Bloom’s words in the recent article tells you everything you need to know as to what the front office/ownership believes about 2026… and it is their belief, and only their belief, that matters. The overriding principle guiding Bloom’s decisions couldn’t have been made any clearer: if there is a conflict between the short-term and long-term benefit, the long-term consideration will prevail.ecleme22 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 13:31 pmThe rotation is set up to be better than 2025. And they may still add another starter.Midrange Jay wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 13:08 pmAll 3 starters are coming off injury. The one who pitched more than 50 innings was a 1 year deal, designed to be flipped at the trade deadline. The offense is worse without Contreras, and we are about to trade Donovan. There is no interest in competing for 2026 being shown on management’s part.ecleme22 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 10:58 am Overhauled the starting staff before Xmas and that equals tanking? Hmm…
And obviously Bloom isn’t done with trades and FA signings.
Also, he traded a 34 year old and a 37 year old, with 2 and 1 years remaining respectively. And he still want to trade a floundering Arenado.
Lol. Some of you guys are acting like he’s trading Rolen-Pujols-Edmonds circa ‘03….
The offense: it’s not even Xmas yet. You really think the only thing Bloom does to the offense is remove BD and WC from it?
Sure they want to compete and win as much as reasonably possible during 2026…they want to sell tickets and bring in revenue. But can you imagine any current team that truly believes it can compete in 2026 for a division title or playoff making that statement? Can you imagine any such team restricting its current signings to only those that don’t conflict with the L-T? What does that tell you about their belief and outlook for 2026? What does that tell you as to whether they plan to throw any significant money at 2026?
Everything they have done so far reflects the principle of prioritizing the L-T over 2026. Trading their best pitcher and trading one of their best hitters, both in return for prospects. And as Midrange Jay noted, the May signing fits the principle as the classic 1-year signing of a risky high upside player that may potentially be flipped at the deadline if he does well.
Prioritizing L-T over 2026 is very restrictive as to what the team will do this offseason. When considering opportunity costs, the negative effect on 2027/2028 that any new multi-year signing would potentially have, and the possible upcoming lockout, there aren’t many signings where the S-T benefit for 2026 won’t conflict with the L-T.
