STLtoday.com Forums
https://interact.stltoday.com/forums/
https://interact.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1517466
I was thinking that tooAn Old Friend wrote: ↑30 Oct 2025 18:10 pmAgree, it’s not without merit. If I was Bloom and this was an option, I’d ask for a prospect with Castellanos.
Interested in knowing what this is about…Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑30 Oct 2025 17:35 pm If Arenado has a pill problem, that could explain his recent performance
Read the thread title, slowlyAn Old Friend wrote: ↑30 Oct 2025 21:33 pmInterested in knowing what this is about…Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑30 Oct 2025 17:35 pm If Arenado has a pill problem, that could explain his recent performance
Oof.Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑30 Oct 2025 22:55 pmRead the thread title, slowlyAn Old Friend wrote: ↑30 Oct 2025 21:33 pmInterested in knowing what this is about…Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑30 Oct 2025 17:35 pm If Arenado has a pill problem, that could explain his recent performance
They can’t all be winners!An Old Friend wrote: ↑30 Oct 2025 22:58 pmOof.Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑30 Oct 2025 22:55 pmRead the thread title, slowlyAn Old Friend wrote: ↑30 Oct 2025 21:33 pmInterested in knowing what this is about…Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑30 Oct 2025 17:35 pm If Arenado has a pill problem, that could explain his recent performance
100%11WSChamps wrote: ↑30 Oct 2025 08:33 am That trade would be akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
One declining player for another and not to mention one that can't play defense where at least Arenado can do that.
And I loved that notion that the Cardinal outfield is set. LOL
There's nothing set about the OFas of now.
Well, if that trade goes down, the Cards save 17mil right away and reduce the commitment to only one year. Which if NC has a bounceback first half makes him tradeable. Also, he plays OF and the Cards need OFers.Dicktar2023 wrote: ↑31 Oct 2025 08:02 am100%11WSChamps wrote: ↑30 Oct 2025 08:33 am That trade would be akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
One declining player for another and not to mention one that can't play defense where at least Arenado can do that.
And I loved that notion that the Cardinal outfield is set. LOL
There's nothing set about the OFas of now.
If that's the return, we're better off keeping NA. Which is what I think will happen, because these are going to be the only deals out there. BDW is not going to eat that money.
He is "placed" in the OF, but doesn't really "play" it. He is one of the worst OFs in MLB.ecleme22 wrote: ↑31 Oct 2025 08:18 amWell, if that trade goes down, the Cards save 17mil right away and reduce the commitment to only one year. Which if NC has a bounceback first half makes him tradeable. Also, he plays OF and the Cards need OFers.Dicktar2023 wrote: ↑31 Oct 2025 08:02 am100%11WSChamps wrote: ↑30 Oct 2025 08:33 am That trade would be akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
One declining player for another and not to mention one that can't play defense where at least Arenado can do that.
And I loved that notion that the Cardinal outfield is set. LOL
There's nothing set about the OFas of now.
If that's the return, we're better off keeping NA. Which is what I think will happen, because these are going to be the only deals out there. BDW is not going to eat that money.
But either way, I don't think any NA trade is going to be a big win out of the gate.
Yeah.... Matt Adams "played" the OF too in 2017.ClassicO wrote: ↑31 Oct 2025 12:29 pmHe is "placed" in the OF, but doesn't really "play" it. He is one of the worst OFs in MLB.ecleme22 wrote: ↑31 Oct 2025 08:18 amWell, if that trade goes down, the Cards save 17mil right away and reduce the commitment to only one year. Which if NC has a bounceback first half makes him tradeable. Also, he plays OF and the Cards need OFers.Dicktar2023 wrote: ↑31 Oct 2025 08:02 am100%11WSChamps wrote: ↑30 Oct 2025 08:33 am That trade would be akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
One declining player for another and not to mention one that can't play defense where at least Arenado can do that.
And I loved that notion that the Cardinal outfield is set. LOL
There's nothing set about the OFas of now.
If that's the return, we're better off keeping NA. Which is what I think will happen, because these are going to be the only deals out there. BDW is not going to eat that money.
But either way, I don't think any NA trade is going to be a big win out of the gate.
Career DRS = -91; career OAA = -77. So no, he won't help the OF.
This team already has an abundant number of DHs.
NC has “played” 9k+ innings in the OF…Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑31 Oct 2025 12:34 pmYeah.... Matt Adams "played" the OF too in 2017.ClassicO wrote: ↑31 Oct 2025 12:29 pmHe is "placed" in the OF, but doesn't really "play" it. He is one of the worst OFs in MLB.ecleme22 wrote: ↑31 Oct 2025 08:18 amWell, if that trade goes down, the Cards save 17mil right away and reduce the commitment to only one year. Which if NC has a bounceback first half makes him tradeable. Also, he plays OF and the Cards need OFers.Dicktar2023 wrote: ↑31 Oct 2025 08:02 am100%11WSChamps wrote: ↑30 Oct 2025 08:33 am That trade would be akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
One declining player for another and not to mention one that can't play defense where at least Arenado can do that.
And I loved that notion that the Cardinal outfield is set. LOL
There's nothing set about the OFas of now.
If that's the return, we're better off keeping NA. Which is what I think will happen, because these are going to be the only deals out there. BDW is not going to eat that money.
But either way, I don't think any NA trade is going to be a big win out of the gate.
Career DRS = -91; career OAA = -77. So no, he won't help the OF.
This team already has an abundant number of DHs.
