Moe on why he held on to position players - per K. Woo

[mattmitchl44]

Nootbaar and Donovan are under team control through 2027, Burleson through 2028.

For what they are going to cost the Cardinals as ARB eligible players, they will very likely still be a positive return on that investment over those seasons.

So if you believe they can and will continue improve, they shouldn't have felt compelled to "sell low" right now if they were not getting the offers they wanted.

[ecleme22]

Nootbaar and Donovan are under team control through 2027, Burleson through 2028.

For what they are going to cost the Cardinals as ARB eligible players, they will very likely still be a positive return on that investment over those seasons.

So if you believe they can and will continue improve, they shouldn't have felt compelled to "sell low" right now if they were not getting the offers they wanted.

I agree.

Doesn’t mean they’re not going to be traded in the offseason, but since they’re under team control for a while, no reason to trade them now.

[Fred Rutherford]

John Mozeliak on why he retained his position players, despite significant interest:

"We got hit a lot on our left-handed hitters ... but we were not motivated to move players that we had under control unless we were, to put it mildly, blown away. And we just weren't."


Expecting to be blown away for f'in Nootbaar!?!?!?!

Un f'in real this dude man

I know Mo better than Mo know Mo.
When Mo falls in love, he falls hard.
When it comes to whomever is the latest object of his affection and obsession, Mo the eternal romantic remains faithful until his heart is broken.

"Whoever," please. It's the subject of the clause here. That takes precedence. Just thought I'd educate you a bit. You see, I was an editor for decades. Watch your language around me.

Nope.
The subject of the clause was Mo.
The player is the subject of the verb - making "whomever" the correct word.

You're wrong. You're out of your league on grammar with me. I know it backward and forward. The object of the preposition is the entire clause consisting of "whoever is the lastest object of his affection and obsession."

This is straight from AI if you need further proof that exactly what I stated to you was correct.


The grammatically correct word in the sentence "When it comes to whoever is the latest object of his affection and obsession, Mo the eternal romantic remains faithful until his heart is broken" is whoever.
Here's why:
"Whoever" acts as the subject of the verb "is" within the dependent clause "whoever is the latest object...".
"Whomever" is an object pronoun, functioning as the object of a verb or preposition. While "to" is a preposition in your example, the entire clause "whoever is the latest object..." acts as the object of the preposition "to," and within that clause, "whoever" is the subject of the verb "is".

Hmmm...
On one hand you know it backward and forward.
On the other, you need 'AI" to give you the answer.
That said, I accept the point - "whomever" of you is providing it.

Icon is correct. If he cited AI, I'm sure it was to make it easier and more authoritative for you. Of course, for most part, it's hopeless to deal with the rampant illiteracy in this forum, where many can't even form conditional sentences correctly, but I imagine Icon thought that the resident self-proclaimed genius might be susceptible to accepting instruction.

[Vacardfan1964]

So he should trade players for less than their value? Is that what you expect Bloom to do?

I think what is being said is that Mo doesn't do a very good job of evaluating talent and more often than not he over values.

Perhaps Bloom and his crew will do a better job.

[JDW]

Surprisingly, enjoying the grammar lessons, although I'm a lost cause with proper English, as some version of gibberish is apparently my first language.
Anyway, imo the key phrase with Noot is "while cost controlled." Posters still complain about Bader, but he was a very good value while he was here b/c he was cost controlled while providing good WAR levels and never got extended.
A lot of investment goes into player development. When one makes it to the show, it's prudent to strive to find out what you have before trading away. Noot has considerable talent, and possibly can provide decent value next year, or possibly provide good value this offseason if he is traded.
We should be hoping he has a good couple months here to finish this season to provide better value going into this offseason.

[Cranny]

Noot may not have a position, though. Herrera in left - Scott in center - Walker in right. Not enough power for a corner and not enough range for CF.
Decent #4 perhaps. If he can stay healthy.

[ecleme22]

Surprisingly, enjoying the grammar lessons, although I'm a lost cause with proper English, as some version of gibberish is apparently my first language.
Anyway, imo the key phrase with Noot is "while cost controlled." Posters still complain about Bader, but he was a very good value while he was here b/c he was cost controlled while providing good WAR levels and never got extended.
A lot of investment goes into player development. When one makes it to the show, it's prudent to strive to find out what you have before trading away. Noot has considerable talent, and possibly can provide decent value next year, or possibly provide good value this offseason if he is traded.
We should be hoping he has a good couple months here to finish this season to provide better value going into this offseason.

I think all it comes down to is the potential return wasn't worth the trade. So he wasn't traded.

Bader was always a decent complementary piece. Problem was Mo treated him like a 150 game starter and depleted (or didn't obtain) other outfielders to supplement. Bader wasn't a Cardinal simply because 'he was good value.' He was a Cardinal because Mo thought he had something special.

[ClassicO]

Nootbaar and Donovan are under team control through 2027, Burleson through 2028.

For what they are going to cost the Cardinals as ARB eligible players, they will very likely still be a positive return on that investment over those seasons.

