GatewayRedbirds.com

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:I really agree with what MCG said. Let me ask you, at what point do you start worrying about players not wanting to come to StL instead of to the Cubs, or White Sox or (insert team here) when all things else are the same? Because, like I said in a previous post, Heyward flat out chose the Cubs over the Cardinals, Robert flat out chose the White Sox over the Cardinals, there were rumors that Turner wanted to stay in LA instead of entertaining offers from StL, if you add stanton to the list...that's a lot of high profile players refusing to come to StL that they really or at least moderately wanted to sign in the last 3 years? And, I can't really remember it ever happening before. Maybe some situations like Turner's get glossed over, but the Robert and Heyward decisions seemed to be unique at the time and are becoming common place anymore.

What can you say to that? Heyward had the opportunity to go and play for what was (and probably still is) one of the best constructed teams in recent history. Any of us who played professional ball and didn't have a fan attachment to the Cards would have gone to the Cubs, too. Even for less guaranteed money. Not much I can say about Robert. Our player development history is second to none. The White Sox have done little except hold a firesale and collect young talent. Turner wanted to be in LA and it's pretty clear that while fans were interested in him, the Cards weren't.

I'll readily admit that the Cards aren't the first team on everyone's list to play for. I also don't think there's anything that we can do about that except what we've done. We've collected great young talent. Even when we're down, we win. We sell out nearly every game. Outside of 2-3 other teams, we have more to offer others. EXCEPT that we're St Louis in middle America and not SF or Chicago or LA or NY. Unless we pack up and move to one of those cities, we'll always be behind the curve there.

Lastly, besides 2 of those 3 examples you list, the bigger issue here is that we've rarely allowed "all things else" to be the same. Who knows what will happen with Stanton, but I would not be surprised if, as usual, we simple won't offer as much as someone else.

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:

Fat Strat wrote:

MrCrowesGarden wrote:It's going to come down to Stanton being willing to take a deal to STL IMO. The other most serious suitor is the Giants who don't have the prospects we have to offer. Maybe something will change between now and then, but that's how I see it at this time.

That said, if Stanton isn't willing to waive his NTC, it could be (emphasis on the "could") indicative of a bigger problem with the perception of this organization as it stands today.

I'm still not sure how much prospects have to do with this trade. The cost in dollars is going to have an impact on the cost in players, so a franchise like the Giants might have a weaker player package but a stronger financial package. Forum fans keep saying that money doesn't matter and we can afford it, but that's really easy to say and almost certainly not true. Regardless, that's definitely not how the Cards do things, and that's all that really matters here.

Also, the circumstances are going to play into this a lot when it comes to Stanton waiving/not waiving his NTC. If he wants to go home to California, then it really doesn't say anything about the Cards as a franchise. And choosing the Giants over the Cards based on recent history is hardly a statement on our perception. Both franchises have been really good until recently and are just a few moves away from being really good again.

Personally, I think the Giants have a real advantage over us and there might not be anything that we can do to keep them from Stanton if they choose to go after him and Stanton wants to go there.

I really agree with what MCG said. Let me ask you, at what point do you start worrying about players not wanting to come to StL instead of to the Cubs, or White Sox or (insert team here) when all things else are the same? Because, like I said in a previous post, Heyward flat out chose the Cubs over the Cardinals, Robert flat out chose the White Sox over the Cardinals, there were rumors that Turner wanted to stay in LA instead of entertaining offers from StL, if you add stanton to the list...that's a lot of high profile players refusing to come to StL that they really or at least moderately wanted to sign in the last 3 years? And, I can't really remember it ever happening before. Maybe some situations like Turner's get glossed over, but the Robert and Heyward decisions seemed to be unique at the time and are becoming common place anymore.

Cubs offer was better for Heyward long term (although it may not play out that way).

https://www.vivaelbirdos.com/2016/4/20/ ... uts-salary

Robert took the better offer as well. Speaking of which.....

https://www.vivaelbirdos.com/2017/10/2/ ... t-scouting

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:that's a lot of high profile players refusing to come to StL that they really or at least moderately wanted to sign in the last 3 years? And, I can't really remember it ever happening before. Maybe some situations like Turner's get glossed over, but the Robert and Heyward decisions seemed to be unique at the time and are becoming common place anymore.

This might be nitpicking, but I think to say free agents refused to come to St. Louis is unfair. It's not like any of these guys irrationally rejected St. Louis. Heyward knew the Cards were on the decline and Chicago was building a dynasty. He wanted to play for a winner. Turner is from California and went to college there. Everyone knew he preferred to stay close to home and LA made that easy with the club they built. I don't know the details of the Robert negotiations, but the Sox have been pretty good at signing Cubans.

St. Louis isn't a preferred destination right now because there are other clubs that have built more competitive rosters. But that's different than free agents essentially saying, "There's no amount of money you could throw at me to convince me to go there." The club has some work to do to make this a compelling destination again. The Stanton situation is tricky because if you have to send a haul of prospects to get him, you're making yourself less appealing as a destination. That's why I think they have to eat the whole contract, keep at least Reyes, and make a splash in free agency. They need to show Stanton that they aren't going to play second fiddle to Chicago for the next 10 years.

MrCrowesGarden wrote:If they don't realize they're gonna have to pay or even overpay by their standards for a bona fide superstar, that's a problem now and a problem for the future. That's a good way to lock yourself into a team where the floor and the ceiling are one in the same.

