Why FANS come to the park

[ScotchMIrish]

I've attended my last MLB game. Can't stand the watered down version of baseball with the DH. I also didn't like the configuration of the new ballpark. I loved the second deck of Busch II. Great view and affordable. In the current ballpark that second deck is luxury suites.

Now having alienated long time fans like me they are getting revenue sharing. Apparently the DH isn't that popular and there aren't enough millionaires to keep the finances out of the red.

lol - baseball has never been better

You need to find 15,000 people who agree with you and bring them to the ballpark 81 times a year.

[desertrat23]

I've attended my last MLB game. Can't stand the watered down version of baseball with the DH. I also didn't like the configuration of the new ballpark. I loved the second deck of Busch II. Great view and affordable. In the current ballpark that second deck is luxury suites.

Now having alienated long time fans like me they are getting revenue sharing. Apparently the DH isn't that popular and there aren't enough millionaires to keep the finances out of the red.

lol - baseball has never been better

You need to find 15,000 people who agree with you and bring them to the ballpark 81 times a year.

That would be easier than finding 15,000 people who haven’t gotten over a rule change from five years ago.

[Ozziesfan41]

I've attended my last MLB game. Can't stand the watered down version of baseball with the DH. I also didn't like the configuration of the new ballpark. I loved the second deck of Busch II. Great view and affordable. In the current ballpark that second deck is luxury suites.

Now having alienated long time fans like me they are getting revenue sharing. Apparently the DH isn't that popular and there aren't enough millionaires to keep the finances out of the red.

lol - baseball has never been better

You need to find 15,000 people who agree with you and bring them to the ballpark 81 times a year.

That would be easier than finding 15,000 people who haven’t gotten over a rule change from five years ago.

lol no kidding. I was against the DH but started liking it. All the strategy involved of the pitcher batting would have been removed any way it used to be should I pinch hit for the pitcher in the 7th or let him go another inning now pitchers don’t go but 5 innings maybe 6 also with the offense as bad as it is now in baseball adding the pitcher batting would only make it worse. And I for one liked seeing pujols play in 2022 and finish his career in St. Louis and get to 700 home runs wouldn’t have happened if there was no DH because they wouldn’t have benched Goldy so he could play and I much preferred watching Herrera DH last season as opposed to watching him catch or sit on the bench and the pitcher hit. I’m all for the DH now

[HOUCARD]

I'm more interested in the success of the name on the front of the jersey than the names on the back.

Apparently...no crying when your jersey leaves STL from poor attendance!

I'm never crying over any MLB player. LOL

I'm talking about your team relocating to another market/city from lack of support.

The only thing keeping the Cards in StL is tradition and regional drawing power. It has zero to do with the City. One can easily argue regional drawing power will be greater in Nashville and San Antonio/Austin too. There are lots more people in both places.

[dugoutrex]

I've attended my last MLB game. Can't stand the watered down version of baseball with the DH. I also didn't like the configuration of the new ballpark. I loved the second deck of Busch II. Great view and affordable. In the current ballpark that second deck is luxury suites.

Now having alienated long time fans like me they are getting revenue sharing. Apparently the DH isn't that popular and there aren't enough millionaires to keep the finances out of the red.

lol - baseball has never been better

You need to find 15,000 people who agree with you and bring them to the ballpark 81 times a year.

attendance around the league is up 3 straight years ya big silly

[CorneliusWolfe]

I'm more interested in the success of the name on the front of the jersey than the names on the back.

How is the team named on the front of the jersey going to succeed when all the names on the back of the jersey are not highly skilled and productive?

[mattmitchl44]

I'm more interested in the success of the name on the front of the jersey than the names on the back.

How is the team named on the front of the jersey going to succeed when all the names on the back of the jersey are not highly skilled and productive?

They need to be highly skilled and productive. They don't need to be the "icons" fans have been accustomed to for 10+ years when they are in the much less productive twilights of their careers - which is the sentimentality the OP is arguing in favor of.

[CorneliusWolfe]

I'm more interested in the success of the name on the front of the jersey than the names on the back.

How is the team named on the front of the jersey going to succeed when all the names on the back of the jersey are not highly skilled and productive?

