STLtoday.com

WeeVikes wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 09:19 am

Goldfan wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 08:48 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 08:40 am

Goldfan wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 08:38 am Do some research before you place Cards at bottom of Revenue pile and expect them behave like the bottom
2025 MLB Revenue CNBC

Mets 496mil
Braves 476
Rangers 446
Angels 398
12. Cards 395
Mariners 383
Jays 386
….
….
21.Mil 337
25. Clev336
27. Pitts 329
29. Rays 304

Stop with your excuses and nonsense. Cards sit at 12 where they’ve been for at or near for the last 25yrs. The Braves, Rangers, Angels, Mariners, Jays are more than able to spend on FA and not act the bottom quartile where Mil, Cleve, Pitts, Ray live.

Again:

...a "heavy" version of Milwaukee, Cleveland, Tampa Bay, etc. - with an emphasis on a foundation of young, cost controlled players and less dependence on expensive veterans, but still able to spend more on such veterans than teams like Milwaukee.

Do you have a very good reason BDW can’t spend $$ this offseason for ‘26 other than he doesn’t want to???? He just dumped 80-90mil and spent 13
Him keeping his MLB payroll $$$ in his pocket helps the Drafting??? Helps player dev??? Walk and chew gun at same time

What is your thought on the timing of when the high-priced players are brought on? My concern would be with another Goldie & Arenado situation where they may have been the right guys but at the wrong time. I absolutely want the Cardinals to pursue the stud free-agents they can reasonably afford, but also don’t want some guy here for 10 years, $1,000,000,000 dollars (yes, I’m being hyperbolic) if it screws with the ability to build a team, not just bring in a “name”. The Cardinals did not manage this well up until now. I hope the current approach addresses this.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 08:40 am

Goldfan wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 08:38 am Do some research before you place Cards at bottom of Revenue pile and expect them behave like the bottom
2025 MLB Revenue CNBC

Mets 496mil
Braves 476
Rangers 446
Angels 398
12. Cards 395
Mariners 383
Jays 386
….
….
21.Mil 337
25. Clev336
27. Pitts 329
29. Rays 304

Stop with your excuses and nonsense. Cards sit at 12 where they’ve been for at or near for the last 25yrs. The Braves, Rangers, Angels, Mariners, Jays are more than able to spend on FA and not act the bottom quartile where Mil, Cleve, Pitts, Ray live.

Again:

...a "heavy" version of Milwaukee, Cleveland, Tampa Bay, etc. - with an emphasis on a foundation of young, cost controlled players and less dependence on expensive veterans, but still able to spend more on such veterans than teams like Milwaukee.

Goldfan wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 09:25 am

An Old Friend wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 09:23 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 09:04 am

An Old Friend wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 08:58 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 08:29 am

An Old Friend wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 08:19 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 05:20 am Based on a lot of recent threads, there continues to be the CT philosophical divide which revolves around the notion that the Cardinals not only have to win, they have to win "the right way."

We know the Cardinals are a middle market team. They aren't the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, etc. on one end. Nor are they the Rays, Pirates, As, etc. on the other.

I think this is partially where we are not aligned. I think the Cardinals are now a small market team which is why they have to behave like one.

I will defer that question until we see what they do after they have rebuilt the foundation of young, cost controlled players.

Like other teams (Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia), I think they are backing off on spending, but will renew spending - to at least some higher level - when they think the rebuild is complete.

#5 US Metro - Houston
#8 US Metro - Philadelphia
#9 US Metro - Atlanta

#20 US Metro - St Louis

I didn't say they would spend to those teams' levels. I said, "but will renew spending - to at least some higher level".

Houston, Atlanta, and Philadelphia - even with THEIR resources - all dropped to between 20th and 30th in MLB payroll as part of their rebuilds - and then bounced back.

1. It's not a rebuild. They're resetting to a small market model
2. Those teams could spend because of their revenue. The Cardinals won't have the revenue. They have no cable deal and their market isn't worth all that much.

Mets 496mil
Braves 476
Rangers 446
Angels 398
12. Cards 395
Mariners 383
Jays 386
….

Goldfan wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 09:27 am

WeeVikes wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 09:19 am

Goldfan wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 08:48 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 08:40 am

Goldfan wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 08:38 am Do some research before you place Cards at bottom of Revenue pile and expect them behave like the bottom
2025 MLB Revenue CNBC

Mets 496mil
Braves 476
Rangers 446
Angels 398
12. Cards 395
Mariners 383
Jays 386
….
….
21.Mil 337
25. Clev336
27. Pitts 329
29. Rays 304

Stop with your excuses and nonsense. Cards sit at 12 where they’ve been for at or near for the last 25yrs. The Braves, Rangers, Angels, Mariners, Jays are more than able to spend on FA and not act the bottom quartile where Mil, Cleve, Pitts, Ray live.

