Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild

[Magneto2.0]

The most striking part of that interview was Mozeliak thought Nootbaar, O’Neill and Carlson could be an acceptable outfield for a contending team. Goes back to the presumption everyone will reach their top level outcome and no one will get injured despite one of those guys constantly being injured.

This is my main issue with them. Even in their worst case scenario vision it's "Well, even if this doesn't work out, the rest of the team is good enough to at least have us hovering around .500 in a weak division, so if it's still an issue by the trade deadline, we'll just make the trade to put us over the top." They never thought for once it would be THIS bad. Which shows a lack of foresight or just straight arrogance. Pick your poison.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Thanks for sharing, Magneto. I think it's mostly fair, but I'd disagree with with him about saying they aren't arrogant or complacent. They very much are. I also know he's pointing to the Mets (and to some extent the Padres) about teams that spent more and aren't thriving, but recent history shows spenders win.

I think there's two refinements I'd make to this. One is that recent history doesn't show that spenders always win, if you look at the last 5 or so years the win totals have as many non-spenders(Tampa, Milwaukee, Cleveland, etc) as big spenders(Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, etc). They do rarely lose as big as the Cardinals are this year though. The other is that especially in the last couple years, spending on free agency in particular hasn't been a great path to consistent success or even short term success. Contrast the short and long term fortunes of the Mets and Phillies with the Dodgers and Braves, all 4 are among the highest payroll teams and none of them have ignored free agency altogether, but the consistency of success among those who use it to supplement talent they developed/extended(Dodgers/Braves) vs. the main driver of their payroll(Mets/Phillies) is pretty clear this year in particular.

[WAR God]

But Alcantara, Gallen, Arozarena, and Garcia not being on the Cardinals are mistakes he has to own, and he does. We can't crush Mo for not being able to spend money he isn't allowed to spend, but he has to be better in trades. Mo will have the opportunity to prove himself this deadline and next off season to fix the rotation and bullpen.

Great, he owns the mistakes of trading away great players… that they failed to develop or even understood that they had them in the system. What does owning it have to do with anything? They’re still playing for other teams.

As for proving himself, I think we have enough data to suggest it’s not gonna be an elite team under his watch. I want to watch an elite team.

[ThatGuy]

It's really unfortunate that it took a historically bad season for Mo to be even somewhat contrite. I'm glad he's finally having to eat it publicly, but I still get way too much of the "most of it has been beyond our control" vibe from his answers. There's definitely been some bad luck, but if they had used their abundant resources to draft, develop, and plan/strategize at a consistently high level, I struggle to think the team would be in such a sh*tty position.

If this actually motivates him to reevaluate his approach (hopefully along with DeWitt), that's a positive development. But the Cardinals have been pretty unremarkable for about the past eight seasons—this isn't a new problem. I guess they have to decide if they want to reinforce or further erode the franchise's legacy.

[MrCrowesGarden]

Thanks for sharing, Magneto. I think it's mostly fair, but I'd disagree with with him about saying they aren't arrogant or complacent. They very much are. I also know he's pointing to the Mets (and to some extent the Padres) about teams that spent more and aren't thriving, but recent history shows spenders win.

I think there's two refinements I'd make to this. One is that recent history doesn't show that spenders always win, if you look at the last 5 or so years the win totals have as many non-spenders(Tampa, Milwaukee, Cleveland, etc) as big spenders(Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, etc). They do rarely lose as big as the Cardinals are this year though. The other is that especially in the last couple years, spending on free agency in particular hasn't been a great path to consistent success or even short term success. Contrast the short and long term fortunes of the Mets and Phillies with the Dodgers and Braves, all 4 are among the highest payroll teams and none of them have ignored free agency altogether, but the consistency of success among those who use it to supplement talent they developed/extended(Dodgers/Braves) vs. the main driver of their payroll(Mets/Phillies) is pretty clear this year in particular.

Tampa, Milwaukee and Cleveland have all won zero World Series in the last 5 years. Only one of those teams have even won a World Series at all, and they are the team with the longest active drought. The Red Sox and Dodgers have won a World Series in that timeframe.

I also would agree that the Braves and Dodgers and Astros being good at draft and develop is important, I don't want to rule it out. But the Cardinals are so afraid of the deep end of free agency that it limits their positive outcomes. They've hit on a few of the lottery tickets, but their only external free agents that they've signed for $5 million or more total value since 2016 that have worked have come from overseas: Mikolas, Oh, and Kim. Here's the rest of that list:

Mike Leake
Brayan Pena
Jonathan Broxton
Dexter Fowler
Brett Cecil
Greg Holland
Luke Gregerson
Andrew Miller
Corey Dickerson
Steven Matz
Willson Contreras (there is probably hope there, as @cardsfantx pointed out)

[Magneto2.0]

Thanks for sharing, Magneto. I think it's mostly fair, but I'd disagree with with him about saying they aren't arrogant or complacent. They very much are. I also know he's pointing to the Mets (and to some extent the Padres) about teams that spent more and aren't thriving, but recent history shows spenders win.

