the playoffs as a fringe wildcard contender, without a realistic shot to win the WS, I pose the following scenario for discussion.

Let’s assume the team takes the conservative and methodical approach you desire, such as not moving future assets/prospects, only sign short term and inexpensive free agents that doesn’t block or affect developmental opportunities and makes sensible trades with team control in mind. In essence, they do not mortgage the future. I’d even say this is the likely course of action.

With the team already being around .500 and there being 3 wildcard spots, it isn’t far-fetched that making the right moves and some developmental progress of young vets and prospects, they could improve enough to reach a record that might not win the division or be considered a WS favorite, but could accidentally land in the playoff mix.

What would be your take on such a development? Would you want them to “tank” games to avoid the playoffs and jockey for better draft positioning?

Building for the future without building on success also seems an unrealistic approach. Do you suggest “laying low” and suddenly emerge a contender?

Not trying to poke the bear here, as I know many astute posters share the anti-fringe contention mindset. I’m just curious how you see your version of the plan unfolding.

See Houston

2009 - 74-88 - 9th highest payroll
2010 - 76-86 - 13th highest payroll
2011 - 56-106 - 19th highest payroll
2012 - 55-107 - 27th highest payroll
2013 - 51-111 - 30th highest payroll
2014 - 70-92 - 29th highest payroll
2015 - 86-76 (lost ALDS) - 29th highest payroll
2016 - 84-78 - 21st highest payroll
2017 - 101-61 (Won WS) - 17th highest payroll

Since then, they've been in the playoffs every year, won another WS and went to two more. And they've grown payroll to on average about 8th per year to keep the success going.

Mediocre (2009-2010), to rebuilding (2011-2013), to emerging (2014-2016), to winning (2017), to sustaining success (2018-2025).

You can't build sustainable success on an organization that isn't producing a lot of young, quality talent year, after year, after year. And this organization is a ways away from being able to do that.

hugeCardfan wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 13:04 pm I'll get the popcorn.

CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025 20:16 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025 18:55 pm

CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 12:55 pm For those of the opinion it does no good to make the playoffs as a fringe wildcard contender, without a realistic shot to win the WS, I pose the following scenario for discussion.

Let’s assume the team takes the conservative and methodical approach you desire, such as not moving future assets/prospects, only sign short term and inexpensive free agents that doesn’t block or affect developmental opportunities and makes sensible trades with team control in mind. In essence, they do not mortgage the future. I’d even say this is the likely course of action.

With the team already being around .500 and there being 3 wildcard spots, it isn’t far-fetched that making the right moves and some developmental progress of young vets and prospects, they could improve enough to reach a record that might not win the division or be considered a WS favorite, but could accidentally land in the playoff mix.

What would be your take on such a development? Would you want them to “tank” games to avoid the playoffs and jockey for better draft positioning?

Building for the future without building on success also seems an unrealistic approach. Do you suggest “laying low” and suddenly emerge a contender?

Not trying to poke the bear here, as I know many astute posters share the anti-fringe contention mindset. I’m just curious how you see your version of the plan unfolding.

See Houston

2009 - 74-88 - 9th highest payroll
2010 - 76-86 - 13th highest payroll
2011 - 56-106 - 19th highest payroll
2012 - 55-107 - 27th highest payroll
2013 - 51-111 - 30th highest payroll
2014 - 70-92 - 29th highest payroll
2015 - 86-76 (lost ALDS) - 29th highest payroll
2016 - 84-78 - 21st highest payroll
2017 - 101-61 (Won WS) - 17th highest payroll

Since then, they've been in the playoffs every year, won another WS and went to two more. And they've grown payroll to on average about 8th per year to keep the success going.

Mediocre (2009-2010), to rebuilding (2011-2013), to emerging (2014-2016), to winning (2017), to sustaining success (2018-2025).

You can't build sustainable success on an organization that isn't producing a lot of young, quality talent year, after year, after year. And this organization is a ways away from being able to do that.

