STLtoday.com

Goldfan wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 12:15 pm

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.

Amen Bomber…..at the end of that season Miles and Matz were the starting rotation. Its been wait for the YOUTH for awhile now. Wait for Bader, TO, Carlson, Walker, Gorman….now Scott
Wait for all the arms received from the SP pitching selloff that left Miles and Matz…..where is that batch of saviors??
Wait for Hence, wait for Mathews, wait for Thompson
Wait for the SEASON of YOUTH last year to give all the same terrible youngsters a FULL YEAR to show they suck
Now it’s selloff any vet talent within a 10 miles of the arch……AND WAIT for the bountiful RETURN…..
While BDW pockets the 80=90mil that used to be in Payroll
All the while CT posters cheer the effort on…..the only thing you’re cheering for will be a terrible team and BDW’s back account
Either TANK like your life depends on it and don’t give say the fans “we’re competing” [nonsense]…..OR spend the money and put a competitive team on the field. This half (donkey) one foot in one foot out is OLD

ClassicO wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 15:17 pm

BleedingBleu wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 14:57 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 09:55 am

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.

And it just took that season for attendance to jump from 1.7 million in 1995 to 2.6 million in 1996. Attendance then never dropped below 2.6 million until the wonky 2020 and 2021 seasons.

Do you not know what happened that offseason? DeWitt, Jockety & Co went freaking bananas! If anything, attendance jumped because the promise of winning by bringing in LaRussa and (drat) near flipping roster that offseason.

They traded for 26 year old Royce Clayton & 31 year old Todd Stottlemyre, Dennis Eckersley, and fan favorite Willie MF’n McGee
Acquired Rick Honeycutt as a LOOGY for LaRussa
Signed Gary Gaetti, Andy Benes, Ron Gant, and former Cardinal Luis Alicea
Traded surplus Bernard Gilkey

1995-96 Cardinals Offseason


You cannot simply wave off the impact of adding two Top of the Rotation Starters, 3 New Starting Position Players including a MOB, one of the all-time great Closers, and a revamped Bench & Bullpen would have on the fanbase.

How long did any of those players acquired for 1996 stay and perform? Hint: not long.
The 1997 team finished with a losing record and ranked 4th in the division.
Think long game and WS as the only goal.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 07:03 am

CorneliusWolfe wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 06:49 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 06:15 am

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

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

None of that really has much to do with the point made in the OP.

But, sure, more than one thing can be true. The Cardinals have been, until Bloom, pursuing a poorly constructed philosophy AND doing it badly.

You have to be the most smug poster ever. Your OP is simply a false explanation of what you THINK those who disagree with your tired narrative thinks.

Newsflash…no one on this board knows [shirt] about running an MLB team. If we did, we’d be doing it. We’re are FANS, nothing more nothing less. Some more delusional than others.

Some want to spend on experienced and more talented players. Some desire only precious prospects. And guess what…some want a balanced mix of both. Why does that torment your soul?

It doesn't. At all. Why do you keep insisting that it does?

As I note above, and have noted every time this comes up, the Cardinals WILL NEED TO SPEND on expensive veterans - and spend more than a Milwaukee or Cleveland - to fill gaps on their roster. I keep having to repeat that over and over again, apparently. It is literally right in the OP:

...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.

The ONLY thing I reject is the mind-numbing petulance that they MUST SPEND TO THEIR LIMIT RIGHT NOW for 2026. 2026 is a moot point. It's dead, IMO. And that's OK.

The only way they can spend to their $170, $180, etc. million limit RIGHT NOW isn't by sensibly signing Dustin Mays to short 1 or 2 year deals. They can only spend to their $170, $180, etc. million limit RIGHT NOW by going out and chaining themselves to more really expensive veterans on longer term contracts. Right now, those are almost certainly NOT going to be wise investments for a team in no position to be competitive in 2026 (or probably 2027) anyway. There is no reason to take on another "Nolan Arenado" contract right now.

The issue isn't how much they are, or are not, spending in 2026. The issue is WHO they would have to commit themselves to for 3, 4, 5 years down the road in order to spend as much as you demand they spend right now.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 08:00 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.

Well, sure, IF the player development system had:

- Walker being a 4+ fWAR player going into his fourth ML season
- Gorman being a 3+ fWAR player going into this fifth ML season
- Liberatore being a #2 SP going into his fifth ML season

etc.

we probably wouldn't need to be talking about a comprehensive teardown/rebuild.

But none of those things are true. So we have to talk about a comprehensive teardown/rebuild (the process of gathering more prospects) so that the Cardinals organization can ultimately develop a 4+ fWAR player (Wetherholt?), a #2 SP (Doyle?), another 3+ fWAR player (?, some prospect they acquire by trade this offseason), etc. and then be able to compete.

