Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild

Discuss all things Cardinals Baseball
Post Reply
User avatar
MrCrowesGarden
'Burb Boy
Posts: 24841
Joined: July 9 06, 11:33 am
Location: Out of the Loop

Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild

Post by MrCrowesGarden »

Magneto2.0 wrote:
August 1 23, 4:29 pm
They got a top 60 prospect back and some decent pieces for 5 expiring contracts. That's a good haul imo

They got pretty much what I projected. Actually, even slightly better because I didn't think a top 100 prospect would come back. Unless they added a position player to one of these trades, they wasn't getting a 100% penciled in starter for next season. The Mets didn't even get that for Verlander and Scherzer.
They did good but didn’t hit their stated goal. I don’t think teams are going to be knocking down the door for Carlson or TON; this would’ve been a good time to move them.

jagtrader
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 12621
Joined: June 5 06, 10:01 am

Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild

Post by jagtrader »

Yes, they did fine.

We’ll wait and see about the off-season. Maybe a pitching version of Sean Murphy will be available and they can pass on that trade.

Socnorb11
The Last Word
Posts: 21906
Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am

Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild

Post by Socnorb11 »

MrCrowesGarden wrote:
August 1 23, 4:32 pm
Magneto2.0 wrote:
August 1 23, 4:29 pm
They got a top 60 prospect back and some decent pieces for 5 expiring contracts. That's a good haul imo

They got pretty much what I projected. Actually, even slightly better because I didn't think a top 100 prospect would come back. Unless they added a position player to one of these trades, they wasn't getting a 100% penciled in starter for next season. The Mets didn't even get that for Verlander and Scherzer.
They did good but didn’t hit their stated goal. I don’t think teams are going to be knocking down the door for Carlson or TON; this would’ve been a good time to move them.
I'm confused. If you think teams aren't that interested in TON or Carlson, why is this a good time to move them??

Magneto2.0
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 18089
Joined: June 16 07, 2:12 pm

Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild

Post by Magneto2.0 »

MrCrowesGarden wrote:
August 1 23, 4:32 pm
Magneto2.0 wrote:
August 1 23, 4:29 pm
They got a top 60 prospect back and some decent pieces for 5 expiring contracts. That's a good haul imo

They got pretty much what I projected. Actually, even slightly better because I didn't think a top 100 prospect would come back. Unless they added a position player to one of these trades, they wasn't getting a 100% penciled in starter for next season. The Mets didn't even get that for Verlander and Scherzer.
They did good but didn’t hit their stated goal. I don’t think teams are going to be knocking down the door for Carlson or TON; this would’ve been a good time to move them.
Was that their stated goal for the deadline or just going forward into next season? I guess it's hard to know exactly. I know the focus was pitching as they stated but honestly if Mo thought they was getting some bonafide "slot in tomorrow" controllable young starter for a bunch of expiring contracts than he clearly didn't realize what he has. Like I said, the Mets couldn't even get that, and that's with eating money and FAR better pitchers.

User avatar
MrCrowesGarden
'Burb Boy
Posts: 24841
Joined: July 9 06, 11:33 am
Location: Out of the Loop

Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild

Post by MrCrowesGarden »

Socnorb11 wrote:
August 1 23, 4:35 pm
MrCrowesGarden wrote:
August 1 23, 4:32 pm
Magneto2.0 wrote:
August 1 23, 4:29 pm
They got a top 60 prospect back and some decent pieces for 5 expiring contracts. That's a good haul imo

They got pretty much what I projected. Actually, even slightly better because I didn't think a top 100 prospect would come back. Unless they added a position player to one of these trades, they wasn't getting a 100% penciled in starter for next season. The Mets didn't even get that for Verlander and Scherzer.
They did good but didn’t hit their stated goal. I don’t think teams are going to be knocking down the door for Carlson or TON; this would’ve been a good time to move them.
I'm confused. If you think teams aren't that interested in TON or Carlson, why is this a good time to move them??
I should’ve clarified. I don’t think they’re going to be lining up in December.