Again:

...a "heavy" version of Milwaukee, Cleveland, Tampa Bay, etc. - with an emphasis on a foundation of young, cost controlled players and less dependence on expensive veterans, but still able to spend more on such veterans than teams like Milwaukee.

Do you have a very good reason BDW can’t spend $$ this offseason for ‘26 other than he doesn’t want to???? He just dumped 80-90mil and spent 13
Him keeping his MLB payroll $$$ in his pocket helps the Drafting??? Helps player dev??? Walk and chew gun at same time

What is your thought on the timing of when the high-priced players are brought on? My concern would be with another Goldie & Arenado situation where they may have been the right guys but at the wrong time. I absolutely want the Cardinals to pursue the stud free-agents they can reasonably afford, but also don’t want some guy here for 10 years, $1,000,000,000 dollars (yes, I’m being hyperbolic) if it screws with the ability to build a team, not just bring in a “name”. The Cardinals did not manage this well up until now. I hope the current approach addresses this.

Be smart and don’t give out 5-6yr deals….perhaps entice with higher Annual $$ ….lower term

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 07:33 am

11WSChamps wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 07:23 am Another day another thread by the OP defending his position without realizing any thought of time frames or fan apathy.

The history of Cardinals attendance shows no evidence of long standing "apathy" when the team wins. It the team is bad for a while, attendance drops. But as soon as the team starts winning again, attendance rockets back up again.

The Cardinals were bad in the 1970s. But as soon as they bounced back in the 1980s, attendance rose rapidly to 2 (1982), 2.5 (1985), 3 (1987) million.

The Cardinals were bad in the early 1990s. But as soon as they bounced back, attendance rose rapidly to 2.5 (1996), almost 3.5 (2000), etc. million.

BleedingBleu wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 09:51 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 07:33 am

11WSChamps wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 07:23 am Another day another thread by the OP defending his position without realizing any thought of time frames or fan apathy.

The history of Cardinals attendance shows no evidence of long standing "apathy" when the team wins. It the team is bad for a while, attendance drops. But as soon as the team starts winning again, attendance rockets back up again.

The Cardinals were bad in the 1970s. But as soon as they bounced back in the 1980s, attendance rose rapidly to 2 (1982), 2.5 (1985), 3 (1987) million.

The Cardinals were bad in the early 1990s. But as soon as they bounced back, attendance rose rapidly to 2.5 (1996), almost 3.5 (2000), etc. million.

They were good for one season in the 90’s (1996). The rest was carried by Mark McGwire and following something that mattered.

3dender wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 08:04 am

CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 07:41 am

Jatalk wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 07:32 am Big market teams are spending more. That’s why I support not only a ceiling on spending but also a floor.

However that has absolutely nothing to do with the Cardinal issues. ITS POOR DECISIOM MAKING!!! Poor talent evaluation. Poor development. Poor spending habits. Poor revenue management, ie TV deal. Poor planning. Poor focus.

Well stated. This teardown/rebuild would've been completely unnecessary with a just reasonable level of competence.

Back to the OP, the entire problem with trying to be a "light" version of the big spenders is that a mid market team has no room for ANY errors, let alone the multiple errors that Mo committed in his last decade. The big market teams can absorb those errors and just spend more money, but they are crippling for a team like the Cards.

That's why to be successful smaller markets have to build a team cheaply that can compete even without those big contracts, which is what TB, Cleveland, and lately Milwaukee have been able to do consistently.

Imagine Milwaukee or Cleveland in this year's playoffs if they had had Alonso at 1B or Bregman at 3B, or Blake Snell or Max Fried. All mattmitch is saying is that's what the Cards should aspire to be.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 09:33 am

WeeVikes wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 09:19 am

Goldfan wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 08:48 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 08:40 am

Goldfan wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 08:38 am Do some research before you place Cards at bottom of Revenue pile and expect them behave like the bottom
2025 MLB Revenue CNBC

Mets 496mil
Braves 476
Rangers 446
Angels 398
12. Cards 395
Mariners 383
Jays 386
….
….
21.Mil 337
25. Clev336
27. Pitts 329
29. Rays 304

Stop with your excuses and nonsense. Cards sit at 12 where they’ve been for at or near for the last 25yrs. The Braves, Rangers, Angels, Mariners, Jays are more than able to spend on FA and not act the bottom quartile where Mil, Cleve, Pitts, Ray live.

Again:

...a "heavy" version of Milwaukee, Cleveland, Tampa Bay, etc. - with an emphasis on a foundation of young, cost controlled players and less dependence on expensive veterans, but still able to spend more on such veterans than teams like Milwaukee.

