STLtoday.com

Some want to gloss over this fact as they push the narrative that the Cardinals should do both - compete now and rebuild the player development organization.

But those goals are in conflict, they are not complimentary.

They obviously conflict on the very important questions of:

- Should they trade Donovan?
- Should they trade Gray?
- Should they trade Contreras?
- Maybe even should they trade Arenado?

If they are competing the answer to most/all of those is no. If they are rebuilding it is yes. You can't have it both ways.

And also on the question of:

- Who should they potentially sign as FAs and why?

If they try to compete and rebuild simultaneously, the net result will much more likely be that they will do both poorly rather than do both (or either) well.

Whole heartedly disagree.

They are not conflicting. You can do both. Making decisions on players isn't unique. It happens every year.

You can have it both ways..

To say otherwise shows lack of creativity and judgement.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Nov 2025 06:08 am Some want to gloss over this fact as they push the narrative that the Cardinals should do both - compete now and rebuild the player development organization.

But those goals are in conflict, they are not complimentary.

They obviously conflict on the very important questions of:

- Should they trade Donovan?
- Should they trade Gray?
- Should they trade Contreras?
- Maybe even should they trade Arenado?

If they are competing the answer to most/all of those is no. If they are rebuilding it is yes. You can't have it both ways.

And also on the question of:

- Who should they potentially sign as FAs and why?

If they try to compete and rebuild simultaneously, the net result will much more likely be that they will do both poorly rather than do both (or either) well.

3 of those players would only be salary dumps that wouldn’t bring back much in return, so the real is question is are we trying to field a major league team or just spend less.

You can compete now by signing vets to one year deals.

No vet should be picked up by way of trading prospects, nor be the primary return for any of our trades (the exception would be an Arenado for Castellanos deal if Bloom can’t get anything for NA…).


This strategy is pro today and pro rebuild. If the team is out of it, you flip all the vets at the deadline…

Competing to me is giving max effort to win each and every game .
On paper, each team has a different talent level and experience.
I will reserve judgement as to how the bunch of 2026 Cardinals compete til I see them in the field. I do know many fans are excited to see new players competing . Wetherholt, Baez ? Toname who may receive ample playing time.

scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑21 Nov 2025 06:57 am Whole heartedly disagree.

They are not conflicting. You can do both. Making decisions on players isn't unique. It happens every year.

You can have it both ways..

To say otherwise shows lack of creativity and judgement.

As noted you can TRY to do both, and likely end up doing both poorly.

Midrange Jay wrote: ↑21 Nov 2025 07:12 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Nov 2025 06:08 am Some want to gloss over this fact as they push the narrative that the Cardinals should do both - compete now and rebuild the player development organization.

But those goals are in conflict, they are not complimentary.

They obviously conflict on the very important questions of:

- Should they trade Donovan?
- Should they trade Gray?
- Should they trade Contreras?
- Maybe even should they trade Arenado?

If they are competing the answer to most/all of those is no. If they are rebuilding it is yes. You can't have it both ways.

And also on the question of:

- Who should they potentially sign as FAs and why?

If they try to compete and rebuild simultaneously, the net result will much more likely be that they will do both poorly rather than do both (or either) well.

3 of those players would only be salary dumps that wouldn’t bring back much in return, so the real is question is are we trying to field a major league team or just spend less.

Donovan certainly brings back value, and Gray and Contreras will bring back value if they eat some money. So they would all contribute to the rebuild of traded.

ecleme22 wrote: ↑21 Nov 2025 07:19 am You can compete now by signing vets to one year deals.

No vet should be picked up by way of trading prospects, nor be the primary return for any of our trades (the exception would be an Arenado for Castellanos deal if Bloom can’t get anything for NA…).


This strategy is pro today and pro rebuild. If the team is out of it, you flip all the vets at the deadline…

I agree with signing FAs on one year deals, but they are never going to get to being competitive in 2026 based on those additions.

So, IMO, that is not trying to compete.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Nov 2025 08:10 am

scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑21 Nov 2025 06:57 am Whole heartedly disagree.

They are not conflicting. You can do both. Making decisions on players isn't unique. It happens every year.

You can have it both ways..

To say otherwise shows lack of creativity and judgement.

As noted you can TRY to do both, and likely end up doing both poorly.

I disagree.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Nov 2025 08:14 am

ecleme22 wrote: ↑21 Nov 2025 07:19 am You can compete now by signing vets to one year deals.

No vet should be picked up by way of trading prospects, nor be the primary return for any of our trades (the exception would be an Arenado for Castellanos deal if Bloom can’t get anything for NA…).


