Page 3 of 4
Re: A prospect ranked around #50 in MLB has an estimated 5% to 10% chance of becoming an MLB All-Star.
Posted: 06 Dec 2025 18:55 pm
by AZ_Cardsfan
The Nard wrote: ↑06 Dec 2025 18:31 pm
So, it may be better to hold on to a Donovan, than trade him for just 2 top-100 prospects.
Why? Since the team is clearly not going to be a contender what value does Donovan give STL?
Re: A prospect ranked around #50 in MLB has an estimated 5% to 10% chance of becoming an MLB All-Star.
Posted: 06 Dec 2025 19:20 pm
by renostl
Carp4Cy wrote: ↑06 Dec 2025 12:38 pm
AZ_Cardsfan wrote: ↑06 Dec 2025 10:29 am
It feels like OP doesn't want to trade Donovan because the odds are prospects we receive won't become AS caliber. The odds too low. Well, lets consider:
What is Donovans value to us? In reality as far as comopeting for a title he is of no value to STL. This team will not be in contention most likely any sooner than he will be a free agent. So we are trading nothing of value to US.
Prospects - are potential value. That is more than no value. And rolling the dice maybe we land a true star with years of control.
So we deal something that is no value to us for possible massive value if we are lucky. Kinda a no brainer and why everyone is behind this idea.
Wrong. I’d like to trade Donny for a proven 2nd or 3rd year player like Pages. Who has value now and is more of a sure thing and could be worth extending because his window lasts as long as any prospects might.
You did say "Pages like" so yes there's a small
possibility. IMO you'd have to add to Donovan in order to get an equal player as Donovan who is 4 years younger. In this specific case you'd need to add more because Pages is the better player.
These threads assume a significant fact that they really should not. They assume that the Cards and Donovan are a potential match past his arbitration years. What if they have talked? I find it unlikely that they have not
If in that conversation Donovan has said that he would like to explore his options, does that change your position?
Re: A prospect ranked around #50 in MLB has an estimated 5% to 10% chance of becoming an MLB All-Star.
Posted: 07 Dec 2025 10:16 am
by The Nard
AZ_Cardsfan wrote: ↑06 Dec 2025 18:55 pm
The Nard wrote: ↑06 Dec 2025 18:31 pm
So, it may be better to hold on to a Donovan, than trade him for just 2 top-100 prospects.
Why? Since the team is clearly not going to be a contender what value does Donovan give STL?
Doonovan should have 5, maybe more, productive seasons ahead of him. If the rebuild pays off in 2-3 seasons, that's within the window of opportunity. Of course, I'd see if he's willing to sign an extension; If not, then trade him now or at the break to a contender. Bur first, try to extend him.
Re: A prospect ranked around #50 in MLB has an estimated 5% to 10% chance of becoming an MLB All-Star.
Posted: 07 Dec 2025 10:19 am
by scoutyjones2
Carp4Cy wrote: ↑05 Dec 2025 10:27 am
Just something to keep in mind when risk adjusted for projected future production of "prospects".
"A prospect ranked around #50 in MLB has an estimated 5% to 10% chance of becoming an MLB All-Star. While the chance of a prospect becoming a regular MLB player is relatively high, the probability of reaching "All-Star" status is much lower and drops significantly outside the top 20.
Breakdown of Success Rates
Becoming an All-Star: Historically, only about 11-13% of all Top 100 prospects become everyday players, and less than 10% become "stars" or perennial All-Stars. For the specific range around rank #50, the odds are likely closer to a 5-10% chance of one or more All-Star seasons in their career.
Becoming a Solid MLB Player: The #50 rank is often associated with a "50 Future Value (FV)" grade, which Baseball America defines as a "solid regular for a competitive team". One study indicated position players with 50 FV grades turned into stars only 9.9% of the time, though they had a good chance of having some form of MLB career.
Overall Top 100 Rates: About 70% of all top 100 prospects ultimately fail to have a sustained, impactful MLB career. The success rate drops off noticeably after the top 20, with prospects ranked 41-100 having fairly similar, lower success rates. "
This quote is from where whom?
Re: A prospect ranked around #50 in MLB has an estimated 5% to 10% chance of becoming an MLB All-Star.
