The superstar effect being ignored by Cardinals.

[CorneliusWolfe]

Your bar (starting position players or starting pitchers) is too low for giving a L-T deal for my taste matt.

I ONLY hand out L-T extensions to star players who show all-star level talent, not guys who may only be holding down a spot until they're pushed aside by better talent.

Locking into guys like Winn or Bumbles for six-seven years could end up being a huge payroll mistake if this is as good as they get.

No.

Again, any long-term deal has to be at the right price point for the team.

You aren't going to lock up a guy (e.g., Burleson) who let's say you project as a solid, 2+ fWAR 1B for 4-5 years to the same contract as a guy (e.g., Wetherholt, at some point) who let's say you project as a 4+ fWAR All-Star for 4-5 years.

You have to get a Burleson signed at a price point that makes sense for the team relative to his talent level, and a Wetherholt signed at price point that makes sense for the team relative to his talent level.

But the price point that makes sense for a Burleson is NEVER going to be so high that it could be a "huge" payroll mistake. Right now, for Burleson, if I believed his 2025 season was what I could expect going forward, I wouldn't go over about 4 yrs./$30 million with a team option year or two. A $7.5 million AAV contract - even if Burleson backs up to being a 1 or 1.5 fWAR player isn't a "huge" mistake.

You do realize these “price points” that make sense for the team, rarely ever makes sense for the players themselves, right? It’s why there are arbitration hearings every year, labor disputes, lockouts etc.

Why should we back ownership’s obvious and unreasonable goal to build a contender well under market value?

We’d all like to buy a better house or car for a tiny fraction of the value of our current ones, but it’s not realistic.

Young players sign on for the "life changing" security of an initial long term contracts. That's why they sign these deals - security.

$7.5 million a year for four years doesn't mean much to a $2+ billion organization like the Cardinals, but it means A LOT to a guy like Burleson.

And I back ownership's goal of getting players signed to such deals because, ultimately, it means they can stretch their resources farther, assemble more talent on the ML roster, and give themselves a better chance of winning a WS.

Many if them DO NOT because they bet on themselves because they understand long term value and are risk tolerant.

Maybe Alec Burleson would. Not exactly the tier of player I’m talking about. Do you want him long term to “build around”?

Players like him are where the team should leverage potential savings…trading them at peak values vs arbitration raises or worse, contract extensions. The pipeline can easily replace players like that.

[mattmitchl44]

Your bar (starting position players or starting pitchers) is too low for giving a L-T deal for my taste matt.

I ONLY hand out L-T extensions to star players who show all-star level talent, not guys who may only be holding down a spot until they're pushed aside by better talent.

Locking into guys like Winn or Bumbles for six-seven years could end up being a huge payroll mistake if this is as good as they get.

No.

Again, any long-term deal has to be at the right price point for the team.

You aren't going to lock up a guy (e.g., Burleson) who let's say you project as a solid, 2+ fWAR 1B for 4-5 years to the same contract as a guy (e.g., Wetherholt, at some point) who let's say you project as a 4+ fWAR All-Star for 4-5 years.

You have to get a Burleson signed at a price point that makes sense for the team relative to his talent level, and a Wetherholt signed at price point that makes sense for the team relative to his talent level.

But the price point that makes sense for a Burleson is NEVER going to be so high that it could be a "huge" payroll mistake. Right now, for Burleson, if I believed his 2025 season was what I could expect going forward, I wouldn't go over about 4 yrs./$30 million with a team option year or two. A $7.5 million AAV contract - even if Burleson backs up to being a 1 or 1.5 fWAR player isn't a "huge" mistake.

You do realize these “price points” that make sense for the team, rarely ever makes sense for the players themselves, right? It’s why there are arbitration hearings every year, labor disputes, lockouts etc.

Why should we back ownership’s obvious and unreasonable goal to build a contender well under market value?

We’d all like to buy a better house or car for a tiny fraction of the value of our current ones, but it’s not realistic.

Young players sign on for the "life changing" security of an initial long term contracts. That's why they sign these deals - security.

$7.5 million a year for four years doesn't mean much to a $2+ billion organization like the Cardinals, but it means A LOT to a guy like Burleson.

And I back ownership's goal of getting players signed to such deals because, ultimately, it means they can stretch their resources farther, assemble more talent on the ML roster, and give themselves a better chance of winning a WS.

