STLtoday.com

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Oct 2025 09:58 am

icon wrote: ↑26 Oct 2025 17:27 pm What is at great risk here -- and this was discussed at length in a previous thread -- is the fan apathy we have seen this year carrying over into who knows how many more years before the team can be close to competitive again.

Many fans who have found other things to do with their time and money may never return. In my social circle -- and I'm a baseball-loving Boomer -- I hear fewer and fewer people even mention the Cardinals anymore, and when they do, it's not positive. They are at risk of becoming irrelevant. I didn't watch many games this year on TV. And I didn't go to one. The team is boring with a play-not-to-lose manager. And good luck creating new fans.

If you look at the history of Cardinals' attendance:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/STL/

show me where there is any trend of Cardinals fans becoming spitefully apathetic when the organization returns to being successful after any "down" period.

When the Cardinals lost the WS in 1987, they drew 3.1 million fans.

From 1988 to 1999, the Cardinals went more than a decade while making the playoffs only once. But they still averaged 2.7 million in attendance per 162 game season.

Then, starting in 2000, then they started making the playoffs again, attendance bounced back up to 3.3, 3.1, 3.0, 2.9, 3.0, 3.5, 3.4, 3.6, etc. million.

If Cardinals fans can't weather a "down" period, then there isn't much hope for this organization long term anyway.

This is not 40 years ago anymore. Times have changed. It is much more difficult to be truly competitive in MLB today. And there is a lot more competition for the entertainment dollar out there. The entertainment industry is very fragmented now. People have so many more choices on how to spend their entertainment dollars. And baseball is not as popular among younger people anymore. Throwing out attendance figures from 40 years ago makes no sense. Context is everything.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Oct 2025 11:17 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑27 Oct 2025 11:13 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Oct 2025 11:07 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑27 Oct 2025 11:00 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Oct 2025 10:21 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑27 Oct 2025 10:10 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Oct 2025 09:58 am show me where there is any trend of Cardinals fans becoming spitefully apathetic when the organization returns to being successful after any "down" period.

1969 - 1981

The Cardinals never averaged more than 22,xxx fans per game despite finishing 2nd three times, over .500 seven times (.500 one season).

Even after winning 90 games in 1971 attendance never averaged even 20,000 per game and FELL the next season to 15,5xx per game!

The 1974 team won 86 games only to see attendance drop into the 14,xxx per game range in 1976.

The ONLY thing that broke the thirteen season string of terrible attendance and fan apathy was the hiring of Whitey Herzog in 1980.

By 1982 Whitey Ball had attendance back over 2+M, reaching 3+M for the first time in 1987.

In 1967-1968, they had attendance of 2.0-2.1 million.

They missed the playoffs every year from 1969-1981 and still averaged 1.6 million per 162 game season.

In 1982, when they won the WS, they jumped right back to 2.1 million, and then went 2.3, 2.0, 2.6, 2.5, etc. million per year after that.

Resiliency.

67'/68' were World Series seasons.

Are you seriously claiming averaging a putrid 1.6M from 1969 - 1981 is something to be proud of?

That was one of the most fan apathetic stretches of Cardinals baseball we've since in the expansion era!

You must not have lived here during that time frame matt since anyone who did can tell you the stadium was more than half empty most games!

They had gone to the WS three times in five years between 1964 and 1968 and were still only drawing 2.0 - 2.1 million in 1967-1968.

Averaging 1.6 million over a long 13 years from 1969 to 1981 isn't that much off of a high water mark of 2.0 - 2.1 million.

Trust me matt, the 1970's were as apathetic a time frame as this city has ever seen.

(BTW, that 1.6M average is a near 20% decline in attendance from the 2.01M/2.09M they drew in 1967-1968. That's a huge drop of over 400,000 customers!)

Now that MO's gone I don't foresee us falling much further, I actually think the 2026 team will be better than the 2025 model which should stabilize attendance.

Over 13 seasons of not making the playoffs, if fans weren't resilient, you might expect a 33% to 50% drop off, not 20%.

I don't need anyone to try and sell me on what Cardinals baseball apathy looks like matt, I saw it first hand in the 1970's as a kid until Whitey arrived going to hundreds of games ($2 bleacher or GA seats!) w/my Dad and brother.

Matt wants everyone to think he's the smartest guy in the room.

He doesn't realize people don't believe competing for championships in a baseball town with rich tradition should take forever and what the consequences on a fan base can be in this era of short attention spans.

Stripping this franchise to the bone isn't necessary playing in this division.

11WSChamps wrote: ↑27 Oct 2025 12:18 pm Matt wants everyone to think he's the smartest guy in the room .

He doesn't realize people don't believe competing for championships in a baseball town with rich tradition should take forever and what the consequences on a fan base can be in this era of short attention spans.

Stripping this franchise to the bone isn't necessary playing in this division.

Amen

BDWJr has used this "rebuild" ruse as a pretense to SLASH PAYROLL to the bone, plain and simple.

Had he fired Mo years ago and replaced him w/a competent POBO who then hired an experienced field Manager, then Dewitt would still be drawing 3+M and the Cardinals would be competing for WS titles every season.