Posted: 07 Dec 2025 10:39 am
by AZ_Cardsfan
The Nard wrote: ↑07 Dec 2025 10:16 am
AZ_Cardsfan wrote: ↑06 Dec 2025 18:55 pm
The Nard wrote: ↑06 Dec 2025 18:31 pm
So, it may be better to hold on to a Donovan, than trade him for just 2 top-100 prospects.
Why? Since the team is clearly not going to be a contender what value does Donovan give STL?
Doonovan should have 5, maybe more, productive seasons ahead of him. If the rebuild pays off in 2-3 seasons, that's within the window of opportunity. Of course, I'd see if he's willing to sign an extension; If not, then trade him now or at the break to a contender. Bur first, try to extend him.
As nice a player as Donovan is he isn't a core player to build a contender around. And if you extend him you will likely pay the going rate for a player of his caliber. Again not how a title is won.
Instead get some prospects who MIGHT become stars with lots of control and good price. If several emerge from the farm being filled up now (not just from Donovan deal) THEN sign some veterans. Unless whoever gets Donovan extends him (which I find unlikely) as a free agent sign him.
But it isn't as if you can't find a player like him at the going rate. His true value is that he is playing this well at under market rates from. That value disappears when you extend him.
Re: A prospect ranked around #50 in MLB has an estimated 5% to 10% chance of becoming an MLB All-Star.
Posted: 07 Dec 2025 12:04 pm
by Bushiro
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑06 Dec 2025 08:06 am
11WSChamps wrote: ↑06 Dec 2025 08:01 am
Sounds like another (bleep) shoot.
And how many WS have Milwaukee, Cleveland and Tampa Bay played in let alone won?
When have Milwaukee, Cleveland, or Tampa Bay been able to spend $170, $175, $180 million on their ML payroll?
How many times does this conversation have to be had.
Yeah similar how the cubs did it....when the young core was starting to take shape ....they then spent money on Lester...zobrist..Ross...Heyward etc....
Re: A prospect ranked around #50 in MLB has an estimated 5% to 10% chance of becoming an MLB All-Star.
Posted: 07 Dec 2025 12:11 pm
by mattmitchl44
Bushiro wrote: ↑07 Dec 2025 12:04 pm
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑06 Dec 2025 08:06 am
11WSChamps wrote: ↑06 Dec 2025 08:01 am
Sounds like another (bleep) shoot.
And how many WS have Milwaukee, Cleveland and Tampa Bay played in let alone won?
When have Milwaukee, Cleveland, or Tampa Bay been able to spend $170, $175, $180 million on their ML payroll?
How many times does this conversation have to be had.
Yeah similar how the cubs did it....when the young core was starting to take shape ....they then spent money on Lester...zobrist..Ross...Heyward etc....
Yeah - it just seems weird that there as so many people invested in arguing against what is obvious common sense.
We KNOW the Cardinals are never going to be able to spend as much as the Dodgers, Yankees, etc. So to compete with them we KNOW the Cardinals have to find ways of getting production from less expensive players. And we KNOW the obvious way to do that is from players before they reach free agency - many of whom you'll have to develop through your own farm system.
Then add what talent you can afford to buy to that.
Re: A prospect ranked around #50 in MLB has an estimated 5% to 10% chance of becoming an MLB All-Star.
Posted: 07 Dec 2025 12:14 pm
by Ozziesfan41
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑07 Dec 2025 12:11 pm
Bushiro wrote: ↑07 Dec 2025 12:04 pm
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑06 Dec 2025 08:06 am
11WSChamps wrote: ↑06 Dec 2025 08:01 am
Sounds like another (bleep) shoot.
And how many WS have Milwaukee, Cleveland and Tampa Bay played in let alone won?
When have Milwaukee, Cleveland, or Tampa Bay been able to spend $170, $175, $180 million on their ML payroll?
How many times does this conversation have to be had.
Yeah similar how the cubs did it....when the young core was starting to take shape ....they then spent money on Lester...zobrist..Ross...Heyward etc....
Yeah - it just seems weird that there as so many people invested in arguing against what is obvious common sense.
We KNOW the Cardinals are never going to be able to spend as much as the Dodgers, Yankees, etc. So to compete with them we KNOW the Cardinals have to find ways of getting production from less expensive players. And we KNOW the obvious way to do that is from players before the reach free agency - many of whom you'll have to develop through your own farm system.
Then add what talent you can afford to buy to that.
People keep ignoring the facts so they continue ignore them to keep up their argument. If the brewers rays or guardians were able to spend 170 or 180 million like the cardinals they would have won a World Series or two by now.