Many if them DO NOT because they bet on themselves because they understand long term value and are risk tolerant.

Some will. Some won't. But the team should be actively approaching any "core" player and seeing if a deal can be done at an acceptable price.

Maybe Alec Burleson would. Not exactly the tier of player I’m talking about. Do you want him long term to “build around”?

Players like him are where the team should leverage potential savings…trading them at peak values vs arbitration raises or worse, contract extensions. The pipeline can easily replace players like that.

Again - any player who you project as a solid, starting position player or starting pitcher should be a candidate for a long term extension at the right price. If you sign them long term, you can still trade them.

If your eval is right and you sign them at the right price point, they should have MORE trade value in the future if you can send them to someone else with three years left on their (good) contract vs. just one ARB year of team control.

[CorneliusWolfe]

Your bar (starting position players or starting pitchers) is too low for giving a L-T deal for my taste matt.

I ONLY hand out L-T extensions to star players who show all-star level talent, not guys who may only be holding down a spot until they're pushed aside by better talent.

Locking into guys like Winn or Bumbles for six-seven years could end up being a huge payroll mistake if this is as good as they get.

No.

Again, any long-term deal has to be at the right price point for the team.

You aren't going to lock up a guy (e.g., Burleson) who let's say you project as a solid, 2+ fWAR 1B for 4-5 years to the same contract as a guy (e.g., Wetherholt, at some point) who let's say you project as a 4+ fWAR All-Star for 4-5 years.

You have to get a Burleson signed at a price point that makes sense for the team relative to his talent level, and a Wetherholt signed at price point that makes sense for the team relative to his talent level.

But the price point that makes sense for a Burleson is NEVER going to be so high that it could be a "huge" payroll mistake. Right now, for Burleson, if I believed his 2025 season was what I could expect going forward, I wouldn't go over about 4 yrs./$30 million with a team option year or two. A $7.5 million AAV contract - even if Burleson backs up to being a 1 or 1.5 fWAR player isn't a "huge" mistake.

You do realize these “price points” that make sense for the team, rarely ever makes sense for the players themselves, right? It’s why there are arbitration hearings every year, labor disputes, lockouts etc.

Why should we back ownership’s obvious and unreasonable goal to build a contender well under market value?

We’d all like to buy a better house or car for a tiny fraction of the value of our current ones, but it’s not realistic.

Young players sign on for the "life changing" security of an initial long term contracts. That's why they sign these deals - security.

$7.5 million a year for four years doesn't mean much to a $2+ billion organization like the Cardinals, but it means A LOT to a guy like Burleson.

And I back ownership's goal of getting players signed to such deals because, ultimately, it means they can stretch their resources farther, assemble more talent on the ML roster, and give themselves a better chance of winning a WS.

Many if them DO NOT because they bet on themselves because they understand long term value and are risk tolerant.

Some will. Some won't. But the team should be actively approaching any "core" player and seeing if a deal can be done at an acceptable price.

Maybe Alec Burleson would. Not exactly the tier of player I’m talking about. Do you want him long term to “build around”?

Players like him are where the team should leverage potential savings…trading them at peak values vs arbitration raises or worse, contract extensions. The pipeline can easily replace players like that.

Again - any player who you project as a solid, starting position player or starting pitcher should be a candidate for a long term extension at the right price. If you sign them long term, you can still trade them.

If your eval is right and you sign them at the right price point, they should have MORE trade value in the future if you can send them to someone else with three years left on their (good) contract vs. just one ARB year of team control.

Again (as you like to say) “at the right price” is subjective and always in ownership’s favor.

BDW uses WAH (Wins Above Hobo), where if the potential player acquisition’s projected win contribution exceeds that of a bum roaming around Clark St., then it is deemed too expensive to meet the model. For example, Ohtani currently sits at a projected WAH of 162 for 2026.

[mattmitchl44]

Again (as you like to say) “at the right price” is subjective and always in ownership’s favor.

It has to be.

The team is always taking on more risk by guaranteeing a player's contract for however many years when they don't have to if the player is still under team control.

If the team's evaluation is that Player X will produce at a certain level and earn $3 million, $5 million and $8 million in ARB, the team wouldn't offer them a guarantee of 3 yrs./$16 million. There isn't upside in that for the team to offset the possibility of the player getting injured, not performing, etc.

The team has to get that done at like 3 yrs./$12 million or so to make the potential reward worth added risk they are taking on.