Mo ruined the minor league system, hired lacky Managers and wasted payroll dollars.

He was the problem for years.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑26 Oct 2025 12:43 pm

CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑26 Oct 2025 12:23 pm I don’t understand why so many think a rebuild can’t include spending and trading in concurrence with the revamping of player development.

Because significant spending in baseball always involves making long term commitments. Significant veteran players are going to sign for, or carry with them, 3, 5, 7, 10+ year contracts.

If you are not ready to compete now (and the Cardinals aren't), why commit yourself to guys now who (1) you may not need or (2) may get significantly worse when you are ready to compete again in 3, 5, etc. years?

That is patently false. Especially the past few years. There are no shortage of examples of top FAs lingering on the market that end up taking pillow deals or 2 year deals with an opt out.

11WSChamps wrote: ↑27 Oct 2025 12:18 pm Matt wants everyone to think he's the smartest guy in the room.

He doesn't realize people don't believe competing for championships in a baseball town with rich tradition should take forever and what the consequences on a fan base can be in this era of short attention spans.

Stripping this franchise to the bone isn't necessary playing in this division.

The issue isn't "playing in this division." The issue is in carving out a path that ultimately give them the best chance to win another WS at some point.

They've spent a decade already almost exclusively not making the playoffs or losing in their first playoff series. Time to try a new strategy to attempt to get a different result.

CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑26 Oct 2025 17:13 pmWhy can’t the lottery ticket inexperienced prospects be the “pieces here or there”? I could understand if we had an inflated 220 million payroll and a 100-loss team to start with, but we don’t.

A good RH outfielder and two solid starters would create a situation where a Wetherholt, and some improvement from a few young players already on hand get us back in the mix.

Well, I think that you’d be repeating the same mistakes we’ve made the last two years and just hoping that these young players just start playing better out of nowhere. Would you bet money on Walker, Scott, or Gorman getting that much better next year? I mean, I hope so, and I still hold out faith on them, but I am not betting on it at this point. Maybe Scott, maybe Saggese, but we saw last year guys like Nootbaar, Gorman, Walker, and Scott fall on their faces. At least Scott was a rookie, so he gets a bit of a pass. And even Winn, who I really like, took steps back offensively. And I don’t think that Burleson, Contreras, Donovan, and Herrera, are enough, right now, to say that we have that kind of base that all be need is a RH OFer and a few pitchers get get right back in it. And that’s also asking a lot from Wetherholt, who I love, but he’s still going to be a rookie.

And I haven’t really looked right now, but I don’t know what RH outfielders or starting pitchers that there are in free agency. So I don’t know what kind of money and years it would take to get guys good enough to be better than just “in the mix” Where I might agree with you, though, is that I don’t think that this rebuild is going to take that long. Because you are correct, we don’t have a huge payroll and a 100 loss team. If we can just suck it up and count next year as a rebuilding year, we can trade some of these guys who are solid players, but not really enough to get this team where it needs to be RIGHT NOW and turn them into potential pieces for 2027 and beyond. Maybe I’m being optimistic and 2027 is still a little early, that’s where I’m at with it. I think that writing off 2026 is the smart choice, even though it may not be popular. And we probably should have started this process sooner.

I think a RH outfielder and two starter might get you to the playoffs, but I still think we’d be looking at a wild card at best, which is where we’ve been for how long now? I want the team to get back to what it did for decades, which is develop talent and supplement that with some big money players here and there. And I think it’s the most realistic option we have because BDW is just never going to be that guy too wild in free agency.

WaltsSuccessor wrote: ↑27 Oct 2025 12:26 pmThat is patently false. Especially the past few years. There are no shortage of examples of top FAs lingering on the market that end up taking pillow deals or 2 year deals with an opt out.

I’m not so sure that waiting around and gambling that you can get a guy on a pillow deal is a great strategy. What happens if you decide to hold onto guys like Burleson, Nootbaar, or Donovan with the goal of hoping that you can land a guy on one of those deals, then it just never comes up? Those pillow deals always are made at the last minute. So you’re holding onto guys that you could otherwise have traded, you don’t get a good player on a pillow deal, and now you’re once again mediocre at best going into the season?

That’s a move I would like to make if I already have a pretty good team and you’re being opportunistic at the end of the offseason and a top guy is still available for a deal like that. Yea, that would be great. But I wouldn’t base my offseason plans on something like that coming to fruition.

And if I’m signing a guy who I really want, I don’t like the idea of them being able to opt out either. Pretty hard to build for the future that way, not knowing if the guy is going to be good and opt out or suck and then you’re stuck with him.

Ronnie Dobbs wrote: ↑27 Oct 2025 14:24 pm

WaltsSuccessor wrote: ↑27 Oct 2025 12:26 pmThat is patently false. Especially the past few years. There are no shortage of examples of top FAs lingering on the market that end up taking pillow deals or 2 year deals with an opt out.