Do you have a very good reason BDW can’t spend $$ this offseason for ‘26 other than he doesn’t want to???? He just dumped 80-90mil and spent 13
Him keeping his MLB payroll $$$ in his pocket helps the Drafting??? Helps player dev??? Walk and chew gun at same time

What is your thought on the timing of when the high-priced players are brought on? My concern would be with another Goldie & Arenado situation where they may have been the right guys but at the wrong time. I absolutely want the Cardinals to pursue the stud free-agents they can reasonably afford, but also don’t want some guy here for 10 years, $1,000,000,000 dollars (yes, I’m being hyperbolic) if it screws with the ability to build a team, not just bring in a “name”. The Cardinals did not manage this well up until now. I hope the current approach addresses this.

Exactly the point.

Yes, the Cardinals could, potentially, go out and sign their 31 yr. old "Pete Alonso" for 5 yrs./$155 million and 30 yr. old "Dylan Cease" for 7 yrs./$210 million this offseason. But even based on their career years, they make this 2026 Cardinals team about nine wins better. With all they have lost or will trade from last year's 78 win team, even adding two guys like they probably only make the 2026 team a low 8X win team that misses the playoffs.

Fast forward to 2028 or 2029, when you now have Wetherholt, Doyle, etc. playing really well on the ML team, but you're still locked in to paying a now mid-30s Alonso $31 million and a mid-30s Cease $30 million, and they aren't the players that they were when you signed them back in 2026.

You'd rather have the $60 million free after the 2027 or 2028 season to add 30 or 31 yr. old players like Alonso or Cease then.

WeeVikes wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 10:56 am This has become a more, shall we say, “spirited” discussion than I would have anticipated. There are enough angles to this that it’s possible for multiple people to have correct takes. It’s a complicated situation and it won’t be a straightforward, quick fix — not if we desire another continued run of success.

AnExParrot wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 09:35 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 08:40 am

Goldfan wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 08:38 am Do some research before you place Cards at bottom of Revenue pile and expect them behave like the bottom
2025 MLB Revenue CNBC

Mets 496mil
Braves 476
Rangers 446
Angels 398
12. Cards 395
Mariners 383
Jays 386
….
….
21.Mil 337
25. Clev336
27. Pitts 329
29. Rays 304

Stop with your excuses and nonsense. Cards sit at 12 where they’ve been for at or near for the last 25yrs. The Braves, Rangers, Angels, Mariners, Jays are more than able to spend on FA and not act the bottom quartile where Mil, Cleve, Pitts, Ray live.

Again:

...a "heavy" version of Milwaukee, Cleveland, Tampa Bay, etc. - with an emphasis on a foundation of young, cost controlled players and less dependence on expensive veterans, but still able to spend more on such veterans than teams like Milwaukee.

And yet Cornelius thinks you're minsconstruing "the opposition's" take?

CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 07:41 am

Jatalk wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 07:32 am Big market teams are spending more. That’s why I support not only a ceiling on spending but also a floor.

However that has absolutely nothing to do with the Cardinal issues. ITS POOR DECISIOM MAKING!!! Poor talent evaluation. Poor development. Poor spending habits. Poor revenue management, ie TV deal. Poor planning. Poor focus.

Well stated. This teardown/rebuild would've been completely unnecessary with a just reasonable level of competence.

Bomber1 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 11:29 am

CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 07:41 am

Jatalk wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 07:32 am Big market teams are spending more. That’s why I support not only a ceiling on spending but also a floor.

However that has absolutely nothing to do with the Cardinal issues. ITS POOR DECISIOM MAKING!!! Poor talent evaluation. Poor development. Poor spending habits. Poor revenue management, ie TV deal. Poor planning. Poor focus.

Well stated. This teardown/rebuild would've been completely unnecessary with a just reasonable level of competence.

Unfortunately DeWitt Jr. hitched his wagon to the idiotic buffoon John Mozeliak.

After flushing $450,000,000 down the drain on overpriced mediocre or bad FA’s, mind-numbing extensions for over-the-hill players, and completely inept development of the horses Mozeliak mistakenly kept while trading better players away,
here we are.

How about in 2024 when Mozeliak was forced to sign 3 starting pitchers just to have 5 warm bodies in the rotation.
The narrative was “this is to tide us over just until our young pitchers are ready”. lol
2 years later and exactly 1 “youngster”- McGreevy - has joined the rotation.

The damage done to this organization by John Mozeliak cannot be overstated.

But Bloom brings hope.

CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 11:15 am

AnExParrot wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 09:35 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 08:40 am

Goldfan wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 08:38 am Do some research before you place Cards at bottom of Revenue pile and expect them behave like the bottom
2025 MLB Revenue CNBC

Mets 496mil
Braves 476
Rangers 446
Angels 398
12. Cards 395
Mariners 383
Jays 386
….
….
21.Mil 337
25. Clev336
27. Pitts 329
29. Rays 304

Stop with your excuses and nonsense. Cards sit at 12 where they’ve been for at or near for the last 25yrs. The Braves, Rangers, Angels, Mariners, Jays are more than able to spend on FA and not act the bottom quartile where Mil, Cleve, Pitts, Ray live.

Again:

...a "heavy" version of Milwaukee, Cleveland, Tampa Bay, etc. - with an emphasis on a foundation of young, cost controlled players and less dependence on expensive veterans, but still able to spend more on such veterans than teams like Milwaukee.

And yet Cornelius thinks you're minsconstruing "the opposition's" take?

Make no mistake, he's all about tanking. There hasn't been one free agent possibility mentioned that he hasn't written a filibuster post in opposition.

And that is fine, but what makes him full of [shirt] is the 10-mile long posts where he lists how we all think and how we're totally against the farm development system being a critical element to the turnaround. I hate when people put words in other mouths.

Bomber1 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 11:29 am

CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 07:41 am

Jatalk wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 07:32 am Big market teams are spending more. That’s why I support not only a ceiling on spending but also a floor.

However that has absolutely nothing to do with the Cardinal issues. ITS POOR DECISIOM MAKING!!! Poor talent evaluation. Poor development. Poor spending habits. Poor revenue management, ie TV deal. Poor planning. Poor focus.

Well stated. This teardown/rebuild would've been completely unnecessary with a just reasonable level of competence.

Unfortunately DeWitt Jr. hitched his wagon to the idiotic buffoon John Mozeliak.

After flushing $450,000,000 down the drain on overpriced mediocre or bad FA’s, mind-numbing extensions for over-the-hill players, and completely inept development of the horses Mozeliak mistakenly kept while trading better players away,
here we are.

How about in 2024 when Mozeliak was forced to sign 3 starting pitchers just to have 5 warm bodies in the rotation.
The narrative was “this is to tide us over just until our young pitchers are ready”. lol
2 years later and exactly 1 “youngster”- McGreevy - has joined the rotation.

The damage done to this organization by John Mozeliak cannot be overstated.

But Bloom brings hope.

BleedingBleu wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 06:07 am I don’t think that’s the case at all. The Cardinals made lots of bad decisions that lead to their current demise. It wasn’t because they were trying to keep up with the Jones, it’s because they were paralyzed to make the right move when they realized how far behind the right-ball their front office had become.

1.) Luhnow humiliated them.
Not only did they get caught “hacking” his database in Houston, but they arrogant outed themselves.

Then, Luhnow started winning and baseball became overly interested in what he had to say, like trimming down the farm. So, the Cardinals, who made their nut as a franchise because they basically invented the farm and at one point had THIRTY-THREE teams under their umbrella, followed that philosophy by cutting an entire level off.

2.) The Cardinals refused to offer mega contracts to the 26 Year Old Star Free Agents, instead choosing to… trade asset for older veterans.

So, rather than sign Bryce Harper at 26 (who eventually agreed to a $330M/13), they traded for 31 year old Paul Goldschmidt for $130M/5. Bryce Harper just now turned 33.

3.) They traded 2 OUTSTANDING COST CONTROLLED PITCHERS for a Left Fielder with a shoulder injury and the mental capacity of an 11 year old. Those two pitchers would be in constant discussion for Cy Young. Their LFer was known for a Strip Club brawl and one of the more hilarious blooper plays of all time.

4.) Rather than invest in star players, they overcompensated by overpaying on complimentary players like Dexter Fowler.

5.) They were so paralyzed by their ineptitude, they kept handing out extensions to their own players like Matt Carpenter, Miles Mikolas, Adam Wainwright, etc.

6.) Everyone was fleecing this Front Office because they were so inadequate that they not only couldn’t properly evaluate their own players in-house, but they couldn’t properly develop the ones they had. It became a running joke when players would go elsewhere and thrive.

7.) Choosing Rookie Managers over proven World Series pedigree

8.) Nerds w/access databases unable to evaluate nor develop their own players ousting proven veteran scouts and coaches in the minors

9.) Turning a Strength in something they pioneered (analytics) into one of the worst in the Show

10.) Abandoning the International Market.

Remember that time Legendary Cardinal Fernando Tatis Sr presented his son to them? (drat) that Mid-Market Energy…

Being an “mid-market” team isn’t an excuse for having operational malfeasance in your front office.