[Youboughtit]

How many superstars are there?

Los Angeles Dodgers: Shohei Ohtani, Mookie Betts, Freddie Freeman, Yoshinobu Yamamoto.
New York Yankees: Aaron Judge, Gerrit Cole, Max Fried
New York Mets: Juan Soto, Francisco Lindor.
Kansas City Royals: Bobby Witt Jr..
Seattle Mariners: Julio Rodriguez, Cal Raleigh.
Baltimore Orioles: Gunnar Henderson.
Pittsburgh Pirates: Paul Skenes.
Detroit Tigers: Tarik Skubal.
Philadelphia Phillies: Zack Wheeler, Bryce Harper, Trea Turner, Kyle Schwarber.
San Diego Padres: Fernando Tatis Jr., Manny Machado, Mason Miller
Arizona Diamondbacks: Corbin Carroll, Ketel Marte.
Houston Astros: Jeremy Peña, Yordan Alvarez, Josh Hader.
Texas Rangers: Corey Seager.
Toronto Blue Jays: Vladimir Guerrero Jr., Bo Bichette
Minnesota Twins: Byron Buxton.
Cincinnati Reds: Elly De La Cruz, Hunter Greene
Boston Red Sox: Garrett Crochet.
Atlanta Braves: Ronald Acuna, Ozzie Albies, Matt Olson, Austin Riley.
Tampa Bay Rays: Junior Caminero.
Las Vegas As: Nick Kurtz.
Milwaukee Brewers: Jackson Churio, Jacob Misiorowski
Chicago Cubs: Kyle Tucker.
Cleveland Guardians: Jose Ramirez.
Load Angeles Angels: Mike Trout.
Washington Nationals: James Wood.

Just a partial list off top of my head. All all star top 3 at position. And no Winn will never be anywhere close.

Winn is already close. GG SS . Willing to play without being 100%. He gets back to the approach at the plate he had in 24 he is a superstar just as much as most of those guys on your list.

Must be a top 5 SS bat along with his defense. Was 18th last year. Long way to go

[Youboughtit]

Yes, this is a major problem. We need one or more superstars, and we need to make a long-term commitment to them to solidify fan loyalty from season to season. The game is human and these factors do matter.

Yes, they will - eventually - have to sign 1, 2, 3 FAs who are "stars" or "superstars." They just don't have to do it this offseason.

Develop the necessary core of young, cost controlled players and THEN start adding "stars" or "superstars" via FA signings.

Matt, we’ve been through this before….
We have a young cheap core NOW. Do you actually think any time soon Bloom farm is going to produce players better than
Herrera
JJ
Winn
Burly
Donny
Gorman(perhaps he can make more contact)
Scott(defense in CF)
Then you need a couple stars

What/Where/Who are these completely “new young core” you always refer to that are going to replace what I listed?

No, they DON'T have a sufficient, critical mass of young talent.

You DON'T yet have Wetherholt making the jump to the majors and actually being a 3, 4, etc. fWAR player.

You DON'T yet have Doyle and/or Mathews making the jump to the major and actually being a 3, 4, etc. pitcher.

See those steps through first, then add from outside the organization to "win now."

Unproven prospects. Yes they have talent but Walker and Gorman were also supposed to be future all star HOFers.

[mattmitchl44]

Yes, this is a major problem. We need one or more superstars, and we need to make a long-term commitment to them to solidify fan loyalty from season to season. The game is human and these factors do matter.

Yes, they will - eventually - have to sign 1, 2, 3 FAs who are "stars" or "superstars." They just don't have to do it this offseason.

Develop the necessary core of young, cost controlled players and THEN start adding "stars" or "superstars" via FA signings.

Matt, we’ve been through this before….
We have a young cheap core NOW. Do you actually think any time soon Bloom farm is going to produce players better than
Herrera
JJ
Winn
Burly
Donny
Gorman(perhaps he can make more contact)
Scott(defense in CF)
Then you need a couple stars

What/Where/Who are these completely “new young core” you always refer to that are going to replace what I listed?

No, they DON'T have a sufficient, critical mass of young talent.

You DON'T yet have Wetherholt making the jump to the majors and actually being a 3, 4, etc. fWAR player.

You DON'T yet have Doyle and/or Mathews making the jump to the major and actually being a 3, 4, etc. pitcher.

See those steps through first, then add from outside the organization to "win now."