They need to be highly skilled and productive. They don't need to be the "icons" fans have been accustomed to for 10+ years when they are in the much less productive twilights of their careers - which is the sentimentality the OP is arguing in favor of.

You don’t get a roster full of highly skilled players, which I acknowledge don’t need to be iconic, with a 1-point plan of solely building through the draft.

The strategy can change year to year. If you draft and develop poorly, you have to overpay in free agency. Draft and develop well and ownership can enjoy some cheap years. The sentimental fans will come to the park either way.

No reason to suck for years. Be dynamic, creative, and not cheap, and every year and you can field a good team. Greatness is not going to be consistent, even for the big spenders.

[Ozziesfan41]

I'm more interested in the success of the name on the front of the jersey than the names on the back.

How is the team named on the front of the jersey going to succeed when all the names on the back of the jersey are not highly skilled and productive?

They need to be highly skilled and productive. They don't need to be the "icons" fans have been accustomed to for 10+ years when they are in the much less productive twilights of their careers - which is the sentimentality the OP is arguing in favor of.

You don’t get a roster full of highly skilled players, which I acknowledge don’t need to be iconic, with a 1-point plan of solely building through the draft.

The strategy can change year to year. If you draft and develop poorly, you have to overpay in free agency. Draft and develop well and ownership can enjoy some cheap years. The sentimental fans will come to the park either way.

No reason to suck for years. Be dynamic, creative, and not cheap, and every year and you can field a good team. Greatness is not going to be consistent, even for the big spenders.

Well it’s a great thing the cardinals plan of action isn’t to build solely through the draft isn’t it?

[mattmitchl44]

I'm more interested in the success of the name on the front of the jersey than the names on the back.

How is the team named on the front of the jersey going to succeed when all the names on the back of the jersey are not highly skilled and productive?

They need to be highly skilled and productive. They don't need to be the "icons" fans have been accustomed to for 10+ years when they are in the much less productive twilights of their careers - which is the sentimentality the OP is arguing in favor of.

You don’t get a roster full of highly skilled players, which I acknowledge don’t need to be iconic, with a 1-point plan of solely building through the draft.

The strategy can change year to year. If you draft and develop poorly, you have to overpay in free agency. Draft and develop well and ownership can enjoy some cheap years. The sentimental fans will come to the park either way.

No reason to suck for years. Be dynamic, creative, and not cheap, and every year and you can field a good team. Greatness is not going to be consistent, even for the big spenders.

No one has ever argued against an "all of the above" approach.

They should trade veteran players now for quality prospects.

I've said I expect them to sign some cheaper veterans on short 1-2 yr. contracts, likely with the potential to trade them for more prospect in July 2026.

And I've said they, eventually, will almost certainly have to add expensive veteran FAs when they are ready to compete again. But that isn't now. You don't want to be holding a hand full of "Nolan Arenados" three years from now when the team is ready to compete, but you have no flexibility because you've already committed yourself to players in decline late in their careers at the back end of long contracts. And those are the ONLY kind of expensive players you know you can get right now.

Yes, the objective is to rebuild the organization back to the point where they typically can field highly competitive teams more years than not - 3 out of 5, or 4 out of 6 - but they aren't at that point right now.

[CorneliusWolfe]

I'm more interested in the success of the name on the front of the jersey than the names on the back.

How is the team named on the front of the jersey going to succeed when all the names on the back of the jersey are not highly skilled and productive?

They need to be highly skilled and productive. They don't need to be the "icons" fans have been accustomed to for 10+ years when they are in the much less productive twilights of their careers - which is the sentimentality the OP is arguing in favor of.

You don’t get a roster full of highly skilled players, which I acknowledge don’t need to be iconic, with a 1-point plan of solely building through the draft.

The strategy can change year to year. If you draft and develop poorly, you have to overpay in free agency. Draft and develop well and ownership can enjoy some cheap years. The sentimental fans will come to the park either way.

No reason to suck for years. Be dynamic, creative, and not cheap, and every year and you can field a good team. Greatness is not going to be consistent, even for the big spenders.