This strategy is pro today and pro rebuild. If the team is out of it, you flip all the vets at the deadline…

I agree with signing FAs on one year deals, but they are never going to get to being competitive in 2026 based on those additions.

So, IMO, that is not trying to compete.

Well, let's remember how bad Miko, Pallante, Arenado, Fedde and several others were. And the team was 78-84.

I don't think the 2026 team, with the addition of FA vets, will win 100 games. But 82-87 could happen. And that's competitive.

I think there's this assumption that the team will automatically be worse than 2025. I don't think that's the case.

Fortunately, the rebuild isn't starting at zero like the 2012 Cubs.

ecleme22 wrote: ↑21 Nov 2025 07:19 am You can compete now by signing vets to one year deals.

No vet should be picked up by way of trading prospects, nor be the primary return for any of our trades (the exception would be an Arenado for Castellanos deal if Bloom can’t get anything for NA…).


This strategy is pro today and pro rebuild. If the team is out of it, you flip all the vets at the deadline…

No quality vet is going to take a one year deal…

scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑21 Nov 2025 08:26 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Nov 2025 08:10 am

scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑21 Nov 2025 06:57 am Whole heartedly disagree.

They are not conflicting. You can do both. Making decisions on players isn't unique. It happens every year.

You can have it both ways..

To say otherwise shows lack of creativity and judgement.

As noted you can TRY to do both, and likely end up doing both poorly.

I disagree.

Again Donovan is the team's one tradable asset that could bring back a much needed high ceiling prospect to rebuild the farm system.

But he'd also be one of the most valuable players to hang onto if they were really trying to compete on 2026.

He can't be in two places at once. Conflict.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Nov 2025 08:33 am

scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑21 Nov 2025 08:26 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Nov 2025 08:10 am

scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑21 Nov 2025 06:57 am Whole heartedly disagree.

They are not conflicting. You can do both. Making decisions on players isn't unique. It happens every year.

You can have it both ways..

To say otherwise shows lack of creativity and judgement.

As noted you can TRY to do both, and likely end up doing both poorly.

I disagree.

Again Donovan is the team's one tradable asset that could bring back a much needed high ceiling prospect to rebuild the farm system.

But he'd also be one of the most valuable players to hang onto if they were really trying to compete on 2026.

He can't be in two places at once. Conflict.

I don't see Hurdy as a piece you build around.

Completely wrong premise by matt.

C. Bloom already has repaired Mo's broken minor league player development system and continues to add quality people to the system.

Nothing done at the big league level can disrupt that...........THE MINOR LEAGUE SYSTEM IS NOW PRIMED to send quality players to the Cardinals!

He can now focus on dealing away veterans like NADO, S. Gray, Donny and maybe even WillyC for prospects or YOUNG MAJOR LEAGUE players with years of control............while STILL FIELDING A COMPETITVE, BUT PERHAPS NOT A PLAYOFF TEAM.

If he's able to save some payroll money dealing away those veterans contracts, then BDWJR (LIKELY) will allow him to re-invest that savings into the 2026 roster adding major league players via trades and smart, low cost free agency.

The 2026 payroll will likely settle somewhere in the $115-130M range...................NOT $200M.

If the Cardinals win 90 games or lose 90 games in 2026 how on earth does this setback the re-build?

AGAIN

THIS DOES NOTHING to disrupt the minor league system or halt the minors from funneling players to the Cardinals in this re-build!

How some can't see this is baffling.

Both dimensions are managed along the same continuum. If you can get back more of him or what you perceive as more you make the move for the ladder. If you can flip players who are controlled or not yet starter or even vets for better players do it for the now.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Nov 2025 06:08 am Some want to gloss over this fact as they push the narrative that the Cardinals should do both - compete now and rebuild the player development organization.

But those goals are in conflict, they are not complimentary.

They obviously conflict on the very important questions of:

- Should they trade Donovan?
- Should they trade Gray?
- Should they trade Contreras?
- Maybe even should they trade Arenado?

If they are competing the answer to most/all of those is no. If they are rebuilding it is yes. You can't have it both ways.

And also on the question of:

- Who should they potentially sign as FAs and why?

If they try to compete and rebuild simultaneously, the net result will much more likely be that they will do both poorly rather than do both (or either) well.

I think the goal is to rebuild while not losing 100 games.

Trading Donovan leaves a hole that can't be filled. We get worse. Trading Contreras opens up 1B and DH for Hererra and Burleson and if we get something in return is a potential plus. Trading Gray makes sense if we can unload some of his contract and get something in return.