User avatar
MrCrowesGarden
'Burb Boy
Posts: 24841
Joined: July 9 06, 11:33 am
Location: Out of the Loop

Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild

Post by MrCrowesGarden »

Magneto2.0 wrote:
August 1 23, 4:36 pm
MrCrowesGarden wrote:
August 1 23, 4:32 pm
Magneto2.0 wrote:
August 1 23, 4:29 pm
They got a top 60 prospect back and some decent pieces for 5 expiring contracts. That's a good haul imo

They got pretty much what I projected. Actually, even slightly better because I didn't think a top 100 prospect would come back. Unless they added a position player to one of these trades, they wasn't getting a 100% penciled in starter for next season. The Mets didn't even get that for Verlander and Scherzer.
They did good but didn’t hit their stated goal. I don’t think teams are going to be knocking down the door for Carlson or TON; this would’ve been a good time to move them.
Was that their stated goal for the deadline or just going forward into next season? I guess it's hard to know exactly. I know the focus was pitching as they stated but honestly if Mo thought they was getting some bonafide "slot in tomorrow" controllable young starter for a bunch of expiring contracts than he clearly didn't realize what he has. Like I said, the Mets couldn't even get that, and that's with eating money and FAR better pitchers.
I don’t think he thought that, but it is a very real possibility that Carlson and O’Neill see their trade values dip further. Packaging one with Jack would’ve been likelier to return a starter for next year.

jagtrader
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 12621
Joined: June 5 06, 10:01 am

Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild

Post by jagtrader »

O’Neill seemed like the best player to move. Edman a close second. Maybe no one wanted TON. Keeping guys until their value disappears is also the Cardinal Way. I’m sure Edman could bring a nice return.

Magneto2.0
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 18089
Joined: June 16 07, 2:12 pm

Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild

Post by Magneto2.0 »

MrCrowesGarden wrote:
August 1 23, 4:41 pm
Magneto2.0 wrote:
August 1 23, 4:36 pm
MrCrowesGarden wrote:
August 1 23, 4:32 pm
Magneto2.0 wrote:
August 1 23, 4:29 pm
They got a top 60 prospect back and some decent pieces for 5 expiring contracts. That's a good haul imo

They got pretty much what I projected. Actually, even slightly better because I didn't think a top 100 prospect would come back. Unless they added a position player to one of these trades, they wasn't getting a 100% penciled in starter for next season. The Mets didn't even get that for Verlander and Scherzer.
They did good but didn’t hit their stated goal. I don’t think teams are going to be knocking down the door for Carlson or TON; this would’ve been a good time to move them.
Was that their stated goal for the deadline or just going forward into next season? I guess it's hard to know exactly. I know the focus was pitching as they stated but honestly if Mo thought they was getting some bonafide "slot in tomorrow" controllable young starter for a bunch of expiring contracts than he clearly didn't realize what he has. Like I said, the Mets couldn't even get that, and that's with eating money and FAR better pitchers.
I don’t think he thought that, but it is a very real possibility that Carlson and O’Neill see their trade values dip further. Packaging one with Jack would’ve been likelier to return a starter for next year.
I agree. In think that was the only realistic chance to get a decent starter. It could be even adding them didn't up the ante as much as they thought.

User avatar
Joe Shlabotnik
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 24259
Joined: October 12 06, 2:21 pm
Location: Baseball Ref Bullpen
Contact:

Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild

Post by Joe Shlabotnik »

TGantz wrote:
August 1 23, 4:20 pm
... and Montgomery always seemed like he hated it here.
He was pretty damned stoked for Wainwright's star turn.

User avatar
TGantz
R-E-S-P-E-C-T...What Dr Pepper Means to Me
Posts: 6698
Joined: July 27 06, 11:59 pm
Location: The Lou

Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild

Post by TGantz »

Only a playoff contender would want Flaherty. A playoff contender that wants Flaherty would not give up solid pitching because an unpredictable OF was packaged with it. If they're interested in Flaherty, they don't have pitching to give.

Probably a better idea to wait until one of these contenders blows it in post season and starts shipping guys off.

Post Reply