OldRed wrote: ↑02 Feb 2026 08:58 am
I'm shocked by the lack of knowledge some post. This will not be a good team. This was strictly a salary dump. If not, other teams would also be doing what the Cardinals are calling a re-build.
I'm not buying in the so-called re-build, and I imagine by ticket sales others are not also.
Houston, Atlanta and Philadelphia have all gone down a similar path and been successful on the other side.
3 large markets. St. Louis isn't that.
Cardinals aren't rebuilding. They're resetting to a small market model.
Isn’t it possible they’re doing both at the same time?
I think there is a distinction and that their behavior is specifically that which aligns with a small market model. Their revenue advantage over other small market teams is now gone because their media deal (and their equity with it) went up in smoke. A "rebuild" implies that they'll hit an inflection point where they determine they're ready to move their payroll back into the top 10ish range.
But you’ve already implied, and I agree with you, that the team will not have the level of revenue to get back to a top 10ish range so why set that bar so high unless you want to act like a rebuild only means you are working towards a top 10 payroll which is seemingly unlikely? It just seems like you’re setting a weird definition of a rebuild.
I don't expect that to happen... so I think calling this a rebuild is missing what they're actually doing. It's adjacent, so I get it, but that theory relies on them moving spending back up. Considering their revenue model has markedly changed for the worse, I don't know why one would reasonably expect that ownership will pony up, anyway.
They'd need someone like Mark Cuban to buy them.
That seems an awful lot like semantics to me. I think it’s safe to assume spending will go up but likely not to the level before relative to other teams’ spending.
OldRed wrote: ↑02 Feb 2026 08:58 am
I'm shocked by the lack of knowledge some post. This will not be a good team. This was strictly a salary dump. If not, other teams would also be doing what the Cardinals are calling a re-build.
I'm not buying in the so-called re-build, and I imagine by ticket sales others are not also.
Houston, Atlanta and Philadelphia have all gone down a similar path and been successful on the other side.
3 large markets. St. Louis isn't that.
Cardinals aren't rebuilding. They're resetting to a small market model.
Isn’t it possible they’re doing both at the same time?
I think there is a distinction and that their behavior is specifically that which aligns with a small market model. Their revenue advantage over other small market teams is now gone because their media deal (and their equity with it) went up in smoke. A "rebuild" implies that they'll hit an inflection point where they determine they're ready to move their payroll back into the top 10ish range.
But you’ve already implied, and I agree with you, that the team will not have the level of revenue to get back to a top 10ish range so why set that bar so high unless you want to act like a rebuild only means you are working towards a top 10 payroll which is seemingly unlikely? It just seems like you’re setting a weird definition of a rebuild.
I don't expect that to happen... so I think calling this a rebuild is missing what they're actually doing. It's adjacent, so I get it, but that theory relies on them moving spending back up. Considering their revenue model has markedly changed for the worse, I don't know why one would reasonably expect that ownership will pony up, anyway.
They'd need someone like Mark Cuban to buy them.
That seems an awful lot like semantics to me. I think it’s safe to assume spending will go up but likely not to the level before relative to other teams’ spending.
The front office and ownership have also chafed at the term 'rebuild'. They've frequently said the organization is going through a 'reset'.
JMO, I view them as very different strategies / mantras.