Re: A prospect ranked around #50 in MLB has an estimated 5% to 10% chance of becoming an MLB All-Star.
Posted: 07 Dec 2025 12:18 pm
by mattmitchl44
Ozziesfan41 wrote: ↑07 Dec 2025 12:14 pm
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑07 Dec 2025 12:11 pm
Bushiro wrote: ↑07 Dec 2025 12:04 pm
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑06 Dec 2025 08:06 am
11WSChamps wrote: ↑06 Dec 2025 08:01 am
Sounds like another (bleep) shoot.
And how many WS have Milwaukee, Cleveland and Tampa Bay played in let alone won?
When have Milwaukee, Cleveland, or Tampa Bay been able to spend $170, $175, $180 million on their ML payroll?
How many times does this conversation have to be had.
Yeah similar how the cubs did it....when the young core was starting to take shape ....they then spent money on Lester...zobrist..Ross...Heyward etc....
Yeah - it just seems weird that there as so many people invested in arguing against what is obvious common sense.
We KNOW the Cardinals are never going to be able to spend as much as the Dodgers, Yankees, etc. So to compete with them we KNOW the Cardinals have to find ways of getting production from less expensive players. And we KNOW the obvious way to do that is from players before the reach free agency - many of whom you'll have to develop through your own farm system.
Then add what talent you can afford to buy to that.
People keep ignoring the facts so they continue ignore them to keep up their argument.
They want to believe there is some magic formula whereby the Cardinals can actually contend for a WS in 2026. They don't know what that is, but they believe that whatever it is, it is the opposite of what they are doing by a patient, 2-3 year rebuild.
Re: A prospect ranked around #50 in MLB has an estimated 5% to 10% chance of becoming an MLB All-Star.
Posted: 07 Dec 2025 12:51 pm
by 11WSChamps
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑07 Dec 2025 12:11 pm
Bushiro wrote: ↑07 Dec 2025 12:04 pm
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑06 Dec 2025 08:06 am
11WSChamps wrote: ↑06 Dec 2025 08:01 am
Sounds like another (bleep) shoot.
And how many WS have Milwaukee, Cleveland and Tampa Bay played in let alone won?
When have Milwaukee, Cleveland, or Tampa Bay been able to spend $170, $175, $180 million on their ML payroll?
How many times does this conversation have to be had.
Yeah similar how the cubs did it....when the young core was starting to take shape ....they then spent money on Lester...zobrist..Ross...Heyward etc....
Yeah - it just seems weird that there as so many people invested in arguing against what is obvious common sense.
We KNOW the Cardinals are never going to be able to spend as much as the Dodgers, Yankees, etc. So to compete with them we KNOW the Cardinals have to find ways of getting production from less expensive players. And we KNOW the obvious way to do that is from players before they reach free agency - many of whom you'll have to develop through your own farm system.
Then add what talent you can afford to buy to that.
Obvious common sense? Give me a break.
You get into a baseball discussion with me you'll be lucky to finish second.
Be specific..I never said anything about contending next year or the year after even if there is a 2027 season...and I never said anything about spending like the Dodgers.
Re: A prospect ranked around #50 in MLB has an estimated 5% to 10% chance of becoming an MLB All-Star.
Posted: 07 Dec 2025 13:08 pm
by CorneliusWolfe
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑05 Dec 2025 10:30 am
That's why you need to have more prospects rather than fewer.
You simply cannot balance the ML payroll budget without having a lot of young, cost controlled talent.
So however many spins of the wheel you need to accumulate enough such talent, because not all of them will succeed, is how many you have to take.
Your plan will not yield quality young cost-controlled “talent”. It yields a quantity of young cost-controlled players with low ceilings (scrubs).
You also can’t just hoard a [shirt] load of prospects. Minor league rosters have limits. Developmental opportunities have limits. Where do these massive quantity of prospects play? …basically in the big leagues like the Pirates.
Quantity over quantity is an oversimplified plan. ALL mechanisms should be in play at ALL times. To counter the OP’s premise, you’d need a 200 man roster at every level to overcome the 5-10% success rate.
I swear you must be a staffer for the DeWitts. You hunt down every post that pitches any other option other than tanking and write narratives and quote your own previous rants as if it provides any semblance of proof.
