Marcell Ozuna Watch - (Update: Traded to Cards Pg. 13)

[pioneer98]

That's what the Cardinals did last year and it was maddening.

Truth be told I think unless you believe you are one of the handful or so of worst teams in MLB you should always be buying... with the knowledge that there are windows when you probably should be buying *more.*

It gets more nuanced. It's all about savings and opportunity. Say you want to always keep an 80ish win team and a top 15 prospect pool. When the market makes your prospect pool above average, or your team gets closer to 90 wins, etc. Then spend a bit to get better and ride that out. If you keep the cost of aqcuiring talent low then you should be able to "ride out" that success for a few years, restock prospects and salary, and by the time you're back down to an 80 win team you have enough resources to "buy in" again.

You'll never have a 115 win super team but you should always be fighting to get into the playoffs and the offseasons will be exciting. No rebuilds, no attendance drop, etc.

Of course all it takes is one bad GM or one mismanaged season and you're a 100 loss team again. But if you can find that balance I think a team is better off trying to stay balanced between 70-90 wins as long as they can than go all-in or blow it all up and tilt too far in one other direction.

I get what you are saying but you really have to look at each season in context. Sometimes it absolutely makes sense to go big. One part of the context right now is too many outfielders. At some point it becomes inefficient to hang onto all these outfielders. That may mean making some trade that's "inefficient", but oh well. Keeping all of them would be a waste, too. At least by trading some of them you get something that fills some other need. As far as money goes, they really badly need that cornerstone player like Holliday was, and Albert before him. If you are somehow able to trade for Donaldson or Machado and get a contract extension, then you do it. Signing really good players to long term contracts goes a long ways to avoiding a boom/bust cycle, too. In fact that's how the Cardinals have done it in the past.

[Socnorb11]

I would disagree that the Cardinals have too many outfielders right now.

They have Pham, Fowler, Ozuna, Grichuk, and Jose Martinez (who may or may not be capable of making the team).

I guess you could make a case for Bader, but who knows if he's ready? So you MAYBE have 6 outfielders. That's not too many, considering the Cards had 9 different players see outfield time last year.

[MrCrowesGarden]

They also have Tyler O’Neill and Jose Adolis Garcia.

[pioneer98]

I would disagree that the Cardinals have too many outfielders right now.

They have Pham, Fowler, Ozuna, Grichuk, and Jose Martinez (who may or may not be capable of making the team).

I guess you could make a case for Bader, but who knows if he's ready? So you MAYBE have 6 outfielders. That's not too many, considering the Cards had 9 different players see outfield time last year.

I would also count Tyler O'Neill

[Socnorb11]

OK. So if you count the players on the farm who may be capable, we're up to 8 outfielders. As I said, we had 9 different guys play outfield last year (and so did the Cubs).

I don't think we have too many.

[ZigZagCardsFan]

I'm intrigued by Jose Adolis Garcia. Good AVG and plate discipline at AA and AAA last year. If he can add some more strength we may have a very solid bat there.

[JL21]

OK. So if you count the players on the farm who may be capable, we're up to 8 outfielders. As I said, we had 9 different guys play outfield last year (and so did the Cubs).

I don't think we have too many.

Except at some point, you run out of playing time for guys who need it to develop. If your MLB guys are Fowler, Pham, Grichuk, Martinez, Ozuna... then you have AAA time for Bader, O'Neill, and Adolis Garcia... and then you have to fit Randy Arozarena in there, and Oscar Mercado in some combo of AAA DH and AA full-time outfielders... and at least Bader and O'Neill are just about finished as prospects (meaning, they don't have a ton more to prove in the minors). Garcia could be ready soon depending on how he comes out of the gate, and both Arozarena and Mercado will need to be challenged at AAA soon. At some point, fruit dies on the vine. 2 months ago, that list would've included Sierra needing time in AA or AAA and Piscotty at the MLB level.

Or you end up stashing them on your 40 man to get around the Rule 5 draft and end up losing someone younger with a higher ceiling. They avoided the Rule 5 thing this year, but it was touch and go there for awhile.

Depth is great, and you can't always pick and choose how young guys develop. You can't always balance out your farm system that way. So yes, having 5 reasonable MLB outfielders plus 3 more guys banging their head against the MLB ceiling... that's a good problem to have, generally. But somewhere in there, it starts to cause ancillary problems, and the Cardinals were most certainly at that point. Still pretty much are, but a little bit less so after the Mags and Piscotty/Ozuna and IF depth deals.

[TheoSqua]

That's what the Cardinals did last year and it was maddening.

Truth be told I think unless you believe you are one of the handful or so of worst teams in MLB you should always be buying... with the knowledge that there are windows when you probably should be buying *more.*

It gets more nuanced. It's all about savings and opportunity. Say you want to always keep an 80ish win team and a top 15 prospect pool. When the market makes your prospect pool above average, or your team gets closer to 90 wins, etc. Then spend a bit to get better and ride that out. If you keep the cost of aqcuiring talent low then you should be able to "ride out" that success for a few years, restock prospects and salary, and by the time you're back down to an 80 win team you have enough resources to "buy in" again.

You'll never have a 115 win super team but you should always be fighting to get into the playoffs and the offseasons will be exciting. No rebuilds, no attendance drop, etc.

Of course all it takes is one bad GM or one mismanaged season and you're a 100 loss team again. But if you can find that balance I think a team is better off trying to stay balanced between 70-90 wins as long as they can than go all-in or blow it all up and tilt too far in one other direction.

I get what you are saying but you really have to look at each season in context. Sometimes it absolutely makes sense to go big. One part of the context right now is too many outfielders. At some point it becomes inefficient to hang onto all these outfielders. That may mean making some trade that's "inefficient", but oh well. Keeping all of them would be a waste, too. At least by trading some of them you get something that fills some other need. As far as money goes, they really badly need that cornerstone player like Holliday was, and Albert before him. If you are somehow able to trade for Donaldson or Machado and get a contract extension, then you do it. Signing really good players to long term contracts goes a long ways to avoiding a boom/bust cycle, too. In fact that's how the Cardinals have done it in the past.

I think we're saying the same thing but in different ways.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

If Pham can come close to replicating last year or regresses just a little, they have a pretty clear cut starting OF: Fowler in RF, Pham in CF, Ozuna in LF.

Grichuk can play all 3 OF positions and has a decentish bat. The 5th OF spot can be one of 4 guys (O'Neil, Bader, Garcia, Martinez)

That's a pretty deep outfield from top to bottom.

[MrCrowesGarden]

Also included in that 9 outfielders from last year was Matt Adams because reasons.