No one has ever argued against an "all of the above" approach.

They should trade veteran players now for quality prospects.

I've said I expect them to sign some cheaper veterans on short 1-2 yr. contracts, likely with the potential to trade them for more prospect in July 2026.

And I've said they, eventually, will almost certainly have to add expensive veteran FAs when they are ready to compete again. But that isn't now.

Yes, the objective is to rebuild the organization back to the point where they typically can field highly competitive teams more years than not - 3 out of 5, or 4 out of 6 - but they aren't at that point right now.

As the all-knowing Melville (lol) has pointed out several times, a few of the right moves at the right positions can make this team winners sooner than later and make it fun again. We aren’t talking about a 100 loss team starting point here. I don’t always agree with him but certainly do on that point. You act like we’re a startup expansion team.

[CorneliusWolfe]

I'm more interested in the success of the name on the front of the jersey than the names on the back.

How is the team named on the front of the jersey going to succeed when all the names on the back of the jersey are not highly skilled and productive?

They need to be highly skilled and productive. They don't need to be the "icons" fans have been accustomed to for 10+ years when they are in the much less productive twilights of their careers - which is the sentimentality the OP is arguing in favor of.

You don’t get a roster full of highly skilled players, which I acknowledge don’t need to be iconic, with a 1-point plan of solely building through the draft.

The strategy can change year to year. If you draft and develop poorly, you have to overpay in free agency. Draft and develop well and ownership can enjoy some cheap years. The sentimental fans will come to the park either way.

No reason to suck for years. Be dynamic, creative, and not cheap, and every year and you can field a good team. Greatness is not going to be consistent, even for the big spenders.

Well it’s a great thing the cardinals plan of action isn’t to build solely through the draft isn’t it?

Sure hope not but not seeing anything to the contrary so far. That said, it is premature to assume because the Bloom era has just begun.

But that also hasn’t stopped you from arguing a rebuild has to be long and excruciating when you don’t know [shirt] either.

[mattmitchl44]

As the all-knowing Melville (lol) has pointed out several times, a few of the right moves at the right positions can make this team winners sooner than later and make it fun again. We aren’t talking about a 100 loss team starting point here. I don’t always agree with him but certainly do on that point. You act like we’re a startup expansion team.

They are NOT a talented roster right now - in particular after they move Gray, Donovan, Arenado, and probably Contraras as they should.

Subtract those four from last year's roster and you are right at 20 fWAR, basically a 68 win roster.

Yes, they will hopefully have multiple players develop and get better - but how much better and how soon remains to be seen. Let take 2026, see who gets better, see what holes need to be filled, and then talk about filling them, maybe, after the 2026 season. Or maybe it takes until after the 2027 - and likely the arrival of both Wetherholt and Doyle - before a clear picture emerges and they start ramping up spending a lot to "win now."

They don't just need to spend money, they need to spend money smartly. And the first step in spending money smartly is figure out what are the priorities to spend it on, and then to spend it when it can do you the most good.

[CorneliusWolfe]

As the all-knowing Melville (lol) has pointed out several times, a few of the right moves at the right positions can make this team winners sooner than later and make it fun again. We aren’t talking about a 100 loss team starting point here. I don’t always agree with him but certainly do on that point. You act like we’re a startup expansion team.

They are NOT a talented roster right now - in particular after they move Gray, Donovan, Arenado, and probably Contraras as they should.

Subtract those four from last year's roster and you are right at 20 fWAR, basically a 68 win roster.

Yes, they will hopefully have multiple players develop and get better - but how much better and how soon remains to be seen. Let take 2026, see who gets better, see what holes need to be filled, and then talk about filling them, maybe, after the 2026 season. Or maybe it takes until after the 2027 - and likely the arrival of both Wetherholt and Doyle - before a clear picture emerges and they start ramping up spending a lot to "win now."

They don't just need to spend money, they need to spend money smartly. And the first step in spending money smartly is figure out what are the priorities to spend it on, and then to spend it when it can do you the most good.

Those guys weren’t exactly propping up the team. Arenado was bad, Gray had a mid 4 ERA, Contreras was hurt half the year and Donovan, while solid was not spectacular. Still had a .500 ish team.

