Page 22 of 139
Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild
Posted: July 12 23, 7:01 pm
by cardsfantx
Lol either 8 or 9, that’s still over half of the NL
Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild
Posted: July 12 23, 7:26 pm
by Popeye_Card
I think we all would have been pretty pissed if the Cardinals had spent any money or prospects to bring in a glove-first OF in the offseason while the glaring need was in the rotation.
I also think it is quite arbitrary to make “winning a game in the NLCS since 2014” to be the marker for success. The Cardinals have quite clearly slipped into complacency, I would argue since we reached our most recent peak in 2013 with a stacked MLB roster with the top farm system to boot. Time flies, but that’s now 10 years ago.
Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild
Posted: July 12 23, 7:49 pm
by Lesson
Popeye_Card wrote: ↑July 12 23, 7:26 pm
I think we all would have been pretty pissed if the Cardinals had spent any money or prospects to bring in a glove-first OF in the offseason while the glaring need was in the rotation.
I also think it is quite arbitrary to make “winning a game in the NLCS since 2014” to be the marker for success. The Cardinals have quite clearly slipped into complacency, I would argue since we reached our most recent peak in 2013 with a stacked MLB roster with the top farm system to boot. Time flies, but that’s now 10 years ago.
I think I'd disagree regarding the most recent peak-I think 2015 had a serious chance at winning the WS with the pitching. Alas, the only bat they brought in mid-season was Brandon Moss.
Otherwise, I agree with the general sentiment of your post.
Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild
Posted: July 13 23, 6:39 am
by Fan_In_NY
Lesson wrote: ↑July 12 23, 2:17 pm
haltz wrote: ↑July 12 23, 1:22 pm
Yeah they've definitely spent more than one $Scherzer on middling pitchers and (don't forget) relievers in recent memory with absolutely nothing to show for it.
I get the approach of not spending $ just to spend $, but still spending millions for below-average returns isn't wise. I get why they didn't sign Schezer when he went to the Mets. I don't get why they didn't sign guys like Cobb, Eovaldi, or Wacha in terms of their average salary price points.
I think the issue with the Cards going out and realistically signing Cobb, Eovaldi or Wacha, is that while everyone agreed that the Cards had room to improve their pitching, they had a full rotation. Obviously every team ends up needing more than 5 starters to get through the season, but those guys you listed above - Cobb, Eovaldi, and Wacha - aren't signing to be the potential 6th guys/swing guy - and the Cardinals didn't want to relegate any of their 5 (Mikolas, Flaherty, Montgomery, Wainwright, and Matz) to that role - whether due to loyalty or $ commitment. Free agent pitchers are going to want to know that they are going to pitch, and I don't think the Cardinals were going to be able to guarentee anything other than "Maybe someone gets hurt" or "we will have a competition for the 4th/5th/6th starter spot". The 6th Starter/Swingman normally is filled with in-house options which Liberatore and Dakota Hudson would be the type of pitcher that would fill that spot, not a free agent starter for $10M.
Eovaldi was signed to a Rangers team that had DeGrom, Martin Perez, Jon Gray, Heaney with the internal option of Dane Dunning as their swingman - clear spot in the top 5 pecking order for Eovaldi.
Cobb was also clearly signed to be a top 5 pitcher for the Giants - the free agent types that the Giants spent for swing type options were Manaea and Ross Stripling - those are the type of pitchers that maybe the Cardinals could have wooed to a "Fingers crossed for you that someone gets hurt or under performs" deal.
Wacha and Seth Lugo were pretty clear 4 and 5th starters with the Padres with Weathers the internal option being the 6th "maybe someone gets hurt and you can be a swingman options".
I think if Wainwright was declared hurt much earlier in the offseason, or if the Cards had seen a second season of Matz where they may have felt that he is a swingman at best, maybe they would have had a clear spot for one of the free agent starters, but they just werent an attractive options for someone above the Manaea/Stripling level of talent.
Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild
Posted: July 13 23, 7:21 am
by Magneto2.0
Speaking of Cobb, how was there such a big jump in strikeouts and drop in HRs the last 3 seasons compared to his career prior? Did he learn a new pitch?
Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild
Posted: July 13 23, 7:59 am
by Lesson
Fan_In_NY wrote: ↑July 13 23, 6:39 am
I think the issue with the Cards going out and realistically signing Cobb, Eovaldi or Wacha, is that while everyone agreed that the Cards had room to improve their pitching, they had a full rotation. Obviously every team ends up needing more than 5 starters to get through the season, but those guys you listed above - Cobb, Eovaldi, and Wacha - aren't signing to be the potential 6th guys/swing guy - and the Cardinals didn't want to relegate any of their 5 (Mikolas, Flaherty, Montgomery, Wainwright, and Matz) to that role - whether due to loyalty or $ commitment. Free agent pitchers are going to want to know that they are going to pitch, and I don't think the Cardinals were going to be able to guarentee anything other than "Maybe someone gets hurt" or "we will have a competition for the 4th/5th/6th starter spot". The 6th Starter/Swingman normally is filled with in-house options which Liberatore and Dakota Hudson would be the type of pitcher that would fill that spot, not a free agent starter for $10M.
Eovaldi was signed to a Rangers team that had DeGrom, Martin Perez, Jon Gray, Heaney with the internal option of Dane Dunning as their swingman - clear spot in the top 5 pecking order for Eovaldi.
Cobb was also clearly signed to be a top 5 pitcher for the Giants - the free agent types that the Giants spent for swing type options were Manaea and Ross Stripling - those are the type of pitchers that maybe the Cardinals could have wooed to a "Fingers crossed for you that someone gets hurt or under performs" deal.
Wacha and Seth Lugo were pretty clear 4 and 5th starters with the Padres with Weathers the internal option being the 6th "maybe someone gets hurt and you can be a swingman options".
I think if Wainwright was declared hurt much earlier in the offseason, or if the Cards had seen a second season of Matz where they may have felt that he is a swingman at best, maybe they would have had a clear spot for one of the free agent starters, but they just werent an attractive options for someone above the Manaea/Stripling level of talent.
I understand the loyalty to Wainwright, but there's no world where a 43-year-old pitcher should be blocking an acquisition of an improvement in the rotation. Wainwright had injuries at the end of 2022 and retiring during Molina's and Pujols' final season would have been a fitting way to ride out into the sunset.
Similar to Matz, the financial commitment made to him shouldn't prevent the team from trying to improve. He has serious durability concerns and should be viewed as more of a potential back-end of the rotation or swing guy, regardless of his contract. If he isn't able to stay healthy, he isn't able to help the team.
Going into 2022, the FO said they'd invest in pitching after reviving the corpses of Happ and Lester to eat innings from late July onward. They did the bare minimum and rectified their mistake by acquiring Montgomery (which I think was a really good trade and the FO deserves credit on) as well as acquiring a possible 6th starter/swing guy in Quintana, who they could have acquired before the season.
They keep making the same mistakes and relying internally on their own pitchers when they aren't good enough. Hudson/Liberatore are OK depth as like 7th or 8th starters for now-I don't think Hudson is a starter long-term and Liberatore is TBD- but they shouldn't be penciled in the rotation every fifth day as of now.
Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild
Posted: July 13 23, 8:00 am
by dmarx114
Since 2010, half the teams in baseball have reached the World Series.
Clearly, the Yankees are failures since they are in the same group as the Marlins, Reds, Pirates, Rockies, and Diamondbacks.
When will that organization ever turn things around?
Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild
Posted: July 13 23, 8:16 am
by MrCrowesGarden
I mean, if you need help understanding why the Yankees haven't won an NLCS game, this probably isn't the forum for you.
Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild
Posted: July 13 23, 8:22 am
by Lesson
MrCrowesGarden wrote: ↑July 13 23, 8:16 am
I mean, if you need help understanding why the Yankees haven't won an NLCS game, this probably isn't the forum for you.
To be fair, I think the Steinnbrenners should be just as scrutinized as DeWitt.
Their reluctance to pay the luxury tax has impacted some of their decision-making.
Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild
Posted: July 13 23, 8:27 am
by MrCrowesGarden
Lesson wrote: ↑July 13 23, 8:22 am
MrCrowesGarden wrote: ↑July 13 23, 8:16 am
I mean, if you need help understanding why the Yankees haven't won an NLCS game, this probably isn't the forum for you.
To be fair, I think the Steinnbrenners should be just as scrutinized as DeWitt.
Their reluctance to pay the luxury tax has impacted some of their decision-making.
Of course, they have more money than God and should use it. George wouldn't have stood for it.