Yes... but, Stanton's contract really is gigantic and potentially crippling for a decade. There's so much risk there; I'm curious to see what real conversations about Stanton look like, not just for the Cards but for any franchise. Goold talked about this some over the summer -- who wants that kind of salary? What will teams give up to take it on? How much with the Marlins eat? Will Stanton approve a trade? So many variables that we can't talk about yet.

I think they realize that they are going to have to overpay (or maybe pay more than is comfortable) to get a star that they want/need. I just don't know that Stanton is the move they will want to make. It's the move I want them to make... But, Donaldson wouldn't be a bad backup. After that, we're back where we've been -- little available that's actually attractive.

Hoot45 wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:that's a lot of high profile players refusing to come to StL that they really or at least moderately wanted to sign in the last 3 years? And, I can't really remember it ever happening before. Maybe some situations like Turner's get glossed over, but the Robert and Heyward decisions seemed to be unique at the time and are becoming common place anymore.

This might be nitpicking, but I think to say free agents refused to come to St. Louis is unfair. It's not like any of these guys irrationally rejected St. Louis. Heyward knew the Cards were on the decline and Chicago was building a dynasty. He wanted to play for a winner. Turner is from California and went to college there. Everyone knew he preferred to stay close to home and LA made that easy with the club they built. I don't know the details of the Robert negotiations, but the Sox have been pretty good at signing Cubans.

St. Louis isn't a preferred destination right now because there are other clubs that have built more competitive rosters. But that's different than free agents essentially saying, "There's no amount of money you could throw at me to convince me to go there." The club has some work to do to make this a compelling destination again. The Stanton situation is tricky because if you have to send a haul of prospects to get him, you're making yourself less appealing as a destination. That's why I think they have to eat the whole contract, keep at least Reyes, and make a splash in free agency. They need to show Stanton that they aren't going to play second fiddle to Chicago for the next 10 years.

Fowler, Leake, and Cecil certainly preferred STL.

dmarx114 wrote:

Hoot45 wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:that's a lot of high profile players refusing to come to StL that they really or at least moderately wanted to sign in the last 3 years? And, I can't really remember it ever happening before. Maybe some situations like Turner's get glossed over, but the Robert and Heyward decisions seemed to be unique at the time and are becoming common place anymore.

This might be nitpicking, but I think to say free agents refused to come to St. Louis is unfair. It's not like any of these guys irrationally rejected St. Louis. Heyward knew the Cards were on the decline and Chicago was building a dynasty. He wanted to play for a winner. Turner is from California and went to college there. Everyone knew he preferred to stay close to home and LA made that easy with the club they built. I don't know the details of the Robert negotiations, but the Sox have been pretty good at signing Cubans.

St. Louis isn't a preferred destination right now because there are other clubs that have built more competitive rosters. But that's different than free agents essentially saying, "There's no amount of money you could throw at me to convince me to go there." The club has some work to do to make this a compelling destination again. The Stanton situation is tricky because if you have to send a haul of prospects to get him, you're making yourself less appealing as a destination. That's why I think they have to eat the whole contract, keep at least Reyes, and make a splash in free agency. They need to show Stanton that they aren't going to play second fiddle to Chicago for the next 10 years.

Fowler, Leake, and Cecil certainly preferred STL.

We already addressed this. Scribes wrote Fowler and Leake expressed reluctance to play in St. Louis until they got more money out of it. They preferred the dollars.

Hey. No nitpicking my nitpicking, dmarx114!

MrCrowesGarden wrote:

dmarx114 wrote:

Hoot45 wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:that's a lot of high profile players refusing to come to StL that they really or at least moderately wanted to sign in the last 3 years? And, I can't really remember it ever happening before. Maybe some situations like Turner's get glossed over, but the Robert and Heyward decisions seemed to be unique at the time and are becoming common place anymore.

This might be nitpicking, but I think to say free agents refused to come to St. Louis is unfair. It's not like any of these guys irrationally rejected St. Louis. Heyward knew the Cards were on the decline and Chicago was building a dynasty. He wanted to play for a winner. Turner is from California and went to college there. Everyone knew he preferred to stay close to home and LA made that easy with the club they built. I don't know the details of the Robert negotiations, but the Sox have been pretty good at signing Cubans.

St. Louis isn't a preferred destination right now because there are other clubs that have built more competitive rosters. But that's different than free agents essentially saying, "There's no amount of money you could throw at me to convince me to go there." The club has some work to do to make this a compelling destination again. The Stanton situation is tricky because if you have to send a haul of prospects to get him, you're making yourself less appealing as a destination. That's why I think they have to eat the whole contract, keep at least Reyes, and make a splash in free agency. They need to show Stanton that they aren't going to play second fiddle to Chicago for the next 10 years.

Fowler, Leake, and Cecil certainly preferred STL.

We already addressed this. Scribes wrote Fowler and Leake expressed reluctance to play in St. Louis until they got more money out of it. They preferred the dollars.

Exactly! It always comes down to the money! Everything else is just noise.

When someone turns down our offer for more cash, let me know.

It doesn't concern you that players don't want to play here so we have to throw more money to sway them?

And we can't do that with Stanton.

MrCrowesGarden wrote:It doesn't concern you that players don't want to play here so we have to throw more money to sway them?

And we can't do that with Stanton.

I don't believe that to be true.