They are where they are and have to do what they have to do because of it.

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.

But there seems to be a consistent CT contingent that gets stuck on the idea that the Cardinals must philosophically think and act like a "light" version of the Dodgers, Yankees, etc. - with an emphasis on spending money and having veteran "stars" - rather than 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. It seems like some are fixated on the idea that acknowledging Milwaukee, Cleveland, etc. as models to improve upon is "beneath them."

The simple truth in 2025 is that the Yankees, Dodgers, Mets, Phillies, etc. - the true big market teams - are moving farther and farther away from the middle market teams when it comes to spending. Their advantage over the middle market teams is getting bigger and bigger with each passing year. So the middle market teams - like the Cardinals - have to change their philosophical approach. They have to stop thinking like "light" versions of the big market teams and more like "heavy" versions of the small market teams. That is the Cardinals path if they are ever going to be successful at consistently competing with the likes of the Yankees, Dodgers, Mets, Phillies, etc. going forward.

Thankfully, the Cardinals organization seems to be embracing such a philosophical shift and doesn't believe it is "beneath them" to learn from the likes of Milwaukee, Cleveland, Tampa Bay, etc.

CCard wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 16:42 pm

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.

But there seems to be a consistent CT contingent that gets stuck on the idea that the Cardinals must philosophically think and act like a "light" version of the Dodgers, Yankees, etc. - with an emphasis on spending money and having veteran "stars" - rather than 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. It seems like some are fixated on the idea that acknowledging Milwaukee, Cleveland, etc. as models to improve upon is "beneath them."

The simple truth in 2025 is that the Yankees, Dodgers, Mets, Phillies, etc. - the true big market teams - are moving farther and farther away from the middle market teams when it comes to spending. Their advantage over the middle market teams is getting bigger and bigger with each passing year. So the middle market teams - like the Cardinals - have to change their philosophical approach. They have to stop thinking like "light" versions of the big market teams and more like "heavy" versions of the small market teams. That is the Cardinals path if they are ever going to be successful at consistently competing with the likes of the Yankees, Dodgers, Mets, Phillies, etc. going forward.

Thankfully, the Cardinals organization seems to be embracing such a philosophical shift and doesn't believe it is "beneath them" to learn from the likes of Milwaukee, Cleveland, Tampa Bay, etc.

Your right in one respect. There is a divide. Some want to lose and lose big in the hope of drafting high talent and developing that strategically so they all mature at the same time, while avoiding poor play and injuries, then they can be on even footing with a juggernaut like the Dodgers. The big market teams do spend a lot and it's worth noting that the Mets have spent like crazy and won nothing so far, but through baseball history since the inception of free agency, it's been borne out more than not that the big spenders are also the big winners most of the time. The Cards were 16th in team payroll in 2025 and now they have jettisoned Gray and Contreras. There's no way you can say they're trying to do anything but tank.

CCard wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 16:42 pm The Cards were 16th in team payroll in 2025 and now they have jettisoned Gray and Contreras. There's no way you can say they're trying to do anything but tank.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 18:27 pm

CCard wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 16:42 pm The Cards were 16th in team payroll in 2025 and now they have jettisoned Gray and Contreras. There's no way you can say they're trying to do anything but tank.

They are acquiring prospects to improve the player development system.

Red Bird Classic wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 17:37 pm

CCard wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 16:42 pm

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.

But there seems to be a consistent CT contingent that gets stuck on the idea that the Cardinals must philosophically think and act like a "light" version of the Dodgers, Yankees, etc. - with an emphasis on spending money and having veteran "stars" - rather than 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. It seems like some are fixated on the idea that acknowledging Milwaukee, Cleveland, etc. as models to improve upon is "beneath them."

The simple truth in 2025 is that the Yankees, Dodgers, Mets, Phillies, etc. - the true big market teams - are moving farther and farther away from the middle market teams when it comes to spending. Their advantage over the middle market teams is getting bigger and bigger with each passing year. So the middle market teams - like the Cardinals - have to change their philosophical approach. They have to stop thinking like "light" versions of the big market teams and more like "heavy" versions of the small market teams. That is the Cardinals path if they are ever going to be successful at consistently competing with the likes of the Yankees, Dodgers, Mets, Phillies, etc. going forward.

Thankfully, the Cardinals organization seems to be embracing such a philosophical shift and doesn't believe it is "beneath them" to learn from the likes of Milwaukee, Cleveland, Tampa Bay, etc.