This is where our expectations in an NA trade can mess with the thoughts on the return.ecleme22 wrote: ↑31 Oct 2025 08:18 amWell, if that trade goes down, the Cards save 17mil right away and reduce the commitment to only one year. Which if NC has a bounceback first half makes him tradeable. Also, he plays OF and the Cards need OFers.Dicktar2023 wrote: ↑31 Oct 2025 08:02 am100%11WSChamps wrote: ↑30 Oct 2025 08:33 am That trade would be akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
One declining player for another and not to mention one that can't play defense where at least Arenado can do that.
And I loved that notion that the Cardinal outfield is set. LOL
There's nothing set about the OFas of now.
If that's the return, we're better off keeping NA. Which is what I think will happen, because these are going to be the only deals out there. BDW is not going to eat that money.
But either way, I don't think any NA trade is going to be a big win out of the gate.
+1.Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑31 Oct 2025 13:02 pm At least we can agree that they both "played" the OF and were not remotely good at it.
The point makes no sense. If you want a decent-hitting, poor-fielding LF, then you have Burleson.
Now, if you can unload Nado and his salary by taking Castellanos and then flip Castellanos, then I can see that. But that probably isn't happening.
Thus, in a season where .500 ball would be a success, I'd probably keep the GG 3B defense and average bat over the porous LF defense and average bat.
My thoughts are in a perfect scenario, he’s flipped at the TDL.Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑31 Oct 2025 13:02 pm At least we can agree that they both "played" the OF and were not remotely good at it.
The point makes no sense. If you want a decent-hitting, poor-fielding LF, then you have Burleson.
Now, if you can unload Nado and his salary by taking Castellanos and then flip Castellanos, then I can see that. But that probably isn't happening.
Thus, in a season where .500 ball would be a success, I'd probably keep the GG 3B defense and average bat over the porous LF defense and average bat.
They have to eat at least half the contract to move him at all. They need to eat at least 3/4 of the contract to get back someone interesting. They need to eat most of the contract to get back someone pretty good.renostl wrote: ↑31 Oct 2025 13:39 pmThis is where our expectations in an NA trade can mess with the thoughts on the return.ecleme22 wrote: ↑31 Oct 2025 08:18 amWell, if that trade goes down, the Cards save 17mil right away and reduce the commitment to only one year. Which if NC has a bounceback first half makes him tradeable. Also, he plays OF and the Cards need OFers.Dicktar2023 wrote: ↑31 Oct 2025 08:02 am100%11WSChamps wrote: ↑30 Oct 2025 08:33 am That trade would be akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
One declining player for another and not to mention one that can't play defense where at least Arenado can do that.
And I loved that notion that the Cardinal outfield is set. LOL
There's nothing set about the OFas of now.
If that's the return, we're better off keeping NA. Which is what I think will happen, because these are going to be the only deals out there. BDW is not going to eat that money.
But either way, I don't think any NA trade is going to be a big win out of the gate.
IMO, the return for NA is low even with money given in the deal. A lottery ticket.
The 2 players are not a current match on their current teams. NA wants a trade, he certainly at the very least,
doesn't not want a trade for those with the POV that he hasn't asked for a trade. NC became a player not wanted
on the team.
What the Cards would get, is as you state, is a money savings and a player that could be flipped
along with ideally a lottery ticket or build this deal.
Even in Nicks bad 2025 he gave 219 TB. That would tie what Contreras did and be second on the Cards.
It came in the form of
27 2B, 3rd on Cards
17 HR, 4th on Cards
2 3B, Tied for first
72 RBI, 2nd on Cards
In the form of a RHB that might allow for another deal.
Ideal, not at all, yet what's better that NA gets us and IF Bloom accepts such a
deal, the answer would be nothing else was better.
We agree on that.Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑31 Oct 2025 15:03 pmThey have to eat at least half the contract to move him at all. They need to eat at least 3/4 of the contract to get back someone interesting. They need to eat most of the contract to get back someone pretty good.renostl wrote: ↑31 Oct 2025 13:39 pmThis is where our expectations in an NA trade can mess with the thoughts on the return.ecleme22 wrote: ↑31 Oct 2025 08:18 amWell, if that trade goes down, the Cards save 17mil right away and reduce the commitment to only one year. Which if NC has a bounceback first half makes him tradeable. Also, he plays OF and the Cards need OFers.Dicktar2023 wrote: ↑31 Oct 2025 08:02 am100%11WSChamps wrote: ↑30 Oct 2025 08:33 am That trade would be akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
One declining player for another and not to mention one that can't play defense where at least Arenado can do that.
And I loved that notion that the Cardinal outfield is set. LOL
There's nothing set about the OFas of now.
If that's the return, we're better off keeping NA. Which is what I think will happen, because these are going to be the only deals out there. BDW is not going to eat that money.
But either way, I don't think any NA trade is going to be a big win out of the gate.
IMO, the return for NA is low even with money given in the deal. A lottery ticket.
The 2 players are not a current match on their current teams. NA wants a trade, he certainly at the very least,
doesn't not want a trade for those with the POV that he hasn't asked for a trade. NC became a player not wanted
on the team.
What the Cards would get, is as you state, is a money savings and a player that could be flipped
along with ideally a lottery ticket or build this deal.
Even in Nicks bad 2025 he gave 219 TB. That would tie what Contreras did and be second on the Cards.
It came in the form of
27 2B, 3rd on Cards
17 HR, 4th on Cards
2 3B, Tied for first
72 RBI, 2nd on Cards
In the form of a RHB that might allow for another deal.
Ideal, not at all, yet what's better that NA gets us and IF Bloom accepts such a
deal, the answer would be nothing else was better.