Unproven prospects. Yes they have talent but Walker and Gorman were also supposed to be future all star HOFers.

True.

But they don't have a choice other than to have a critical mass of young talent if they are going to be competitive. There isn't another option.

They have to be successful at delivering cost controlled young talent to the roster.

[CorneliusWolfe]

Again (as you like to say) “at the right price” is subjective and always in ownership’s favor.

It has to be.

The team is always taking on more risk by guaranteeing a player's contract for however many years when they don't have to if the player is still under team control.

If the team's evaluation is that Player X will produce at a certain level and earn $3 million, $5 million and $8 million in ARB, the team wouldn't offer them a guarantee of 3 yrs./$16 million. There isn't upside in that for the team to offset the possibility of the player getting injured, not performing, etc.

The team has to get that done at like 3 yrs./$12 million or so to make the potential reward worth added risk they are taking on.

You say “it has to be”. The players say, “no thanks” and get paid much more in free agency from teams willing to spend. You speak as if value is completely determined by our team’s ownership, just because they have a made up formula….which are nothing more than their own thresholds to say they won’t pay X amount….when X=far below market value.

Should there be thresholds? Sure, any business should. Should we accept their thresholds when they are tragically low and do not support a competitive product and buy tickets anyway?

Just because they have a “formula” that doesn’t justify anything. Players and agents have formulas too. So do fans. The two latter formulas drive market value. Not owners desire to get off cheap.

[mattmitchl44]

Again (as you like to say) “at the right price” is subjective and always in ownership’s favor.

It has to be.

The team is always taking on more risk by guaranteeing a player's contract for however many years when they don't have to if the player is still under team control.

If the team's evaluation is that Player X will produce at a certain level and earn $3 million, $5 million and $8 million in ARB, the team wouldn't offer them a guarantee of 3 yrs./$16 million. There isn't upside in that for the team to offset the possibility of the player getting injured, not performing, etc.

The team has to get that done at like 3 yrs./$12 million or so to make the potential reward worth added risk they are taking on.

You say “it has to be”. The players say, “no thanks” and get paid much more in free agency from teams willing to spend. You speak as if value is completely determined by our team’s ownership, just because they have a made up formula….which are nothing more than their own thresholds to say they won’t pay X amount….when X=far below market value.

Should there be thresholds? Sure, any business should. Should we accept their thresholds when they are tragically low and do not support a competitive product and buy tickets anyway?

Just because they have a “formula” that doesn’t justify anything. Players and agents have formulas too. So do fans. The two latter formulas drive market value. Not owners desire to get off cheap.

I don't know where you are going with this.

We're talking about players who are otherwise under team control for another 3, 4, 5 years. They don't have the immediate option of getting more money from other teams.

The team has to make an offer of a long term extension. They have to decide what price point works for them from a risk-reward standpoint. The player is then free to accept or decline and try to ask for more, or whatever. Either side can default to going year-to-year via ARB.

But there are plenty of young players every year where the team and player agree that there is some long-term contract structure that works for both sides - and invariably it is because (1) the team gets a lower AAV and/or more years of team control and (2) the player accepts making somewhat less than he might if he'd gone all the way to FA, but gets the security of tens of millions (or more) guaranteed.

[CorneliusWolfe]

Again (as you like to say) “at the right price” is subjective and always in ownership’s favor.

It has to be.

The team is always taking on more risk by guaranteeing a player's contract for however many years when they don't have to if the player is still under team control.

If the team's evaluation is that Player X will produce at a certain level and earn $3 million, $5 million and $8 million in ARB, the team wouldn't offer them a guarantee of 3 yrs./$16 million. There isn't upside in that for the team to offset the possibility of the player getting injured, not performing, etc.

The team has to get that done at like 3 yrs./$12 million or so to make the potential reward worth added risk they are taking on.

You say “it has to be”. The players say, “no thanks” and get paid much more in free agency from teams willing to spend. You speak as if value is completely determined by our team’s ownership, just because they have a made up formula….which are nothing more than their own thresholds to say they won’t pay X amount….when X=far below market value.

Should there be thresholds? Sure, any business should. Should we accept their thresholds when they are tragically low and do not support a competitive product and buy tickets anyway?

Just because they have a “formula” that doesn’t justify anything. Players and agents have formulas too. So do fans. The two latter formulas drive market value. Not owners desire to get off cheap.