Good stuff, as you actually cited a pathway to success. I will note, however, the path you present did include A LOT of losing along with a failed playoff appearance before finally getting it done.

I’m mainly challenging those who see no value in the team working their way up. They seem to think you can keep losing over and over, then magically surface as a WS championship team.

I don’t really like the amount of losing the Houston fans had to endure on that path because that would’ve been unwatchable baseball for 6 straight seasons and only two seasons of nine making the playoffs. That’s not the previous standard of Cardinals baseball we knew and loved, but they did get it done in less time than our current drought.

Respect and props for showing relevant data to support your take.

CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 13:24 pm

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 13:11 pm

For sake of less scrolling, I quoted you without copying the content, but wanted to say I agree with all points in your reply. I also think it could’ve applied to this year as well, but I also understood the team’s mindset in the selloff. I just hope it doesn’t become status quo like the Pirates or Rays.

ClassicO wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025 18:37 pm

CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 22:07 pm

ClassicO wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 21:51 pm

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.

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.

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.

Are you saying purposely tank/lose if you find yourself dangerously close to making the postseason but feel you don’t have the goods to seal the deal?

If so, what does that do to the current player’s psyche that you want to be part of the team transformation to a champion? How do you know they wouldn’t have gone farther if they’re young and untested? Or if they can even be counted on to not fold under the pressure in the future?

It has nothing to do with tanking. It has to do with how they build the team moving forward. They seem to have a "make the playoffs and hope to get lucky" philosophy. To win a WS you need the right combination of youth, some vets, and a 3-5 Superstars. They can't win with zero superstars.

The last two WS, they had some combo of Pujols, Rolen, Edmonds, C. Carpenter, Waino, Holliday, and Berkman. Five of those 7 came via trades and extensions. They have to find 3-4 superstars via free agency and/or trade. Drastic measures that require an "all-in" ownership, not one that gets two superstars in Arenado and Goldy, and, while in their prime, fails to surround them with other tier one players.

I commend them for trying the long runway with Walker Gorman and Scott, but it clearly has not worked and exposed a problem with their player development.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025 20:36 pm You can also see the Atlanta Braves:

2014 - 79-83 - 12th highest payroll - mediocre
2015 - 67-95 - 22nd highest payroll - rebuilding
2016 - 68-93 - 27th highest payroll - rebuilding
2017 - 72-90 - 19th highest payroll - rebuilding
2018 - 90-72 - 21st highest payroll - emerging (lost NLDS)
2019 - 97-65 - 22nd highest payroll - emerging (lost NLDS)
2020 - 35-25 - 13th highest payroll - emerging (lost NLCS)
2021 - 88-73 - 14th highest payroll - won WS

Then went on to win 101, 104, and 89 games the following three years.

Braund241 wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025 20:30 pm

CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 13:24 pm

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 13:11 pm

For sake of less scrolling, I quoted you without copying the content, but wanted to say I agree with all points in your reply. I also think it could’ve applied to this year as well, but I also understood the team’s mindset in the selloff. I just hope it doesn’t become status quo like the Pirates or Rays.

You don’t think that’s where they already. I do. Only worse. The Pirates always have a Cole or Skenes. Cards have Pallante.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025 20:26 pm

CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025 20:16 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025 18:55 pm

CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 12:55 pm For those of the opinion it does no good to make the playoffs as a fringe wildcard contender, without a realistic shot to win the WS, I pose the following scenario for discussion.

Let’s assume the team takes the conservative and methodical approach you desire, such as not moving future assets/prospects, only sign short term and inexpensive free agents that doesn’t block or affect developmental opportunities and makes sensible trades with team control in mind. In essence, they do not mortgage the future. I’d even say this is the likely course of action.

With the team already being around .500 and there being 3 wildcard spots, it isn’t far-fetched that making the right moves and some developmental progress of young vets and prospects, they could improve enough to reach a record that might not win the division or be considered a WS favorite, but could accidentally land in the playoff mix.

What would be your take on such a development? Would you want them to “tank” games to avoid the playoffs and jockey for better draft positioning?

