Fringe contention

[CorneliusWolfe]

For those of the opinion it does no good to make the playoffs as a fringe wildcard contender, without a realistic shot to win the WS, I pose the following scenario for discussion.

Let’s assume the team takes the conservative and methodical approach you desire, such as not moving future assets/prospects, only sign short term and inexpensive free agents that doesn’t block or affect developmental opportunities and makes sensible trades with team control in mind. In essence, they do not mortgage the future. I’d even say this is the likely course of action.

With the team already being around .500 and there being 3 wildcard spots, it isn’t far-fetched that making the right moves and some developmental progress of young vets and prospects, they could improve enough to reach a record that might not win the division or be considered a WS favorite, but could accidentally land in the playoff mix.

What would be your take on such a development? Would you want them to “tank” games to avoid the playoffs and jockey for better draft positioning?

Building for the future without building on success also seems an unrealistic approach. Do you suggest “laying low” and suddenly emerge a contender?

Not trying to poke the bear here, as I know many astute posters share the anti-fringe contention mindset. I’m just curious how you see your version of the plan unfolding.

[hugeCardfan]

I'll get the popcorn.

[Carp4Cy]

I'm certainly Not against it.

1. any amount of playoff games is extra revenue. And long term we need that revenue to a. sign FA's and b. retain any top talent we ever do actually develop. The revenue is the #1 piece that a lot of posters fail to consider in the "tanking" scenarios.
2. draft order can't be high forever. The new lotto rules lock us out of drafting top 10 after two straight year. If we make the playoffs and worst case lost first round, we are drafting around 19 (12 teams in the playoffs). If we are in the lottery and are blacked out of the top 10, then we likely fall between 11 and 18, midpoint being 15. Not a huge difference between 15th and 19th. So opportunity cost is very minimal.
3. upside being we actually win a round or 2. Arizona won a pennant with like 82 wins in 2023. No one expected them to do that.
4. deadline trades don't have to be short term benefit only. Scott Rolen, Mark McGwire, Matt Holliday were all acquired at the deadline then extended for many years beyond to create a long term winning team. If you get a shot at the right player, the dealline might be your best chance to land them long term. If you wait until the offseason, their existing team might just re-sign them or another team offers a lot more money.
5. We are never going to actually compete with a fully homegrown team and a tiny budget. The only way to really win and keep winning is smart but agressive spending on the right talent, good trades that get us what we lack, and developing what we can from our drafts and Intl Markets. Just blindly selling $$$ contracts for a shotgun approach at what ever low level prospects another GM is willing to let go of isn't going to work. The prospects we get back for Matz, Helsley etc were allowed to be traded for a reason - their GMs don't see them as the next Bobby Witt Jr or Hunter Greene. Also prospects are very overvalued right now. Both ours and others. Some will work out at a very high level, but really your best shot at acquiring those is in the draft. Later its too late because the teams that identify those future stars aren't going to let them go for anything.

[Talkin' Baseball]

Win if you can. I'm not opposed to making the wildcard. I'm opposed to building a team with that goal in mind.

[CorneliusWolfe]

Win if you can. I'm not opposed to making the wildcard. I'm opposed to building a team with that goal in mind.

Understood and agree, but with so many possible outcomes, even the best GMs don’t know how much even the minor moves will affect their record and playoff chances. I feel such a scenario would only be interpreted as the result of half-measures to create a half (donkey) contender with no chance to win it all.

[CorneliusWolfe]

For sake of less scrolling, I quoted you without copying the content, but wanted to say I agree with all points in your reply. I also think it could’ve applied to this year as well, but I also understood the team’s mindset in the selloff. I just hope it doesn’t become status quo like the Pirates or Rays.

[CorneliusWolfe]

I'll get the popcorn.

yeah it might get ugly!

[scoutyjones2]

Win if you can. I'm not opposed to making the wildcard. I'm opposed to building a team with that goal in mind.

I think teams build to make the playoffs, and not specifically to be wildcard. I've heard the Brewers coach talk about that...

