Marcell Ozuna Watch - (Update: Traded to Cards Pg. 13)

[Popeye_Card]

Marcel Ozuna is a massive upgrade over Piscotty, and the cost was within reason.

The cost was excellent. We basically replaced Piscotty with Ozuna by taking a small overall hit to our farm system by trading out marginal pitching and CF prospects (a surplus for us) for marginal MI prospects (a need for us). Hell, I would have considered just trading the prospects for each other to better balance our system.

[pioneer98]

I think Ozuna was a steal.

[TheoSqua]

For me, the more I do this sort of thing as a small-time writer/blogger, the more I understand how many casual fans do not identify how difficult it is to really move the needle on a baseball team with one transaction.

MLB teams are becoming better and better at evaluating and valuing their players/prospects, so the days of stealing players for leftover coins is pretty much over.

Dexter Fowler was a massive upgrade for the Cardinals last year, and will most likely be a nice bargain on his contract, even with the fact we lost a pick to sign him. Marcel Ozuna is a massive upgrade over Piscotty, and the cost was within reason.

I'm confident in the direction we are headed as a club, even if I understand that the Cubs are positioned to be a legit threat for the next six years or more.

I'm pretty sure that the way fans want teams to be managed would result in the boom-and-bust cycles of a team like Miami. If the Cardinals went out and acquired Longoria/Machado/Ozuna and signed a Lance Lynn they would have a very solid window for 2-3 seasons. Then the weight of losing those prospects and spending money on fa-level players to fill in the gap would cause the team to be horrible in the early 2020's and we'd be like the SF Giants - bloated aging expensive team that won't win and doesn't have any depth in its minors.

The Giants were lucky that their expensive purchases led to some WS wins, but there are a lot of teams that sell the farm and max out payroll for a window to win (The Nationals, Tigers, and Rangers come to mind recently) and get nothing to see for it. And fans are fickle. Detroit's attendance was 2.3m last season, down from the 3m fans they were drawing when they were playoff caliber. I expect SF will see the same kind of drop this offseason.

If I were a baseball owner i'd strive for an 80-85 win team on paper every year and let random variation get me in and out of the playoffs. The team will always have a chance at contention, and a few decent moves each year will excite the fanbase to get over the hump. And random variation alone means that some years will be a 75 win team that was close-but-not-quite and some years will be a 95 win team that makes the playoffs and rolls the dice. There will be enough 95 win teams to feed success, etc. Spent a little when the luck is good and keep the rest in the farm.

[MrCrowesGarden]

That's what the Cardinals did last year and it was maddening.

Truth be told I think unless you believe you are one of the handful or so of worst teams in MLB you should always be buying... with the knowledge that there are windows when you probably should be buying *more.*

[TheoSqua]

That's what the Cardinals did last year and it was maddening.

Truth be told I think unless you believe you are one of the handful or so of worst teams in MLB you should always be buying... with the knowledge that there are windows when you probably should be buying *more.*

It gets more nuanced. It's all about savings and opportunity. Say you want to always keep an 80ish win team and a top 15 prospect pool. When the market makes your prospect pool above average, or your team gets closer to 90 wins, etc. Then spend a bit to get better and ride that out. If you keep the cost of aqcuiring talent low then you should be able to "ride out" that success for a few years, restock prospects and salary, and by the time you're back down to an 80 win team you have enough resources to "buy in" again.

You'll never have a 115 win super team but you should always be fighting to get into the playoffs and the offseasons will be exciting. No rebuilds, no attendance drop, etc.

Of course all it takes is one bad GM or one mismanaged season and you're a 100 loss team again. But if you can find that balance I think a team is better off trying to stay balanced between 70-90 wins as long as they can than go all-in or blow it all up and tilt too far in one other direction.

[Socnorb11]

That's what the Cardinals did last year and it was maddening.

Truth be told I think unless you believe you are one of the handful or so of worst teams in MLB you should always be buying... with the knowledge that there are windows when you probably should be buying *more.*

The Cardinals have been buyers for the last 20 years. It's incredible that they've been able to sustain that, honestly.

[MrCrowesGarden]

That's fine until fans catch on. When they realize you're not interested in doing big or great things, it's a hard sell.

[dmarx114]

That's what the Cardinals did last year and it was maddening.

Truth be told I think unless you believe you are one of the handful or so of worst teams in MLB you should always be buying... with the knowledge that there are windows when you probably should be buying *more.*

The Cardinals have been buyers for the last 20 years. It's incredible that they've been able to sustain that, honestly.

Really has been. We are so lucky.

[Freed Roger]

Apparently Tsunami and him are buds

[CardsofSTL]

Apparently Tsunami and him are buds

#blessed