Someone should say this out loud before we delve too deeply into the corporate double speak that permeates MLB press conferences these days: If the Cardinals keep Leahy, McGreevy and Pallante all in the rotation, they are punting next season.
All three of them exceeded their xERA. For McGreevy and Leahy, the gap was significant. What we saw from them this season was pretty much the best-case scenario. Their lack of strikeouts and high WHIPs are not conducive to continued success. You can have one guy like that. You can't have three.
Could they improve? Sure. Could the defense and Grand Canyon ballpark prop them up more? Absolutely. In fact, both probably will. But if the Cardinals are banking on that, they're not trying. Bloom knows those guys are smoke and mirrors far better than I do. So if he sticks with them, he's telling us he's looking at 2028.
Let us know how you would construct the rotation if you were Bloom.
The proposition is not to bring back the full trio, if I'm not mistaken.
For myself:
Trade McGreevy while you can. Put Libby in the pen. Add Mathews until he performs his way out of it. Swap in or spot start Cjintje whenever they think he's ready.
So that's Leahy, Pallante, and Mathews. Maybe Cjintje.
Projected payroll for 2027 is about $115M short of where they were in 2024. Minus maybe another $10 to $22M (I'm guessing) depending on what they do with arb guys and Stanek). And they now have what's considered a top farm system. I don't think it should be that hard to sign or trade for at least one pitcher better than those three. Enough room there to ditch Pallante (who's in year two of arb) too if you want.
I was interested in seeing names (from both you and the previous poster). Which free agent? Who are we trading for and who are we giving up?
And what is McGreevy bringing back in a trade?
Also I think this is really missing the point. The question implied is "are McGreevy, Pallante, and Leahy all together the best possible use of three rotation spots". I think that's obviously not true. If we were at near max payroll and we already had better pitchers, I could see an argument.
I'd ask these questions - "what's a realistic timeframe for the team to either:
a) put money into significantly improving the rotation?
b) build a playoff rotation from within?
Is it 2028? 2029? If so, why are those better and how does that answer your questions about free agents and trades differently?"
Or are we just betting that the rotation is filled with former prospects? I'd guess odds are that maybe one of Mathews, Cjintje, Doyle, Molina, Franklin, Fitts, Dobbins, etc... is a significant improvement over McG, Pallante, and Leahy. Maybe two? and who knows how long that takes to actually happen?
I understood the point. The original poster doesn't think having all 3 of those pitchers is a good idea.
My question to him and to you is who are we bringing in that will be better? And who are we getting for mcgreevy?
We still don’t have names.
But it’s very easy to say “get rid of these guys” without offering up specific solutions.
At some point the media should acknowledge that, whatever financial challenges the Cardinals are facing, they are the only team behaving in this manner. A compete refusal to spend. Other teams are dealing with lost revenue. Those teams didn’t draw 3 million fans with some of the highest TV ratings in the sport for a quarter century.
At the crux of this whole discussion is who they *should* spend on versus who they *will* spend on. The fact that they most likely won't is why jag is saying they are punting on 2027.
I named most of these before. The point is that they CAN easily pay a couple of those guys. I'd assume it isn't Bloom's fault that they won't, but upgrades are there.
What confuses me is why 2028 is supposedly an identified target date to spend money, because there's no reason to think anything with the rotation meaningfully changes between now and then. Especially since we're well under even what a presumed CBA floor might be.
That's my only issue with Bloom at the moment. He keeps throwing out this idea that spending in 2027 would somehow hinder development and what they're trying to build and I see no reason why it should.
They’re buying time for the Springfield brigade. If enough of those guys pan out, they can improve without spending or committing to long-term contracts. That’s the gambit.