Then you defend your stance by saying the team “should/will” spend after all your beloved prospects turn into winners somehow from having their (bleep) handed to them, and playing on a team with no leadership or veteran presence for several years.
Winners aren’t forged from losers and choosing quantity over quality is the true path to mediocrity.
Re: A prospect ranked around #50 in MLB has an estimated 5% to 10% chance of becoming an MLB All-Star.
Posted: 07 Dec 2025 13:22 pm
by mattmitchl44
CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑07 Dec 2025 13:08 pm
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑05 Dec 2025 10:30 am
That's why you need to have more prospects rather than fewer.
You simply cannot balance the ML payroll budget without having a lot of young, cost controlled talent.
So however many spins of the wheel you need to accumulate enough such talent, because not all of them will succeed, is how many you have to take.
Your plan will not yield quality young cost-controlled “talent”. It yields a quantity of young cost-controlled players with low ceilings (scrubs).
You also can’t just hoard a [shirt] load of prospects. Minor league rosters have limits. Developmental opportunities have limits. Where do these massive quantity of prospects play? …basically in the big leagues like the Pirates.
Quantity over quantity is an oversimplified plan. ALL mechanisms should be in play at ALL times. To counter the OP’s premise, you’d need a 200 man roster at every level to overcome the 5-10% success rate.
I swear you must be a staffer for the DeWitts. You hunt down every post that pitches any other option other than tanking and write narratives and quote your own previous rants as if it provides any semblance of proof.
Then you defend your stance by saying the team “should/will” spend after all your beloved prospects turn into winners somehow from having their (bleep) handed to them, and playing on a team with no leadership or veteran presence for several years.
Winners aren’t forged from losers and choosing quantity over quality is the true path to mediocrity.
Of course you want to have more BETTER prospects if you can. Better prospects likely have a higher chance of being successful and therefore you should need fewer of them to accumulate the critical mass you need.
That's why I've argued they should be trading Donovan, in particular, for one high quality prospect, not multiple lower quality prospects. He's the asset they could potentially leverage to bring back a Top 25 in MLB prospect.
Re: A prospect ranked around #50 in MLB has an estimated 5% to 10% chance of becoming an MLB All-Star.
Posted: 07 Dec 2025 13:24 pm
by CorneliusWolfe
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑07 Dec 2025 13:22 pm
CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑07 Dec 2025 13:08 pm
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑05 Dec 2025 10:30 am
That's why you need to have more prospects rather than fewer.
You simply cannot balance the ML payroll budget without having a lot of young, cost controlled talent.
So however many spins of the wheel you need to accumulate enough such talent, because not all of them will succeed, is how many you have to take.
Your plan will not yield quality young cost-controlled “talent”. It yields a quantity of young cost-controlled players with low ceilings (scrubs).
You also can’t just hoard a [shirt] load of prospects. Minor league rosters have limits. Developmental opportunities have limits. Where do these massive quantity of prospects play? …basically in the big leagues like the Pirates.
Quantity over quantity is an oversimplified plan. ALL mechanisms should be in play at ALL times. To counter the OP’s premise, you’d need a 200 man roster at every level to overcome the 5-10% success rate.
I swear you must be a staffer for the DeWitts. You hunt down every post that pitches any other option other than tanking and write narratives and quote your own previous rants as if it provides any semblance of proof.
Then you defend your stance by saying the team “should/will” spend after all your beloved prospects turn into winners somehow from having their (bleep) handed to them, and playing on a team with no leadership or veteran presence for several years.
Winners aren’t forged from losers and choosing quantity over quality is the true path to mediocrity.
Of course you want to have more BETTER prospects if you can. Better prospects likely have a higher chance of being successful and therefore you should need fewer of them to accumulate the critical mass you need.
That's why I've argued they should be trading Donovan, in particular, for one high quality prospect, not multiple lower quality prospects. He's the asset they could potentially leverage to bring back a Top 25 in MLB prospect.
I concede that I have read your posts about demanding quality for Donovan. That is quite the departure from your usual stance.
Re: A prospect ranked around #50 in MLB has an estimated 5% to 10% chance of becoming an MLB All-Star.
Posted: 07 Dec 2025 13:25 pm
by renostl
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑07 Dec 2025 12:18 pm
Ozziesfan41 wrote: ↑07 Dec 2025 12:14 pm
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑07 Dec 2025 12:11 pm
Bushiro wrote: ↑07 Dec 2025 12:04 pm
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑06 Dec 2025 08:06 am
11WSChamps wrote: ↑06 Dec 2025 08:01 am
Sounds like another (bleep) shoot.