So if you believe they can and will continue improve, they shouldn't have felt compelled to "sell low" right now if they were not getting the offers they wanted.

Agree. And again, Mo was clear that he was cognizant of the logjam if he didn't move one of these guys, but they were leaving it up to Bloom and his regime to decide this in the offseason.

[Bomber1]

One thing for sure, those who said it was a brilliant move by Mo to hold on to Helsley and Feddee this off season so we could get a haul of top prospects at the trade deadline were proven wrong.

"Those who said it" do not exist.

No, but last offseason plenty of posters said the best move was to keep them until the deadline, including you.

And many of them said the return would be greater at the deadline because contending teams would pay more.

They were wrong.

[peterman'srealitytour]

He didn’t trade them because he’s a chicken [redacted]. Gotten smoked so many times in the past in the trade market. Scared of his own shadow.

Such a hypocrite. Spent all offseason talking about “runway” for young players. Keeping Nootbaar only takes away ABs from Gorman, Wetherholdt and his prize acquisition from 2023 selloff- Saggese.

Taking ABs from Gorman can only be a good thing for the Cardinals. But I fail to see how keeping Nootbaar takes any ABs from the aforementioned players, as Noot is an OF, Gorman is a DH and the others are IFs, one of whom is in Memphis.

As far as taking ABs away from Gorman being a good thing, that’s your opinion and you are obviously entitled to it. Cardinals haven’t given up on him and I think that’s a wise move at this point. Brant Brown has made progress with some other young players and Gorman was showing improvement before latest injury.

You really shouldn’t have to connect too many dots to see how trading Nootbaar opens the door for Gorman and/or Wetherholt and/or Saggese. Donovan is solid LF. Take him off 2B and plug one of those guys in there. Not rocket science.

Keeping Nootbaar doesn't prevent anything you've said.

Doesn’t “prevent” it but certainly is a barrier. Unless you plan to bench him (which I’m sure they won’t) then playing Nootbaar absolutely takes away ABs for that group.

[Bomber1]

Surprisingly, enjoying the grammar lessons, although I'm a lost cause with proper English, as some version of gibberish is apparently my first language.
Anyway, imo the key phrase with Noot is "while cost controlled." Posters still complain about Bader, but he was a very good value while he was here b/c he was cost controlled while providing good WAR levels and never got extended.
A lot of investment goes into player development. When one makes it to the show, it's prudent to strive to find out what you have before trading away. Noot has considerable talent, and possibly can provide decent value next year, or possibly provide good value this offseason if he is traded.
We should be hoping he has a good couple months here to finish this season to provide better value going into this offseason.

I think all it comes down to is the potential return wasn't worth the trade. So he wasn't traded.

Bader was always a decent complementary piece. Problem was Mo treated him like a 150 game starter and depleted (or didn't obtain) other outfielders to supplement. Bader wasn't a Cardinal simply because 'he was good value.' He was a Cardinal because Mo thought he had something special.

Mozeliak has often thought “he had something special”:
Bader
O’Neill
Carlson
Reyes
DeJong

[Jobu's Rum]

So he should trade players for less than their value? Is that what you expect Bloom to do?

I think what is being said is that Mo doesn't do a very good job of evaluating talent and more often than not he over values.

Perhaps Bloom and his crew will do a better job.

When I see this I always remember when Moe thought Fowler, Diaz, Carpenter and Piscotty was going to be an OBP offensive juggernaut

[Melville]

I can only guess but there must have been a lot of calls on Donovan and Burleson and not as many calls on Nootbaar.

It only takes one call. And there were reports of interest in Nootbaar.

Very true

I just don't see a place for Nootbaar on the roster next year.

Heck - there isn't one now.
Nor has there been during the past 4 years.

[Melville]

One thing for sure, those who said it was a brilliant move by Mo to hold on to Helsley and Feddee this off season so we could get a haul of top prospects at the trade deadline were proven wrong.

"Those who said it" do not exist.

No, but last offseason plenty of posters said the best move was to keep them until the deadline, including you.

And many of them said the return would be greater at the deadline because contending teams would pay more.

They were wrong.

Incorrect.
I know Mo better than Mo knows Mo.
Brilliantly and perfectly explaining his thought process (and thereby accurately predicting what he will and will not do) is a far cry from endorsing it.
Thank goodness.

[blackinkbiz]

Aroz, Gallen, and Alcantra broke Mo.

It's as simple as that. Outside of acquiring Goldy and Nado (which turned out to be the worst MVP-duo in history) the majority of his transactions since then have been awful.

Yips, gun-shy, whatever you want to call it, he's got it.

[HorseTrader]

John Mozeliak on why he retained his position players, despite significant interest:

"We got hit a lot on our left-handed hitters ... but we were not motivated to move players that we had under control unless we were, to put it mildly, blown away. And we just weren't."


Expecting to be blown away for f'in Nootbaar!?!?!?!

Un f'in real this dude man

Got to keep it in context. Blown away for Noot isn't the same as blown away for Noot.