Cardinals checked in on Stanton

Discuss all things Cardinals Baseball
Post Reply
Online
User avatar
MrCrowesGarden
'Burb Boy
Posts: 23630
Joined: July 9 06, 11:33 am
Location: Out of the Loop

Re: Cardinals checked in on Stanton

Post by MrCrowesGarden »

Spider John wrote:I wonder if Mo knew he was trading for the player Gyorko has become.
I don't believe he did. Glad it's worked out, of course.

User avatar
MinorLeagueGuy
The Angst is Real
Posts: 18261
Joined: September 8 10, 2:57 pm

Re: Cardinals checked in on Stanton

Post by MinorLeagueGuy »

Spider John wrote:I wonder if Mo knew he was trading for the player Gyorko has become.
This, this, this. He did not. Jedd was not the guy he became here. Unless, regardless all of his stats vs the rest of the league, Moz took his sample vs the Cardinals.. Because Jedd was a Cardinal killer. Jedd played a variety of positions, but he was brought in to push Wong, and\or platoon with him. We've gotten a bit of lightning in a bottle though, so it may look like the acquisition was to intentionally add a "power hitting 3rd baseman". At the time, Marp was our power hitting 3rd baseman.

John got lucky. Where would this team be without JG?

Online
dmarx114
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 24006
Joined: December 20 07, 2:45 pm

Re: Cardinals checked in on Stanton

Post by dmarx114 »

jagtrader wrote:The trends aren't positive and there aren't any premium position players in the high minors. You can talk about what the Cardinals did from 2011-15 or you can acknowledge the direction they're headed. They haven't shown an inclination (or the aptitude) to trade the prospects or make the financial commitment required to add the type of player they claim to seek. Until they prove otherwise, it's not worth paying attention to the talk.
Mo traded for Heyward.

What "3 hole hitter" did they not pony up for in free agency that was out there over the last 2 years?

Online
dmarx114
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 24006
Joined: December 20 07, 2:45 pm

Re: Cardinals checked in on Stanton

Post by dmarx114 »

MrCrowesGarden wrote:Citing the total value of the contract for Leake and Fowler is pretty irrelevant because the Cardinals paid market price for 2-3 win (league average) players.

The money Fowler and Cecil are making this year is less than the money that went out with Holliday, Moss and Garcia.

Either you don't get the context of the contracts, or you're being willfully ignorant.
I don't want to make this about how much the Cards should be spending.

My point is simply that Mo is not content with an 85 win team. His activity in free agency over the last 2 years proves that.

User avatar
Farewell Friends
Snayke's Bottomline
Posts: 3888
Joined: August 3 16, 9:44 am

Re: Cardinals checked in on Stanton

Post by Farewell Friends »

If the Cardinals trade for a player and that player does well, it's luck.

Online
User avatar
MrCrowesGarden
'Burb Boy
Posts: 23630
Joined: July 9 06, 11:33 am
Location: Out of the Loop

Re: Cardinals checked in on Stanton

Post by MrCrowesGarden »

dmarx114 wrote:
MrCrowesGarden wrote:Citing the total value of the contract for Leake and Fowler is pretty irrelevant because the Cardinals paid market price for 2-3 win (league average) players.

The money Fowler and Cecil are making this year is less than the money that went out with Holliday, Moss and Garcia.

Either you don't get the context of the contracts, or you're being willfully ignorant.
I don't want to make this about how much the Cards should be spending.

My point is simply that Mo is not content with an 85 win team. His activity in free agency over the last 2 years proves that.
And I disagree. Acquiring average players is proof of that.

Online
User avatar
MrCrowesGarden
'Burb Boy
Posts: 23630
Joined: July 9 06, 11:33 am
Location: Out of the Loop

Re: Cardinals checked in on Stanton

Post by MrCrowesGarden »

dmarx114 wrote:
jagtrader wrote:The trends aren't positive and there aren't any premium position players in the high minors. You can talk about what the Cardinals did from 2011-15 or you can acknowledge the direction they're headed. They haven't shown an inclination (or the aptitude) to trade the prospects or make the financial commitment required to add the type of player they claim to seek. Until they prove otherwise, it's not worth paying attention to the talk.
Mo traded for Heyward.

What "3 hole hitter" did they not pony up for in free agency that was out there over the last 2 years?
Encarnacion or Turner.

Online
User avatar
MrCrowesGarden
'Burb Boy
Posts: 23630
Joined: July 9 06, 11:33 am
Location: Out of the Loop

Re: Cardinals checked in on Stanton

Post by MrCrowesGarden »

Farewell Friends wrote:If the Cardinals trade for a player and that player does well, it's luck.

To some degree, at least wrt Gyorko, I'd say yes?

I think Mo thought he was improving the bench with that acquisition, and instead he found a starter. Does that not seem fair?

User avatar
go birds
-go birds
Posts: 31896
Joined: February 5 10, 9:54 am

Re: Cardinals checked in on Stanton

Post by go birds »

jerko is just a guy who will be hot for a month or two and then turn back into jerko. this will happen once a year every year.

i wont pile on Mo for getting lucky w/r/t to jerko, but let's not act like he pulled a jocketty-style sneak attack.

jerko was once a top-rated prospect who fell from grace and was acquired for pennies on the dollar.

User avatar
Farewell Friends
Snayke's Bottomline
Posts: 3888
Joined: August 3 16, 9:44 am

Re: Cardinals checked in on Stanton

Post by Farewell Friends »

MrCrowesGarden wrote:I think Mo thought he was improving the bench with that acquisition, and instead he found a starter. Does that not seem fair?
I'm just trying to figure out when the Cardinals should get credit for something. Yes, Gyorko has exceeded expectations, but it's to their credit that they found a player who had room to grow. It seems like when the Cardinals do something right, they butt fumbled their way into a winning lottery ticket. Yet, if the Cubs turn Jake Arrieta and Kyle Hendricks into ERA title winners, why aren't the Cardinals doing that?

Post Reply