They'll definitely trade Grichuk. I'm actually surprised that a deal with the Rays hasn't been finalized yet that involves him going to TB for Colome and obviously other pieces.
I agree that he's an ideal 4th OF'er, but they'll want to save his arbitration money with competent (and maybe better) players behind him who can play for the minimum. And then there's the 40 man roster considerations.
If, somehow, we can't work Grichuk into the trades we're still negotiating, then someone will take him as a possible starter in CF for a few down system prospects.
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:The starting outfielders last year combined for like 14 wins : Fowler (1.6), Pham (6.4), Ozuna (5.8)
Maybe they don't replicate that. Maybe Fowler has a better year and Pham/Ozuna fall off. Maybe Pham and Ozuna progress and Fowler picks it up a bit.
But, to say they need more quality outfielders really undersells the players in the system, imo.
Yeah, I'm definitely not saying that they need more outfielders. I also agree that the MLB outfielders are very good. My point was that there's not an abundance of quality depth. There are guys who can play, but not guys who have a ton of trade value, or are going to be difference-makers for the Cardinals.
Good bench guys have value. Guys with ceilings of being a regular- cheap regulars for their cost-controlled years- have value. Guys outside of the top 100 can have value, and can especially have a lot of value if you're good at evaluating what they are, and finding ways to maximize their value. Which, by the way, the Cardinals have been as good at that as any franchise for the last decade.
And frankly, most teams DON'T have depth like that, they DON'T have guys like Bader, O'Neill, Adolis Garcia, etc... and certainly not in the volume that the Cardinals have them. That's not overestimating it. It's fact. A lot of mediocre or worse teams are in a bucket of syrup right now precisely because they don't develop cheap/effective regulars and bench options like these, so instead they give playing time to miserable scrubs.
So yeah... most of these guys (probably all) aren't going to be a difference maker. I get that. I just don't understand why that means they're useless or whatever, or we're relegating it to just naming all the OFers in the system. If they were that expendable, the franchise wouldn't have made it a point to get them on the 40-man and protect them from Rule 5.
MrCrowesGarden wrote:Also included in that 9 outfielders from last year was Matt Adams because reasons.
That's not much different than including Jose Martinez in the outfield discussion for the coming year.
It’s significantly different.
Can you elaborate on this?
I thought Martinez was awful, defensively.
I never said he was good defensively. Hes a bad defensive player but he’s worse when playing out of position (like those times he plays at first—he’s way worse there.)
Adams was supposed to be an emergency outfielder—like if Grichuk got hurt midgame and Martinez had already pinch hit. Only supposed to see outfield time in an absolute worst case scenario. Obviously that didn’t happen.
JL21 wrote:Good bench guys have value. Guys with ceilings of being a regular- cheap regulars for their cost-controlled years- have value. Guys outside of the top 100 can have value, and can especially have a lot of value if you're good at evaluating what they are, and finding ways to maximize their value. Which, by the way, the Cardinals have been as good at that as any franchise for the last decade.
And frankly, most teams DON'T have depth like that, they DON'T have guys like Bader, O'Neill, Adolis Garcia, etc... and certainly not in the volume that the Cardinals have them. That's not overestimating it. It's fact. A lot of mediocre or worse teams are in a bucket of syrup right now precisely because they don't develop cheap/effective regulars and bench options like these, so instead they give playing time to miserable scrubs.
So yeah... most of these guys (probably all) aren't going to be a difference maker. I get that. I just don't understand why that means they're useless or whatever, or we're relegating it to just naming all the OFers in the system. If they were that expendable, the franchise wouldn't have made it a point to get them on the 40-man and protect them from Rule 5.
I definitely don't think they're useless. I think they provide quality depth for the Cardinals. Players are going to get hurt plenty. Having guys like Bader or Garcia to step in during those spells, instead of someone like Mercado, might mean the difference between the Cardinals winning enough games to make the playoffs or not. If the Cards decide that they have too many outfielders and start sacrificing some of that depth, then they become the bucket of syrup that you're talking about.
I was 100% on board with trading Sierra and Piscotty. I'm fine with where we're at. I just disagree that we have "too many" outfielders.
MrCrowesGarden wrote:Also included in that 9 outfielders from last year was Matt Adams because reasons.
That's not much different than including Jose Martinez in the outfield discussion for the coming year.
It’s significantly different.
Can you elaborate on this?
I thought Martinez was awful, defensively.
I never said he was good defensively. Hes a bad defensive player but he’s worse when playing out of position (like those times he plays at first—he’s way worse there.)
Adams was supposed to be an emergency outfielder—like if Grichuk got hurt midgame and Martinez had already pinch hit. Only supposed to see outfield time in an absolute worst case scenario. Obviously that didn’t happen.
I guess I'm not understanding the difference.
Adams was awful outfield depth (defensively). Martinez is awful outfield depth (defensively). Where is the significant difference?
I know you’re not understanding the difference. Martinez is still a bad outfielder but you’re minimizing the damage by putting him at a corner outfield position which is where he plays his best defensively. You wouldn’t put him at shortstop—that’s basically what they did with Adams.