[sp25]

Win if you can. I'm not opposed to making the wildcard. I'm opposed to building a team with that goal in mind.

This exactly. People point to 2006 as a lucky team to make the postseason, then caught lightning and won the WS.

That's not how that year went. Preseason the Cardinals and Mets were favorites, and midseason the Cardinals were living up to that billing. Injuries started to catch up to them, especially in September, so they struggled to the finish line and barely won the division.

But they were also getting healthy again (except for Isringhausen), so the team that won October baseball was more similar to the first half favorites than to the last half beat up group.

Besides, they had the last year of MV3, and they were due to fulfull their destiny.

It seems that what happened in 2006 became a model for the Cardinals: just get in, and anything can happen. To me, that is not a good business model.

[rockondlouie]

Losing/Tanking guarantees nothing and certainly doesn't insure any team will automatically become a WS contender after four-five years of sucking.

I don't see any reason, now that we have a competent POBO in place at seasons end, why the Cardinals can't walk (rebuild the minor league system) & chew gum (compete for a playoff spot) at the same time.

News Flash

It can be done and I hope that's what the organization will now do w/Mo's exit.

[alw80]

This team hasn't had a real vision or plan for the present and future for a few years now and they desperately need it. Just winging it from year to year with extremely flawed teams because the league is so watered down and you might be able to grab the last WC spot by being within a couple games of .500 isn't going to get you very far. It's not going to draw fans, we've seen that this year. I doubt the team would sell out any 1st round WC games this year had they backed in. They need to get their sh*t together.

[CorneliusWolfe]

Win if you can. I'm not opposed to making the wildcard. I'm opposed to building a team with that goal in mind.

This exactly. People point to 2006 as a lucky team to make the postseason, then caught lightning and won the WS.

That's not how that year went. Preseason the Cardinals and Mets were favorites, and midseason the Cardinals were living up to that billing. Injuries started to catch up to them, especially in September, so they struggled to the finish line and barely won the division.

But they were also getting healthy again (except for Isringhausen), so the team that won October baseball was more similar to the first half favorites than to the last half beat up group.

Besides, they had the last year of MV3, and they were due to fulfull their destiny.

It seems that what happened in 2006 became a model for the Cardinals: just get in, and anything can happen. To me, that is not a good business model.

Agree on the bad business model and lack of direction for sure. But what does the alternative or right way look like? Say the moves the team makes this offseason, result in a wildcard berth but they get bounced quickly, will the moves they made be viewed as half measures that didn’t work out, or natural incremental progress?

[CorneliusWolfe]

Win if you can. I'm not opposed to making the wildcard. I'm opposed to building a team with that goal in mind.

This exactly. People point to 2006 as a lucky team to make the postseason, then caught lightning and won the WS.

That's not how that year went. Preseason the Cardinals and Mets were favorites, and midseason the Cardinals were living up to that billing. Injuries started to catch up to them, especially in September, so they struggled to the finish line and barely won the division.

But they were also getting healthy again (except for Isringhausen), so the team that won October baseball was more similar to the first half favorites than to the last half beat up group.

Besides, they had the last year of MV3, and they were due to fulfull their destiny.

It seems that what happened in 2006 became a model for the Cardinals: just get in, and anything can happen. To me, that is not a good business model.

The 2006 blueprint did seem to incorrectly become a new model with the fallacy being the lack of star power and/or depth. What if we have decent depth and an MV1 or MV2 over the next few seasons and squeek in but fall short? Is the experience worth it, or would you rather them continue to lose for better draft position, and is that even feasible without disrespect to the game and competition in general? Is there a natural progression in the views of the contend-or-bust crowd?

[CardsBest]

For those of the opinion it does no good to make the playoffs as a fringe wildcard contender, without a realistic shot to win the WS, I pose the following scenario for discussion.

Let’s assume the team takes the conservative and methodical approach you desire, such as not moving future assets/prospects, only sign short term and inexpensive free agents that doesn’t block or affect developmental opportunities and makes sensible trades with team control in mind. In essence, they do not mortgage the future. I’d even say this is the likely course of action.