I don't know where you are going with this.

We're talking about players who are otherwise under team control for another 3, 4, 5 years. They don't have the immediate option of getting more money from other teams.

The team has to make an offer of a long term extension. They have to decide what price point works for them from a risk-reward standpoint. The player is then free to accept or decline and try to ask for more, or whatever. Either side can default to going year-to-year via ARB.

But there are plenty of young players every year where the team and player agree that there is some long-term contract structure that works for both sides - and invariably it is because (1) the team gets a lower AAV and/or more years of team control and (2) the player accepts making somewhat less than he might if he'd gone all the way to FA, but gets the security of tens of millions (or more) guaranteed.

What players do we have with 3-5 years of control that makes sense to try to extend? You still say the team has to figure out what we have in Burleson, Liberatore, etc.

Why don’t we trade some of our prospects for some of the other teams young talent and extend them instead? Would it be so detrimental to the future if we still end up with a younger roster? Or do they have to be homegrown to maximize cheapness?

[mattmitchl44]

What players do we have with 3-5 years of control that makes sense to try to extend? You still say the team has to figure out what we have in Burleson, Liberatore, etc.

I've said the new Cardinals regime needs to assess what they project Burleson, Liberatore, etc. will be over the next 3, 4, 5 years. I would hope/expect they already have made that assessment, at least based on what they know to date.

If you develop players you like, who you expect to be part of the core of your team, I want them through their prime seasons. Ideally, I'd give them a guaranteed contract through age 30 and try to get 1-2 team option years. So in Burleson's case it would 4 yrs. + 1-2 team option years. In Winn's case it would be 7 yrs. + 1-2 team option years.

I want them to have great careers with me and let them walk at age 31/32 so they can go find another team that will offer them a big contract while they decline in their 30s.

Why don’t we trade some of our prospects for some of the other teams young talent and extend them instead? Would it be so detrimental to the future if we still end up with a younger roster? Or do they have to be homegrown to maximize cheapness?

Again, in theory, yes. But, given where the roster currently stands, the issue is do they have enough minor league talent to (1) consolidate it by giving away multiple prospects for one (hypothetical) younger player while (2) still keeping enough prospects in the pipeline to be confident of delivering 3 successful rookies a year in 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, etc.

If you have to trade 3-4 prospects for one young players, or 6-8 prospect for two young players, etc., you probably start to jeopardize what you are going to have coming in the pipeline in 2027, 2028, 2029, etc.

[CorneliusWolfe]

What players do we have with 3-5 years of control that makes sense to try to extend? You still say the team has to figure out what we have in Burleson, Liberatore, etc.

I've said the new Cardinals regime needs to assess what they project Burleson, Liberatore, etc. will be over the next 3, 4, 5 years. I would hope/expect they already have made that assessment, at least based on what they know to date.

If you develop players you like, who you expect to be part of the core of your team, I want them through their prime seasons. Ideally, I'd give them a guaranteed contract through age 30 and try to get 1-2 team option years. So in Burleson's case it would 4 yrs. + 1-2 team option years. In Winn's case it would be 7 yrs. + 1-2 team option years.

I want them to have great careers with me and let them walk at age 31/32 so they can go find another team that will offer them a big contract while they decline in their 30s.

Why don’t we trade some of our prospects for some of the other teams young talent and extend them instead? Would it be so detrimental to the future if we still end up with a younger roster? Or do they have to be homegrown to maximize cheapness?

Again, in theory, yes. But, given where the roster currently stands, the issue is do they have enough minor league talent to (1) consolidate it by giving away multiple prospects for one (hypothetical) younger player while (2) still keeping enough prospects in the pipeline to be confident of delivering 3 successful rookies a year in 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, etc.

If you have to trade 3-4 prospects for one young players, or 6-8 prospect for two young players, etc., you probably start to jeopardize what you are going to have coming in the pipeline in 2027, 2028, 2029, etc.

You’re being overprotective of the farm system to the point where it becomes the priority over the major league team. There are numerous ways to maintain the health of both if the team uses ALL mechanisms to manage them. Such as if you trade for a little quality for the big team, trade for a little quantity in the minors.

Also, what farm is churning out 3 top notch rookies every single year? Milwaukee might be close but still hasn’t won anything and no trophy to show for it.

[rockondlouie]

I think Winn is a potential A-S level talent.

