Re: The superstar effect being ignored by Cardinals.
Posted: 10 Jan 2026 15:35 pm
For the 1 millionth time, I and many others think a rebuild plan can and should be dynamic and value incremental improvements instead of relying on a worst-to-first instant evolution.mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑10 Jan 2026 15:18 pm"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.CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑10 Jan 2026 15:09 pmThe 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.mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑10 Jan 2026 15:01 pmWell, 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.CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑10 Jan 2026 14:49 pmYou’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.mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑10 Jan 2026 14:38 pmI'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.CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑10 Jan 2026 14:22 pm 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.
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.
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.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?
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.
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.
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.
Splitting hairs on the 3 rookies aren’t you? “Successful” infers really good ones which would be top notch output.
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.
And no one cares what you’ve said a million times over or when you quote yourself. We know who we’re arguing with and compounding your false narrative content and giving us links to the same old [shirt] doesn’t really move the needle of give you any additional credence. If I quote myself, would that make you more likely to see it my way?