Building for the future without building on success also seems an unrealistic approach. Do you suggest “laying low” and suddenly emerge a contender?

Not trying to poke the bear here, as I know many astute posters share the anti-fringe contention mindset. I’m just curious how you see your version of the plan unfolding.

See Houston

2009 - 74-88 - 9th highest payroll
2010 - 76-86 - 13th highest payroll
2011 - 56-106 - 19th highest payroll
2012 - 55-107 - 27th highest payroll
2013 - 51-111 - 30th highest payroll
2014 - 70-92 - 29th highest payroll
2015 - 86-76 (lost ALDS) - 29th highest payroll
2016 - 84-78 - 21st highest payroll
2017 - 101-61 (Won WS) - 17th highest payroll

Since then, they've been in the playoffs every year, won another WS and went to two more. And they've grown payroll to on average about 8th per year to keep the success going.

Mediocre (2009-2010), to rebuilding (2011-2013), to emerging (2014-2016), to winning (2017), to sustaining success (2018-2025).

You can't build sustainable success on an organization that isn't producing a lot of young, quality talent year, after year, after year. And this organization is a ways away from being able to do that.

Good stuff, as you actually cited a pathway to success. I will note, however, the path you present did include A LOT of losing along with a failed playoff appearance before finally getting it done.

I’m mainly challenging those who see no value in the team working their way up. They seem to think you can keep losing over and over, then magically surface as a WS championship team.

I don’t really like the amount of losing the Houston fans had to endure on that path because that would’ve been unwatchable baseball for 6 straight seasons and only two seasons of nine making the playoffs. That’s not the previous standard of Cardinals baseball we knew and loved, but they did get it done in less time than our current drought.

Respect and props for showing relevant data to support your take.

I think the point here is that baseball in 2025 is dramatically different than it was when any "previous standard of Cardinals baseball" was established.

Today, the highest paid players are making 50 times the ML minimum. And that is why you can't build a sustainably successful team/organization on a payroll the size of the Cardinals - even at its best - like has been done previously.

There is just way, way, way too much "value" that you need to get from young, cost controlled players to be the foundation on which you can stack, maybe, ~7 relatively expensive veterans.

Braund241 wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025 20:30 pm

CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 13:24 pm

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 13:11 pm

For sake of less scrolling, I quoted you without copying the content, but wanted to say I agree with all points in your reply. I also think it could’ve applied to this year as well, but I also understood the team’s mindset in the selloff. I just hope it doesn’t become status quo like the Pirates or Rays.

You don’t think that’s where they already. I do. Only worse. The Pirates always have a Cole or Skenes. Cards have Pallante.

CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 12:55 pm For those of the opinion it does no good to make the playoffs as a fringe wildcard contender, without a realistic shot to win the WS, I pose the following scenario for discussion.

Let’s assume the team takes the conservative and methodical approach you desire, such as not moving future assets/prospects, only sign short term and inexpensive free agents that doesn’t block or affect developmental opportunities and makes sensible trades with team control in mind. In essence, they do not mortgage the future. I’d even say this is the likely course of action.

With the team already being around .500 and there being 3 wildcard spots, it isn’t far-fetched that making the right moves and some developmental progress of young vets and prospects, they could improve enough to reach a record that might not win the division or be considered a WS favorite, but could accidentally land in the playoff mix.

What would be your take on such a development? Would you want them to “tank” games to avoid the playoffs and jockey for better draft positioning?

Building for the future without building on success also seems an unrealistic approach. Do you suggest “laying low” and suddenly emerge a contender?

Not trying to poke the bear here, as I know many astute posters share the anti-fringe contention mindset. I’m just curious how you see your version of the plan unfolding.

CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025 21:19 pm The size of the Cardinals payroll is a huge question. I know they’re trying to slash right now as part of a rebuild and unclogging mechanism. I just hope it’s not an excuse to establish a new normal. Bloom deserves a payroll commitment similar to what Mo had for supplemental help and retainability of emerging young talent.