I think there's two refinements I'd make to this. One is that recent history doesn't show that spenders always win, if you look at the last 5 or so years the win totals have as many non-spenders(Tampa, Milwaukee, Cleveland, etc) as big spenders(Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, etc). They do rarely lose as big as the Cardinals are this year though. The other is that especially in the last couple years, spending on free agency in particular hasn't been a great path to consistent success or even short term success. Contrast the short and long term fortunes of the Mets and Phillies with the Dodgers and Braves, all 4 are among the highest payroll teams and none of them have ignored free agency altogether, but the consistency of success among those who use it to supplement talent they developed/extended(Dodgers/Braves) vs. the main driver of their payroll(Mets/Phillies) is pretty clear this year in particular.

This is a fair point. The one thing the Dodgers have done is develop high end talent and then extend them and bring in talent to surround them through free agency and smart trades.

I feel the Cardinals probably get the most value of their low end prospects, but probably get the least value out of their high end prospects in recent years. Which leads to a lot of "solid" contributors but no all-stars. We haven't developed a great everyday play since Matt Carpenter? And for starters, Carlos Martinez for a couple of years? Flaherty for 1 year and a half?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Thanks for sharing, Magneto. I think it's mostly fair, but I'd disagree with with him about saying they aren't arrogant or complacent. They very much are. I also know he's pointing to the Mets (and to some extent the Padres) about teams that spent more and aren't thriving, but recent history shows spenders win.

I think there's two refinements I'd make to this. One is that recent history doesn't show that spenders always win, if you look at the last 5 or so years the win totals have as many non-spenders(Tampa, Milwaukee, Cleveland, etc) as big spenders(Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, etc). They do rarely lose as big as the Cardinals are this year though. The other is that especially in the last couple years, spending on free agency in particular hasn't been a great path to consistent success or even short term success. Contrast the short and long term fortunes of the Mets and Phillies with the Dodgers and Braves, all 4 are among the highest payroll teams and none of them have ignored free agency altogether, but the consistency of success among those who use it to supplement talent they developed/extended(Dodgers/Braves) vs. the main driver of their payroll(Mets/Phillies) is pretty clear this year in particular.

Tampa, Milwaukee and Cleveland have all won zero World Series in the last 5 years. Only one of those teams have even won a World Series at all, and they are the team with the longest active drought. The Red Sox and Dodgers have won a World Series in that timeframe.

I wouldn't use the outcome of playoff roulette as validation of particular methods of team building, but the point isn't that frugality is a virtue. If you spend more you're more likely to have a better team than if you didn't. It's that a lot of these conversations get reduced down to spending being the singular axis that defines how you can be consistently successful, for a bunch of understandable reasons(it's within a team's control, righteous indignation at the people who own teams, etc). In practice, the structure of roster building has been on a slow slide such that spending is less correlated with building a great team as it's ever been, at least without other qualifiers. The Mets are proof positive that you can't free agent your way to consistent 95 win seasons, because free agent classes get older/worse nearly every year, player development narrows the margins at the ends of rosters, etc. In some ways this should be encouraging for the Cardinals, because they've long done well with player development and acquiring impact players outside of free agency. At the same time, player development outcomes are the results of your work from 5 years ago, and as a lagging indicator that means this year's reversion should be as worrisome on that part of the process as it is an indictment of not having paid for Nathan Eovaldi or whatever spending was preferred but nixed by ownership.

[phins]

Thanks for sharing, Magneto. I think it's mostly fair, but I'd disagree with with him about saying they aren't arrogant or complacent. They very much are. I also know he's pointing to the Mets (and to some extent the Padres) about teams that spent more and aren't thriving, but recent history shows spenders win.

I think there's two refinements I'd make to this. One is that recent history doesn't show that spenders always win, if you look at the last 5 or so years the win totals have as many non-spenders(Tampa, Milwaukee, Cleveland, etc) as big spenders(Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, etc). They do rarely lose as big as the Cardinals are this year though. The other is that especially in the last couple years, spending on free agency in particular hasn't been a great path to consistent success or even short term success. Contrast the short and long term fortunes of the Mets and Phillies with the Dodgers and Braves, all 4 are among the highest payroll teams and none of them have ignored free agency altogether, but the consistency of success among those who use it to supplement talent they developed/extended(Dodgers/Braves) vs. the main driver of their payroll(Mets/Phillies) is pretty clear this year in particular.

Teams are simply smarter and employing the easy buttons of getting simple value. Data is pervasive in this game and it has sort of leveled the margins that spending teams previously enjoyed by simply being able to throw more resources at mistakes or weaknesses.

Most teams don't go into a season with as many glaring and clear weaknesses as the Cardinals did with their SP and OF defense.

[haltz]

There's something a little backwards here where it doesn't make sense for bad teams to spend money. Are teams good because they spend or do they spend because they're good? It does make sense for teams with a good foundation to go into the free agent market to put them over the top, which is what's been frustrating about the Cardinals.

It's of course both because there's no way to add 30 wins through free agency.

[Famous Mortimer]

I like him. I like his bat. But if he's truly going to be catching less and less it's hard to see how it makes a lot of sense. Especially for a 5 year contract. Unless we're just settled on him as DH, in which case fine, but then we should work around that with the rest of the roster.

if

Maybe their plans will change. Maybe their plans were never firm in the first place.