Keep Donovan or land a good return with someone who can help THIS year at some point at least, replace Gray with another quality starter, keep Contreras, and Arenado…well, who knows what the hell to do with him? Find a sucker or take the solid defense and try to convince him to slap hit for average as to not be a black hole in the lineup.

Most importantly fix the (bleep) outfield for once by acquiring a good RH hitter that can still play defense (trade, overpay in free agency, don’t care) and buy another starter in addition to Gray’s replacement.

That would make a competitive team. If things are going well add at the deadline instead of cost cutting.

[mattmitchl44]

As the all-knowing Melville (lol) has pointed out several times, a few of the right moves at the right positions can make this team winners sooner than later and make it fun again. We aren’t talking about a 100 loss team starting point here. I don’t always agree with him but certainly do on that point. You act like we’re a startup expansion team.

They are NOT a talented roster right now - in particular after they move Gray, Donovan, Arenado, and probably Contraras as they should.

Subtract those four from last year's roster and you are right at 20 fWAR, basically a 68 win roster.

Yes, they will hopefully have multiple players develop and get better - but how much better and how soon remains to be seen. Let take 2026, see who gets better, see what holes need to be filled, and then talk about filling them, maybe, after the 2026 season. Or maybe it takes until after the 2027 - and likely the arrival of both Wetherholt and Doyle - before a clear picture emerges and they start ramping up spending a lot to "win now."

They don't just need to spend money, they need to spend money smartly. And the first step in spending money smartly is figure out what are the priorities to spend it on, and then to spend it when it can do you the most good.

Those guys weren’t exactly propping up the team. Arenado was bad, Gray had a mid 4 ERA, Contreras was hurt half the year and Donovan, while solid was not spectacular. Still had a .500 ish team.

Keep Donovan or land a good return with someone who can help THIS year at some point at least, replace Gray with another quality starter, keep Contreras, and Arenado…well, who knows what the hell to do with him? Find a sucker or take the solid defense and try to convince him to slap hit for average as to not be a black hole in the lineup.

Most importantly fix the (drat) outfield for once by acquiring a good RH hitter that can still play defense (trade, overpay in free agency, don’t care) and buy another starter in addition to Gray’s replacement.

That would make a competitive team. If things are going well add at the deadline instead of cost cutting.

That's the problem. As a fan, you "don't care" what it takes, just do something!

You just want them to try to "be competitive," whatever that means.

That's what they have been doing for years now - continuing to throw good money after bad to try to patch the ML roster, but without having the foundation of young, cost controlled talent to actually make it work.

Again, add some cheap FAs on short 1-2 yrs. contracts to maybe make them a better version of mediocre - maybe win just short of 80 games instead of 60 or 70. But this isn't getting better than that.

[Ozziesfan41]

I'm more interested in the success of the name on the front of the jersey than the names on the back.

How is the team named on the front of the jersey going to succeed when all the names on the back of the jersey are not highly skilled and productive?

They need to be highly skilled and productive. They don't need to be the "icons" fans have been accustomed to for 10+ years when they are in the much less productive twilights of their careers - which is the sentimentality the OP is arguing in favor of.

You don’t get a roster full of highly skilled players, which I acknowledge don’t need to be iconic, with a 1-point plan of solely building through the draft.

The strategy can change year to year. If you draft and develop poorly, you have to overpay in free agency. Draft and develop well and ownership can enjoy some cheap years. The sentimental fans will come to the park either way.

No reason to suck for years. Be dynamic, creative, and not cheap, and every year and you can field a good team. Greatness is not going to be consistent, even for the big spenders.

Well it’s a great thing the cardinals plan of action isn’t to build solely through the draft isn’t it?

Sure hope not but not seeing anything to the contrary so far. That said, it is premature to assume because the Bloom era has just begun.

But that also hasn’t stopped you from arguing a rebuild has to be long and excruciating when you don’t know [shirt] either.

That’s a lie you have never seen me post a rebuild has to be long and excruciating that’s your version of what a rebuild is. You’re prematurely assuming a lot in order to make your arguments