My prediction: We sign Robert for a total of $65 mil. Yours?

[sighyoung]

I say they'll bid $65 million and $1.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

I hope we sign him.

That said, it's at least a tad humorous to see people getting this worked up over a teenager but not when they go cheap on MLB stars.

Do you really not understand the difference or are you just trying to start arguments?

There's a huge difference between signing a 19 year old compared to a 30 year old. I thought people understood this by now, but position players peak in their 20s.



Wanting to sign, say, Machado and Robert are not mutually exclusive.

That said, it's incredible how little people understand that the Cardinals simply aren't capable of spending as much as the Yankees or Boston or whoever.

It's well understood but thanks for the condescension. I'd also say we're a lot closer to the Yankees or Red Sox than you're letting on.

Since Holliday, This team has been reticent to pay the price to acquire a superstar, whether that's in the form of dollars or prospects. So, they'll try to acquire someone who COULD be a superstar. I get that. Of course, Robert could flame out just as well. We've seen it with international teenage free agents plenty before. I think there are cases where it makes more sense to invest in the major league club for immediate help. Maybe you end up paying more than you want on the back end, but there are cases-- and I think it is with this team as constructed-- where it makes sense to overpay a David Price, for example.

Wanting Robert and Machado aren't mutually exclusive, but if it was, I'd absolutely take Machado without blinking. I'm not sure others on this board would say the same.

Pretty sure the condescension started in the first post, and I simply continued it.
Now, onto the real stuff.

It absolutely makes sense to overpay for a David Price, and they tried. They, the Cardinals, thought they had him; hell, David Price even thought he was going to be a Cardinal. Then, the Red Sox, a team with much more financial might, swept in and paid an extra $20 someodd million if I remember correctly.

That's not the Cardinals being cheap. That's the economics of baseball today. I'm not going to debate back and forth how much more the Cardinals can afford to spend. Can they spend some more? Yes. Can they spend as much as the yanks and red sox? No.

For comparison, according to Forbes, the Cardinals generate revenue of $310M/year with a profit of $40M. The Red Sox generate $440M in revenue with a profit of $78M. The Yankees generate $525M/year with a profit of $40M. That's a lot of extra 'dry powder' to borrow Mozeliak's favorite term.

I imagine when contract terms are included, a lot of people (myself likely included) will lean towards Robert over Machado. Maybe.

Machado is going to be, what, 26 when he hits FA. Right at his peak. I'd love to have him; he's amongst the best players in the games. If it costs 10/400 for Machado's 26-36 years, sheesh, I don't know. Glad I don't have to make that decision. If Forbes is to be believed, that signing alone would eat up the Cardinals margins.

If it costs $75M for Roberts ~20-26 (21-27 maybe) years, then that could be a bargain depending on what the scouts think. I've yet to read a negative scouting report which isn't to say one doesn't or shouldn't exist.

Regardless, I think we can all agree that $40M/year, especially in the later half of the contract, is a bigger risk even for Machado than $12.5M/year on a guy like Robert. Even if Robert is half the player Machado is, the Cardinals would still control his entire peak at a fraction of the cost and none of the substantial decline.

[MrCrowesGarden]

I hope we sign him.

That said, it's at least a tad humorous to see people getting this worked up over a teenager but not when they go cheap on MLB stars.

Do you really not understand the difference or are you just trying to start arguments?

There's a huge difference between signing a 19 year old compared to a 30 year old. I thought people understood this by now, but position players peak in their 20s.



Wanting to sign, say, Machado and Robert are not mutually exclusive.

That said, it's incredible how little people understand that the Cardinals simply aren't capable of spending as much as the Yankees or Boston or whoever.

It's well understood but thanks for the condescension. I'd also say we're a lot closer to the Yankees or Red Sox than you're letting on.

Since Holliday, This team has been reticent to pay the price to acquire a superstar, whether that's in the form of dollars or prospects. So, they'll try to acquire someone who COULD be a superstar. I get that. Of course, Robert could flame out just as well. We've seen it with international teenage free agents plenty before. I think there are cases where it makes more sense to invest in the major league club for immediate help. Maybe you end up paying more than you want on the back end, but there are cases-- and I think it is with this team as constructed-- where it makes sense to overpay a David Price, for example.

Wanting Robert and Machado aren't mutually exclusive, but if it was, I'd absolutely take Machado without blinking. I'm not sure others on this board would say the same.

Pretty sure the condescension started in the first post, and I simply continued it.
Now, onto the real stuff.

It absolutely makes sense to overpay for a David Price, and they tried. They, the Cardinals, thought they had him; hell, David Price even thought he was going to be a Cardinal. Then, the Red Sox, a team with much more financial might, swept in and paid an extra $20 someodd million if I remember correctly.