I highly doubt he ever makes an NL all-star team UNLESS it's a Paul DeJong charity one as the Cardinals lone, required representative.

Multiple Gold Gloves for sure but he's behind a half dozen SS's when it comes to making the NL all star team.

[mattmitchl44]

What players do we have with 3-5 years of control that makes sense to try to extend? You still say the team has to figure out what we have in Burleson, Liberatore, etc.

I've said the new Cardinals regime needs to assess what they project Burleson, Liberatore, etc. will be over the next 3, 4, 5 years. I would hope/expect they already have made that assessment, at least based on what they know to date.

If you develop players you like, who you expect to be part of the core of your team, I want them through their prime seasons. Ideally, I'd give them a guaranteed contract through age 30 and try to get 1-2 team option years. So in Burleson's case it would 4 yrs. + 1-2 team option years. In Winn's case it would be 7 yrs. + 1-2 team option years.

I want them to have great careers with me and let them walk at age 31/32 so they can go find another team that will offer them a big contract while they decline in their 30s.

Why don’t we trade some of our prospects for some of the other teams young talent and extend them instead? Would it be so detrimental to the future if we still end up with a younger roster? Or do they have to be homegrown to maximize cheapness?

Again, in theory, yes. But, given where the roster currently stands, the issue is do they have enough minor league talent to (1) consolidate it by giving away multiple prospects for one (hypothetical) younger player while (2) still keeping enough prospects in the pipeline to be confident of delivering 3 successful rookies a year in 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, etc.

If you have to trade 3-4 prospects for one young players, or 6-8 prospect for two young players, etc., you probably start to jeopardize what you are going to have coming in the pipeline in 2027, 2028, 2029, etc.

You’re being overprotective of the farm system to the point where it becomes the priority over the major league team. There are numerous ways to maintain the health of both if the team uses ALL mechanisms to manage them. Such as if you trade for a little quality for the big team, trade for a little quantity in the minors.

Also, what farm is churning out 3 top notch rookies every single year? Milwaukee might be close but still hasn’t won anything and no trophy to show for it.

Well, they are where they are because their player development system failed them. So maybe it's time to pay more attention to the foundation of the organization.

And I didn't say "3 top not rookies" every year. I said "successful". I explained that in another thread:

I'd consider success to be either:

(1) filling a "high value" roster position - as a starting position player, DH, starting pitcher, or closer (15 positions total) - at, at least, a league average level (and you need 2-4 of your young players to be better than just league average)

or

(2) filling a "lower value" roster position - as a bench player or non-closer reliever (11 positions) - at, at least, a league average level

Of your 18 effective pre-ARB and ARB year players, you need ~10 of them to fill "high value" roster positions and ~8 of them to fill "lower value" roster positions.

[CorneliusWolfe]

What players do we have with 3-5 years of control that makes sense to try to extend? You still say the team has to figure out what we have in Burleson, Liberatore, etc.

I've said the new Cardinals regime needs to assess what they project Burleson, Liberatore, etc. will be over the next 3, 4, 5 years. I would hope/expect they already have made that assessment, at least based on what they know to date.

If you develop players you like, who you expect to be part of the core of your team, I want them through their prime seasons. Ideally, I'd give them a guaranteed contract through age 30 and try to get 1-2 team option years. So in Burleson's case it would 4 yrs. + 1-2 team option years. In Winn's case it would be 7 yrs. + 1-2 team option years.

I want them to have great careers with me and let them walk at age 31/32 so they can go find another team that will offer them a big contract while they decline in their 30s.

Why don’t we trade some of our prospects for some of the other teams young talent and extend them instead? Would it be so detrimental to the future if we still end up with a younger roster? Or do they have to be homegrown to maximize cheapness?

Again, in theory, yes. But, given where the roster currently stands, the issue is do they have enough minor league talent to (1) consolidate it by giving away multiple prospects for one (hypothetical) younger player while (2) still keeping enough prospects in the pipeline to be confident of delivering 3 successful rookies a year in 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, etc.

If you have to trade 3-4 prospects for one young players, or 6-8 prospect for two young players, etc., you probably start to jeopardize what you are going to have coming in the pipeline in 2027, 2028, 2029, etc.

You’re being overprotective of the farm system to the point where it becomes the priority over the major league team. There are numerous ways to maintain the health of both if the team uses ALL mechanisms to manage them. Such as if you trade for a little quality for the big team, trade for a little quantity in the minors.