I’m not so sure that waiting around and gambling that you can get a guy on a pillow deal is a great strategy. What happens if you decide to hold onto guys like Burleson, Nootbaar, or Donovan with the goal of hoping that you can land a guy on one of those deals, then it just never comes up? Those pillow deals always are made at the last minute. So you’re holding onto guys that you could otherwise have traded, you don’t get a good player on a pillow deal, and now you’re once again mediocre at best going into the season?

That’s a move I would like to make if I already have a pretty good team and you’re being opportunistic at the end of the offseason and a top guy is still available for a deal like that. Yea, that would be great. But I wouldn’t base my offseason plans on something like that coming to fruition.

And if I’m signing a guy who I really want, I don’t like the idea of them being able to opt out either. Pretty hard to build for the future that way, not knowing if the guy is going to be good and opt out or suck and then you’re stuck with him.

I offered no commentary on whether or not it was a good idea/strategy. Just wanted to contradict the mattmitch's assertion that "significant spending always involves making long term commitments." Which is false.

That being said, not all pillow guys linger on the market forever. Some are coming off subpar seasons and take the one year deal to re-establish value. Or they're older and that's where their market is (like Gibson and Lynn two years ago). There's an opportunity there for Bloom to grab one or two of those guys on a one-year gamble with little downside. Either they rebound and make us surprisingly competitive, they rebound and we still stink so we flip at the deadline, or they don't rebound and we DFA. No long-term risk. More upside than downside.

Ryan Helsley may be one of those opportunities. But there's probably better ones that don't come immediately to mind. Pitching would be the focus IMO.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Oct 2025 10:21 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑27 Oct 2025 10:10 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Oct 2025 09:58 am show me where there is any trend of Cardinals fans becoming spitefully apathetic when the organization returns to being successful after any "down" period.

1969 - 1981

The Cardinals never averaged more than 22,xxx fans per game despite finishing 2nd three times, over .500 seven times (.500 one season).

Even after winning 90 games in 1971 attendance never averaged even 20,000 per game and FELL the next season to 15,5xx per game!

The 1974 team won 86 games only to see attendance drop into the 14,xxx per game range in 1976.

The ONLY thing that broke the thirteen season string of terrible attendance and fan apathy was the hiring of Whitey Herzog in 1980.

By 1982 Whitey Ball had attendance back over 2+M, reaching 3+M for the first time in 1987.

In 1967-1968, they had attendance of 2.0-2.1 million.

They missed the playoffs every year from 1969-1981 and still averaged 1.6 million per 162 game season.

In 1982, when they won the WS, they jumped right back to 2.1 million, and then went 2.3, 2.0, 2.6, 2.5, etc. million per year after that.

Resiliency.

IMO baseball attendance should be measured against the times.
The NYY had seasons under 2 million for 25 years prior to 1976 and didn't exceed 3 million until 1999.
The Cubs never exceeded 2 million until 1984 and didn't pass 3 million until 2004.
MLB attendance was different for too many reasons to properly address. 8:05 start times, weekday day
games, double digit inflation, unemployment all play roles.

I agree that the Cardinals fans are very resilient.
I was also in the stands when attendance was low. More than 1 item plays into those numbers.
St. Louis is a baseball town. Just don't kick them in the teeth or pee on the fans
back and tell them it's raining.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Oct 2025 13:55 pm

11WSChamps wrote: ↑27 Oct 2025 12:18 pm Matt wants everyone to think he's the smartest guy in the room.

He doesn't realize people don't believe competing for championships in a baseball town with rich tradition should take forever and what the consequences on a fan base can be in this era of short attention spans.

Stripping this franchise to the bone isn't necessary playing in this division.

The issue isn't "playing in this division." The issue is in carving out a path that ultimately give them the best chance to win another WS at some point.

They've spent a decade already almost exclusively not making the playoffs or losing in their first playoff series. Time to try a new strategy to attempt to get a different result.

And who's been in charge in the last decade pulling the strings?

If the Cardinals played in the west or the east division they would have been compelled to go in a different direction long before now.

Between complacency and bowing to altar of BPV what has happened in the last decade shouldn't surprise anyone.

11WSChamps wrote: ↑27 Oct 2025 16:29 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Oct 2025 13:55 pm

11WSChamps wrote: ↑27 Oct 2025 12:18 pm Matt wants everyone to think he's the smartest guy in the room.

He doesn't realize people don't believe competing for championships in a baseball town with rich tradition should take forever and what the consequences on a fan base can be in this era of short attention spans.

Stripping this franchise to the bone isn't necessary playing in this division.

The issue isn't "playing in this division." The issue is in carving out a path that ultimately give them the best chance to win another WS at some point.

They've spent a decade already almost exclusively not making the playoffs or losing in their first playoff series. Time to try a new strategy to attempt to get a different result.

And who's been in charge in the last decade pulling the strings?

If the Cardinals played in the west or the east division they would have been compelled to go in a different direction long before now.

Between complacency and bowing to altar of BPV what has happened in the last decade shouldn't surprise anyone.

BINGO!

ecleme22 wrote: ↑26 Oct 2025 11:33 am I just…I….

It really surprises me how seemingly engaged baseball fans can’t understand the most modest of rebuilds and how this org obviously needs a reset.

It’s sad that they’re resetting to a small market model. Ownership failure.