With the team already being around .500 and there being 3 wildcard spots, it isn’t far-fetched that making the right moves and some developmental progress of young vets and prospects, they could improve enough to reach a record that might not win the division or be considered a WS favorite, but could accidentally land in the playoff mix.

What would be your take on such a development? Would you want them to “tank” games to avoid the playoffs and jockey for better draft positioning?

Building for the future without building on success also seems an unrealistic approach. Do you suggest “laying low” and suddenly emerge a contender?

Not trying to poke the bear here, as I know many astute posters share the anti-fringe contention mindset. I’m just curious how you see your version of the plan unfolding.

12 teams make the playoffs. Many of the lower teams hover around .500. I don’t want Cards to be one of those teams. I want Cards to try to compete for the division crown and be one of the top 3 teams record wise in the NL.
I don't want to be playing for wild cards. I could handle losing seasons if they fully committed to a rebuild to make the team a top 3 team in the league. If they are not a top 3 team in the league and are not trying for that then I want them to lose.

[Talkin' Baseball]

Win if you can. I'm not opposed to making the wildcard. I'm opposed to building a team with that goal in mind.

This exactly. People point to 2006 as a lucky team to make the postseason, then caught lightning and won the WS.

That's not how that year went. Preseason the Cardinals and Mets were favorites, and midseason the Cardinals were living up to that billing. Injuries started to catch up to them, especially in September, so they struggled to the finish line and barely won the division.

But they were also getting healthy again (except for Isringhausen), so the team that won October baseball was more similar to the first half favorites than to the last half beat up group.

Besides, they had the last year of MV3, and they were due to fulfull their destiny.

It seems that what happened in 2006 became a model for the Cardinals: just get in, and anything can happen. To me, that is not a good business model.

The 2006 blueprint did seem to incorrectly become a new model with the fallacy being the lack of star power and/or depth. What if we have decent depth and an MV1 or MV2 over the next few seasons and squeek in but fall short? Is the experience worth it, or would you rather them continue to lose for better draft position, and is that even feasible without disrespect to the game and competition in general? Is there a natural progression in the views of the contend-or-bust crowd?

Definitely don't lose for draft position. It's actually hard to be as bad as the Rockies and the White Sox, etc.. We would lose more than we gain by dropping down that far.

[CorneliusWolfe]

For those of the opinion it does no good to make the playoffs as a fringe wildcard contender, without a realistic shot to win the WS, I pose the following scenario for discussion.

Let’s assume the team takes the conservative and methodical approach you desire, such as not moving future assets/prospects, only sign short term and inexpensive free agents that doesn’t block or affect developmental opportunities and makes sensible trades with team control in mind. In essence, they do not mortgage the future. I’d even say this is the likely course of action.

With the team already being around .500 and there being 3 wildcard spots, it isn’t far-fetched that making the right moves and some developmental progress of young vets and prospects, they could improve enough to reach a record that might not win the division or be considered a WS favorite, but could accidentally land in the playoff mix.

What would be your take on such a development? Would you want them to “tank” games to avoid the playoffs and jockey for better draft positioning?

Building for the future without building on success also seems an unrealistic approach. Do you suggest “laying low” and suddenly emerge a contender?

Not trying to poke the bear here, as I know many astute posters share the anti-fringe contention mindset. I’m just curious how you see your version of the plan unfolding.

12 teams make the playoffs. Many of the lower teams hover around .500. I don’t want Cards to be one of those teams. I want Cards to try to compete for the division crown and be one of the top 3 teams record wise in the NL.
I don't want to be playing for wild cards. I could handle losing seasons if they fully committed to a rebuild to make the team a top 3 team in the league.

Neither do I (want to play just for wildcards) and I’m sure GMs don’t either.

The intent of this thread is to gain insight from the other half on what it actually looks like getting from point A to point B, and I’m not seeing that in any responses. It seems mediocrity is a bridge that must be crossed between near-rock bottom and contending for a WS.

All I’m hearing is go worst-to-first. Phase 1…lose big Phase 2… Phase 3…World Series! What is phase 2 and its associated acceptable evolution?