Your right in one respect. There is a divide. Some want to lose and lose big in the hope of drafting high talent and developing that strategically so they all mature at the same time, while avoiding poor play and injuries, then they can be on even footing with a juggernaut like the Dodgers. The big market teams do spend a lot and it's worth noting that the Mets have spent like crazy and won nothing so far, but through baseball history since the inception of free agency, it's been borne out more than not that the big spenders are also the big winners most of the time. The Cards were 16th in team payroll in 2025 and now they have jettisoned Gray and Contreras. There's no way you can say they're trying to do anything but tank.

This team, with or out without Gray and Contreras, wasn't gonna win anything anyway. So in those terms, It doesn't matter if they tank.

On the other hand, future teams (28 or 29 and beyond) might be better if this year's team finishes worse.

BleedingBleu wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 15:41 pm

ClassicO wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 15:17 pm

BleedingBleu wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 14:57 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 09:55 am

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.

And it just took that season for attendance to jump from 1.7 million in 1995 to 2.6 million in 1996. Attendance then never dropped below 2.6 million until the wonky 2020 and 2021 seasons.

Do you not know what happened that offseason? DeWitt, Jockety & Co went freaking bananas! If anything, attendance jumped because the promise of winning by bringing in LaRussa and (drat) near flipping roster that offseason.

They traded for 26 year old Royce Clayton & 31 year old Todd Stottlemyre, Dennis Eckersley, and fan favorite Willie MF’n McGee
Acquired Rick Honeycutt as a LOOGY for LaRussa
Signed Gary Gaetti, Andy Benes, Ron Gant, and former Cardinal Luis Alicea
Traded surplus Bernard Gilkey

1995-96 Cardinals Offseason


You cannot simply wave off the impact of adding two Top of the Rotation Starters, 3 New Starting Position Players including a MOB, one of the all-time great Closers, and a revamped Bench & Bullpen would have on the fanbase.

How long did any of those players acquired for 1996 stay and perform? Hint: not long.
The 1997 team finished with a losing record and ranked 4th in the division.
Think long game and WS as the only goal.

Are you suggesting Jockety & LaRussa weren’t good longterm?

Here’s the reality… they did the same effing thing, with the biggest difference being a focus on the consumer. They didn’t abandon the fans, but made moves to make them rabid. They brought in McGwire, Drew, Tatis, Edmonds, Renteria, Darryl Kile, Pujols, Carpenter, Rolen, Molina, Wainwright, built one of the best Baseball Stadiums, won multiple World Series.

What are we even talking about?

ClassicO wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 20:15 pm

BleedingBleu wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 15:41 pm

ClassicO wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 15:17 pm

BleedingBleu wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 14:57 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 09:55 am

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.

And it just took that season for attendance to jump from 1.7 million in 1995 to 2.6 million in 1996. Attendance then never dropped below 2.6 million until the wonky 2020 and 2021 seasons.

Do you not know what happened that offseason? DeWitt, Jockety & Co went freaking bananas! If anything, attendance jumped because the promise of winning by bringing in LaRussa and (drat) near flipping roster that offseason.

They traded for 26 year old Royce Clayton & 31 year old Todd Stottlemyre, Dennis Eckersley, and fan favorite Willie MF’n McGee
Acquired Rick Honeycutt as a LOOGY for LaRussa
Signed Gary Gaetti, Andy Benes, Ron Gant, and former Cardinal Luis Alicea
Traded surplus Bernard Gilkey

1995-96 Cardinals Offseason


You cannot simply wave off the impact of adding two Top of the Rotation Starters, 3 New Starting Position Players including a MOB, one of the all-time great Closers, and a revamped Bench & Bullpen would have on the fanbase.

How long did any of those players acquired for 1996 stay and perform? Hint: not long.
The 1997 team finished with a losing record and ranked 4th in the division.
Think long game and WS as the only goal.

Are you suggesting Jockety & LaRussa weren’t good longterm?

Here’s the reality… they did the same effing thing, with the biggest difference being a focus on the consumer. They didn’t abandon the fans, but made moves to make them rabid. They brought in McGwire, Drew, Tatis, Edmonds, Renteria, Darryl Kile, Pujols, Carpenter, Rolen, Molina, Wainwright, built one of the best Baseball Stadiums, won multiple World Series.

What are we even talking about?

You changed the subject. Of course, Walt and Tony were great long-term. Your post, in response to a post about attendance from '95 to '96, was about the changes made that one off-season. I posed a question, and you didn't answer it, but went another direction.
THAT is what I'm talking about.

BleedingBleu wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 21:08 pm

ClassicO wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 20:15 pm

BleedingBleu wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 15:41 pm

ClassicO wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 15:17 pm

BleedingBleu wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 14:57 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 09:55 am

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.

And it just took that season for attendance to jump from 1.7 million in 1995 to 2.6 million in 1996. Attendance then never dropped below 2.6 million until the wonky 2020 and 2021 seasons.