That's not the Cardinals being cheap. That's the economics of baseball today. I'm not going to debate back and forth how much more the Cardinals can afford to spend. Can they spend some more? Yes. Can they spend as much as the yanks and red sox? No.

For comparison, according to Forbes, the Cardinals generate revenue of $310M/year with a profit of $40M. The Red Sox generate $440M in revenue with a profit of $78M. The Yankees generate $525M/year with a profit of $40M. That's a lot of extra 'dry powder' to borrow Mozeliak's favorite term.

I imagine when contract terms are included, a lot of people (myself likely included) will lean towards Robert over Machado. Maybe.

Machado is going to be, what, 26 when he hits FA. Right at his peak. I'd love to have him; he's amongst the best players in the games. If it costs 10/400 for Machado's 26-36 years, sheesh, I don't know. Glad I don't have to make that decision. If Forbes is to be believed, that signing alone would eat up the Cardinals margins.

If it costs $75M for Roberts ~20-26 (21-27 maybe) years, then that could be a bargain depending on what the scouts think. I've yet to read a negative scouting report which isn't to say one doesn't or shouldn't exist.

Regardless, I think we can all agree that $40M/year, especially in the later half of the contract, is a bigger risk even for Machado than $12.5M/year on a guy like Robert. Even if Robert is half the player Machado is, the Cardinals would still control his entire peak at a fraction of the cost and none of the substantial decline.

I'm not sure that I agree. I'm honestly not trying to be a contrarian, but Robert is a 19 year old kid. We've all seen the same scouting videos. I can see why the reports on him are good, but the book on him still has to be relatively short, if only because of his age and where he's from. I mean, there's a real chance he becomes 0% of the player Machado is at the major league level.

Machado will cost a lot more, but I have less reason to doubt he'll be a great player for years to come. Those last few years of the deal in all likelihood would be lean, but I'll deal with that for the first 6-7 that should be damn good. It's like the Peralta contract on a grand scheme. I don't think any of us regret Moz signing Jhonny to that deal even if he's been dog slop this year (and I think part of that is still lingering affects from last year's injury. )

[Tim]

[lukethedrifter]

Could imagine the comfort level in a city with a sizable Latino population might factor.

[MinorLeagueGuy]

This has always been about money. If all of a sudden it's about playing with Moncada and the rest of their 2016 offseason spoils then I'd be extremely shocked.

[go birds]

Who is ryan McGuffey that hails from Chicago Illinois and doesn't have a blue check mark and also claiming the whitesox lead?

[Tim]

Who is ryan McGuffey that hails from Chicago Illinois and doesn't have a blue check mark and also claiming the whitesox lead?

Looks like he works for CSN Chicago.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

I'm not sure that I agree. I'm honestly not trying to be a contrarian, but Robert is a 19 year old kid. We've all seen the same scouting videos. I can see why the reports on him are good, but the book on him still has to be relatively short, if only because of his age and where he's from. I mean, there's a real chance he becomes 0% of the player Machado is at the major league level.

Machado will cost a lot more, but I have less reason to doubt he'll be a great player for years to come. Those last few years of the deal in all likelihood would be lean, but I'll deal with that for the first 6-7 that should be damn good. It's like the Peralta contract on a grand scheme. I don't think any of us regret Moz signing Jhonny to that deal even if he's been dog slop this year (and I think part of that is still lingering affects from last year's injury. )

I think there are some pretty absolute truths here that we agree upon.
Machado is a proven commodity. It's almost impossible to project someone to be as good as Machado who has been worth about 5 wins a year with 3 years above 6 WAR. There's just no way to know if a player will be that productive without actually throwing them into the fire. Players with tools fail all the time, as you mention.

In a heads up, no contract/no money baseball only decision for two years, I'd guess 99% of people would prefer Machado or any MLB superstar (eg, Trout, Harper) and even some not so superstars but damn good players (eg, Dozier, Yellich) and probably even some just so so guys (eg Wong). I think we can agree this is pretty factual.

Of course, we all know this isn't reality. Contract length and money are just as big a part of the decision as talent.

Regarding Johnny, I think the signing has been a successful one. He performed well the first couple years, not so well last year, and has fallen off a cliff this year and might not even get his roster spot back. But, it was known at the time of the signing the 4th year was a bad idea and it's bearing fruit now. Still he earned the entire contract in the first few years.

And, if it was guaranteed that Machado would follow a similar path where he earns the entirety of his contract value (ie, $400M if it's a 10/400) over the first 6/7 years, was about replacement level for 1/2, then sat for 1/2, I think people would be much more inclined to sign him. That said, there's no guarantee that happens. The one good thing Machado (and Harper) have going for them is they'll be hitting FA in the mid 20s which is a lot better than early 30s.

[MrCrowesGarden]