And how many WS have Milwaukee, Cleveland and Tampa Bay played in let alone won?
When have Milwaukee, Cleveland, or Tampa Bay been able to spend $170, $175, $180 million on their ML payroll?
How many times does this conversation have to be had.
Yeah similar how the cubs did it....when the young core was starting to take shape ....they then spent money on Lester...zobrist..Ross...Heyward etc....
Yeah - it just seems weird that there as so many people invested in arguing against what is obvious common sense.
We KNOW the Cardinals are never going to be able to spend as much as the Dodgers, Yankees, etc. So to compete with them we KNOW the Cardinals have to find ways of getting production from less expensive players. And we KNOW the obvious way to do that is from players before the reach free agency - many of whom you'll have to develop through your own farm system.
Then add what talent you can afford to buy to that.
People keep ignoring the facts so they continue ignore them to keep up their argument.
They want to believe there is some magic formula whereby the Cardinals can actually contend for a WS in 2026. They don't know what that is, but they believe that whatever it is, it is the opposite of what they are doing by a patient, 2-3 year rebuild.
Fearing the unknown, xenophobia
Just need to approach it differently. Look at the 2025 OD roster critically and
see if there is room to find improvement in it's construction.
Rotation SG, ML, EF, AP, MM
Pen Hels, Matz, King, Jo Jo, Maton, Roycroft, Fernandez, Leahy
Bench Baker, Siani, Gorman, Pages
WC, BD, MW, NA, AB, LN, VS2, JW, IH
Seems at the very least the team can improve athletically, improve it upside.
Which should be obtainable and embraced.
Re: A prospect ranked around #50 in MLB has an estimated 5% to 10% chance of becoming an MLB All-Star.
Posted: 07 Dec 2025 13:36 pm
by Ozziesfan41
CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑07 Dec 2025 13:08 pm
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑05 Dec 2025 10:30 am
That's why you need to have more prospects rather than fewer.
You simply cannot balance the ML payroll budget without having a lot of young, cost controlled talent.
So however many spins of the wheel you need to accumulate enough such talent, because not all of them will succeed, is how many you have to take.
Your plan will not yield quality young cost-controlled “talent”. It yields a quantity of young cost-controlled players with low ceilings (scrubs).
You also can’t just hoard a [shirt] load of prospects. Minor league rosters have limits. Developmental opportunities have limits. Where do these massive quantity of prospects play? …basically in the big leagues like the Pirates.
Quantity over quantity is an oversimplified plan. ALL mechanisms should be in play at ALL times. To counter the OP’s premise, you’d need a 200 man roster at every level to overcome the 5-10% success rate.
I swear you must be a staffer for the DeWitts. You hunt down every post that pitches any other option other than tanking and write narratives and quote your own previous rants as if it provides any semblance of proof.
Then you defend your stance by saying the team “should/will” spend after all your beloved prospects turn into winners somehow from having their (bleep) handed to them, and playing on a team with no leadership or veteran presence for several years.
Winners aren’t forged from losers and choosing quantity over quality is the true path to mediocrity.
I for one haven’t heard any other options outside of rebuilding suggested on here that wasn’t a pipe dream or completely delusional. People have said oh let’s trade our second best catching prospect and a couple of utility players for Tatis who of course would definitely want to waive his no trade clause to come play here and let’s sign three or or four all star caliber free agents because they all of course want to play for St. Louis who haven’t been relevant in years and take less money to come here yea haven’t heard one suggestion that wasn’t delusional
Re: A prospect ranked around #50 in MLB has an estimated 5% to 10% chance of becoming an MLB All-Star.
Posted: 07 Dec 2025 13:36 pm
by 11WSChamps
So if the Cardinals of all teams are going the small market route then how many other teams will take on the same philosophy in light of the handful of blue blood spenders?
Thus the demand for top end cost controlled talent is spread even thinner than it is now. Talk about "common sense".
So knowing that how can anyone in their right mind think this is a simple 2-3 year time frame to contending for a championship?
Teams aren't just going to line up and give you that kind of talent for Donovan, Contreras, Arenado, Bernal, Crooks or whoever might seem a good fit for a trade.
Supply and demand and the supply is only going to get less under the current structure.