Do you not know what happened that offseason? DeWitt, Jockety & Co went freaking bananas! If anything, attendance jumped because the promise of winning by bringing in LaRussa and (drat) near flipping roster that offseason.

They traded for 26 year old Royce Clayton & 31 year old Todd Stottlemyre, Dennis Eckersley, and fan favorite Willie MF’n McGee
Acquired Rick Honeycutt as a LOOGY for LaRussa
Signed Gary Gaetti, Andy Benes, Ron Gant, and former Cardinal Luis Alicea
Traded surplus Bernard Gilkey

1995-96 Cardinals Offseason


You cannot simply wave off the impact of adding two Top of the Rotation Starters, 3 New Starting Position Players including a MOB, one of the all-time great Closers, and a revamped Bench & Bullpen would have on the fanbase.

How long did any of those players acquired for 1996 stay and perform? Hint: not long.
The 1997 team finished with a losing record and ranked 4th in the division.
Think long game and WS as the only goal.

Are you suggesting Jockety & LaRussa weren’t good longterm?

Here’s the reality… they did the same effing thing, with the biggest difference being a focus on the consumer. They didn’t abandon the fans, but made moves to make them rabid. They brought in McGwire, Drew, Tatis, Edmonds, Renteria, Darryl Kile, Pujols, Carpenter, Rolen, Molina, Wainwright, built one of the best Baseball Stadiums, won multiple World Series.

What are we even talking about?

You changed the subject. Of course, Walt and Tony were great long-term. Your post, in response to a post about attendance from '95 to '96, was about the changes made that one off-season. I posed a question, and you didn't answer it, but went another direction.
THAT is what I'm talking about.

I absolutely answered. I said the outcome was the same, with the difference being fan excitement. Do you really need the details? They’re available to look up. Since many were veterans near the ends of their careers, they simply retired. Others were involved in typical MLB Transactions.

Eckersley & Rick Honeycutt retired.
Stottlemyre improved under Dave Duncan and was dealt w/Royce Clayton to Texas for Tatis.
Andy Benes would pitch 7 seasons for the Cardinals, with a brief interruption because of the Expansion Draft.
Luis Alicea Would become a free agent
McGee would play 4 seasons coming off the bench then retire.
Gaetti would be released late into his 3rd season at the age of 39 in the midst of a solid season
Ron Gant would hit 73 Homers over 3 seasons and would be dealt for Ricky Bottalico & Garrett Stephenson

Satisfied? I’m unsure what you’re trying to prove.

In 1997 they’d sign Delino DeShields, bring up Prospects Dimitri Young & Matt Morris, then trade for Mark McGwire at the deadline.

They sucked, but drafted Adam Kennedy (1.20) & Rick Ankiel (2.72) and the JD Drew (1.05) in the 1998 Draft , but drew 2.6M in attendance, again. The next year, they’d draw over 3M

Goldfan wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 21:29 pm There has never been a time in modern Cards history where the org has traded all vets and told their fans that they are rebuilding by stocking the minor league system, hoping some players matriculate to the big club and then and only then will they spend money on vets. This is stupidly asinine and there will be NO Fans sitting in Busch Whenever this magical time in the future occurs.

CCard wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 19:34 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 18:27 pm

CCard wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 16:42 pm The Cards were 16th in team payroll in 2025 and now they have jettisoned Gray and Contreras. There's no way you can say they're trying to do anything but tank.

They are acquiring prospects to improve the player development system.

More like acquiring suspects than prospects.Every team in baseball has a handful of prospects and the rest are suspects destined for failure. \

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 22:03 pm

CCard wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 19:34 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 18:27 pm

CCard wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 16:42 pm The Cards were 16th in team payroll in 2025 and now they have jettisoned Gray and Contreras. There's no way you can say they're trying to do anything but tank.

They are acquiring prospects to improve the player development system.

More like acquiring suspects than prospects.Every team in baseball has a handful of prospects and the rest are suspects destined for failure. \

some people here believe that 100 times 0 is actually a large positive number...

ecleme22 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 22:15 pm

Carp4Cy wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 22:03 pm

CCard wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 19:34 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 18:27 pm

CCard wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025 16:42 pm The Cards were 16th in team payroll in 2025 and now they have jettisoned Gray and Contreras. There's no way you can say they're trying to do anything but tank.

They are acquiring prospects to improve the player development system.

More like acquiring suspects than prospects.Every team in baseball has a handful of prospects and the rest are suspects destined for failure. \

some people here believe that 100 times 0 is actually a large positive number...

In 2012, when the Cubs traded Dempster for an A-baller named Hendricks, did you think it was a great deal at the time?

Of course not. Because you have little knowledge of minor leaguers.

Similar to the Gray and WC trades. You don’t like them because you’re not familiar with the return.