I agree with this. I also don't value defense to the same degree. YMMV.Popeye_Card wrote: ↑August 3 22, 11:14 amI think the main problem with the Cardinal OF's post-Holliday is that they've been driven by defense with feast/famine type offensive performers. Defense and solid baserunning drive good WAR values, but stuck in your memory is yet another strikeout with RISP by Grichuk/Bader/O'Neill/etc.Transmogrified Tiger wrote: ↑August 3 22, 10:47 amIs it fair to question the premise about the outfield? Here's the fWAR rank of Cardinal OFs in recent years:
2022: 7th
2021: 3rd
2020: 19th
2019: 20th
2018: 9th
2017: 5th
2016: 13th
2015: 3rd
Far from unanimous success and there hasn't been tentpole stars like the infield has more consistently had, but man if that's an example of "can't get it right" then you're in good shape.
Nationals open up trade offers on Soto
- MrCrowesGarden
- 'Burb Boy
- Posts: 23630
- Joined: July 9 06, 11:33 am
- Location: Out of the Loop
Re: Nationals open up trade offers on Soto
-
- Hall Of Famer
- Posts: 24002
- Joined: December 20 07, 2:45 pm
Re: Nationals open up trade offers on Soto
This is fair.Transmogrified Tiger wrote: ↑August 3 22, 10:47 amIs it fair to question the premise about the outfield? Here's the fWAR rank of Cardinal OFs in recent years:
2022: 7th
2021: 3rd
2020: 19th
2019: 20th
2018: 9th
2017: 5th
2016: 13th
2015: 3rd
Far from unanimous success and there hasn't been tentpole stars like the infield has more consistently had, but man if that's an example of "can't get it right" then you're in good shape.
- pioneer98
- Hall Of Famer
- Posts: 22249
- Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
- Location: High A Minors
Re: Nationals open up trade offers on Soto
Right. When we say we're mad at Mo, what we're really saying is we don't like the Ivy League douchebag that DeWitt hired to do his biddingcardsfantx wrote: ↑August 2 22, 12:14 pmWAS took a worse deal...even without Carlson, it's a worse deal they took, so not much we can do in regards to the Soto deal. that trade for WAS is still horrible and cannot believe they sent Bell as well.ghostrunner wrote: ↑August 2 22, 12:08 pmI don’t say this kind of thing often because I think it’s easy to do worse, BUT I think this should do it for Mo. Flores has done his job and gotten the kind of prospects that made us one of two teams seriously in on this, so we know the interest was there. Mo’s job is to come through and beat the other team. If we’re really going to build on prospects we don’t need a GM/PoBO that can’t get this kind of deal done anyway. I thought Quintana was a perfect set up to then follow through on Soto. Still a perfectly nice deal but not the kind of thing any other club can’t do. It’s also not just this. Our pitching problems at the start of the season are perennial, while other clubs seem to make deals with solid pitchers. If he won’t or can’t spend AND can’t make deals, that’s no good. Just think I’ve seen enough to finally have this opinion.
DeWitt is not a hands-off owner...he's in this with Mo and would have a final say so on trades, so we can be mad at Mo all we want, but this is DeWitt's call. this goes for this trade deadline, any offseason targets, etc. Mo targets them and works on the deal, but Mo works within the framework he is given by ownership, and they make the final call.
- pioneer98
- Hall Of Famer
- Posts: 22249
- Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
- Location: High A Minors
Re: Nationals open up trade offers on Soto
Problem is, if we have good prospects come up and become stars, then that just means they can save $$$ in other areas, right? The goal is 85-90 wins regardless of how you get there. The good prospects just make it cheaper to get there. Just because they have a batch of good prospects come up doesn't mean they are going to suddenly start aiming for 95-100 winsghostrunner wrote: ↑August 2 22, 12:33 pmLeaving out who was on the other end, I’m glad on some level that we still have Winn, Walker, Gorman. I’m excited to see what happens with them. Still would’ve preferred Soto to keeping all of them and I think Mo (and whoever else) blew it.
-
- The Last Word
- Posts: 21588
- Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am
Re: Nationals open up trade offers on Soto
Payroll has been pretty consistent over the years, regardless of roster construction. I wouldn't expect that to change. Developing productive players and spending wisely will always be the key, based on what they're willing to spend.pioneer98 wrote: ↑August 3 22, 4:45 pmProblem is, if we have good prospects come up and become stars, then that just means they can save $$$ in other areas, right? The goal is 85-90 wins regardless of how you get there. The good prospects just make it cheaper to get there. Just because they have a batch of good prospects come up doesn't mean they are going to suddenly start aiming for 95-100 winsghostrunner wrote: ↑August 2 22, 12:33 pmLeaving out who was on the other end, I’m glad on some level that we still have Winn, Walker, Gorman. I’m excited to see what happens with them. Still would’ve preferred Soto to keeping all of them and I think Mo (and whoever else) blew it.
- MrCrowesGarden
- 'Burb Boy
- Posts: 23630
- Joined: July 9 06, 11:33 am
- Location: Out of the Loop
Re: Nationals open up trade offers on Soto
What if they don’t develop into stars?
-
- The Last Word
- Posts: 21588
- Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am
Re: Nationals open up trade offers on Soto
Then we continue to get what we get, I suppose.
-
- Hall Of Famer
- Posts: 17324
- Joined: June 16 07, 2:12 pm
Re: Nationals open up trade offers on Soto
I know it's over now so it doesn't matter but Bernie Miklasz said he was told the Cardinals also informed Gorman he was not being traded, same way they did Carlson.
- MrCrowesGarden
- 'Burb Boy
- Posts: 23630
- Joined: July 9 06, 11:33 am
- Location: Out of the Loop
Re: Nationals open up trade offers on Soto
LOL so what was the offer
- cardinalkarp
- Hall Of Famer
- Posts: 17990
- Joined: May 4 06, 8:44 am
Re: Nationals open up trade offers on Soto
I think we’re starting to see that ownership did put in a second place bid, and had no intentions of acquiring Soto unless Washington decided to take a much lesser offer.Magneto2.0 wrote: ↑August 4 22, 9:53 amI know it's over now so it doesn't matter but Bernie Miklasz said he was told the Cardinals also informed Gorman he was not being traded, same way they did Carlson.
It never made sense to me that Washington just decided to take a “lesser” package from SD, well it sounds like it’s because they didn’t.