Also, what farm is churning out 3 top notch rookies every single year? Milwaukee might be close but still hasn’t won anything and no trophy to show for it.

Well, they are where they are because their player development system failed them. So maybe it's time to pay more attention to the foundation of the organization.

And I didn't say "3 top not rookies" every year. I said "successful". I explained that in another thread:

I'd consider success to be either:

(1) filling a "high value" roster position - as a starting position player, DH, starting pitcher, or closer (15 positions total) - at, at least, a league average level (and you need 2-4 of your young players to be better than just league average)

or

(2) filling a "lower value" roster position - as a bench player or non-closer reliever (11 positions) - at, at least, a league average level

Of your 18 effective pre-ARB and ARB year players, you need ~10 of them to fill "high value" roster positions and ~8 of them to fill "lower value" roster positions.

The system didn’t fail them, they failed to invest and failed the system. Just as a failure to invest in the big team will fail them too. Why should they get a pass for making the same kind of mistake? Cheap = failure to win the WS.

Splitting hairs on the 3 rookies aren’t you? “Successful” infers really good ones which would be top notch output.

[mattmitchl44]

What players do we have with 3-5 years of control that makes sense to try to extend? You still say the team has to figure out what we have in Burleson, Liberatore, etc.

I've said the new Cardinals regime needs to assess what they project Burleson, Liberatore, etc. will be over the next 3, 4, 5 years. I would hope/expect they already have made that assessment, at least based on what they know to date.

If you develop players you like, who you expect to be part of the core of your team, I want them through their prime seasons. Ideally, I'd give them a guaranteed contract through age 30 and try to get 1-2 team option years. So in Burleson's case it would 4 yrs. + 1-2 team option years. In Winn's case it would be 7 yrs. + 1-2 team option years.

I want them to have great careers with me and let them walk at age 31/32 so they can go find another team that will offer them a big contract while they decline in their 30s.

Why don’t we trade some of our prospects for some of the other teams young talent and extend them instead? Would it be so detrimental to the future if we still end up with a younger roster? Or do they have to be homegrown to maximize cheapness?

Again, in theory, yes. But, given where the roster currently stands, the issue is do they have enough minor league talent to (1) consolidate it by giving away multiple prospects for one (hypothetical) younger player while (2) still keeping enough prospects in the pipeline to be confident of delivering 3 successful rookies a year in 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, etc.

If you have to trade 3-4 prospects for one young players, or 6-8 prospect for two young players, etc., you probably start to jeopardize what you are going to have coming in the pipeline in 2027, 2028, 2029, etc.

You’re being overprotective of the farm system to the point where it becomes the priority over the major league team. There are numerous ways to maintain the health of both if the team uses ALL mechanisms to manage them. Such as if you trade for a little quality for the big team, trade for a little quantity in the minors.

Also, what farm is churning out 3 top notch rookies every single year? Milwaukee might be close but still hasn’t won anything and no trophy to show for it.

Well, they are where they are because their player development system failed them. So maybe it's time to pay more attention to the foundation of the organization.

And I didn't say "3 top not rookies" every year. I said "successful". I explained that in another thread:

I'd consider success to be either:

(1) filling a "high value" roster position - as a starting position player, DH, starting pitcher, or closer (15 positions total) - at, at least, a league average level (and you need 2-4 of your young players to be better than just league average)

or

(2) filling a "lower value" roster position - as a bench player or non-closer reliever (11 positions) - at, at least, a league average level

Of your 18 effective pre-ARB and ARB year players, you need ~10 of them to fill "high value" roster positions and ~8 of them to fill "lower value" roster positions.

The system didn’t fail them, they failed to invest and failed the system. Just as a failure to invest in the big team will fail them too. Why should they get a pass for making the same kind of mistake? Cheap = failure to win the WS.

Splitting hairs on the 3 rookies aren’t you? “Successful” infers really good ones which would be top notch output.

"Successful", as I explained, could be a successful middle reliever or a successful bench infielder. Those are not "top notch" rookies - those are guys who are successful in a "lower value" supporting role. But even those lesser roles save the team maybe $4 or $5 million from not having go so sign an FA for that role.

And, for like the 1,000,000th time, no one has said that they are not going to eventually have to invest $180, $190 million in the ML roster.

They just don't need to do it right now, because they aren't close enough to being a real contender in 2026 even if they did.