GatewayRedbirds.com

I also don't believe players are willing to play in STL, or anywhere else, for a discount. They will go to the top bidder.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball ... z1YUso2T2x

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.

A little confused by this statement. You have to throw money at FA's to get them to sign and -- with the possible exception of Heyward (depending on how you do the math) -- there hasn't exactly been a rush of players who have rejected more money from us to play for someone else for less. And while we have a few examples in our past of players taking a little less to come here, the whole "home town discount" thing hasn't been real since the 2000's. And even then it usually didn't work -- see Renteria, Pujols, etc.

Fat Strat wrote:

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.

A little confused by this statement. You have to throw money at FA's to get them to sign and -- with the possible exception of Heyward (depending on how you do the math) -- there hasn't exactly been a rush of players who have rejected more money from us to play for someone else for less. And while we have a few examples in our past of players taking a little less to come here, the whole "home town discount" thing hasn't been real since the 2000's. And even then it usually didn't work -- see Renteria, Pujols, etc.

It was down to us and Toronto for Fowler, and we ALREADY had the top bid for his services. He still wasn’t sure he wanted to play for the Cardinals. They threw on more money (on top of what was already the best offer dollarwise) because of it.

dmarx114 wrote:

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.

I’m not surprised.

Regardless they will need to start being the top bidders for the superstars and not the Leakes and Fowlers of the world.

MrCrowesGarden wrote:

dmarx114 wrote:

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.

I’m not surprised.

Regardless they will need to start being the top bidders for the superstars and not the Leakes and Fowlers of the world.

Why?

Because they will be left behind. Go ahead and link your 3rd order win percentage right now because I know it’s coming. But they are drifting towards mediocrity.

MrCrowesGarden wrote:

Fat Strat wrote:

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.

A little confused by this statement. You have to throw money at FA's to get them to sign and -- with the possible exception of Heyward (depending on how you do the math) -- there hasn't exactly been a rush of players who have rejected more money from us to play for someone else for less. And while we have a few examples in our past of players taking a little less to come here, the whole "home town discount" thing hasn't been real since the 2000's. And even then it usually didn't work -- see Renteria, Pujols, etc.

It was down to us and Toronto for Fowler, and we ALREADY had the top bid for his services. He still wasn’t sure he wanted to play for the Cardinals. They threw on more money (on top of what was already the best offer dollarwise) because of it.

Really? Where did you hear this?

MrCrowesGarden wrote:Because they will be left behind. Go ahead and link your 3rd order win percentage right now because I know it’s coming. But they are drifting towards mediocrity.

But why is signing top free agents the ultimate answer?

Why haven't the Angels been successful with this approach?

dmarx114 wrote:

MrCrowesGarden wrote:

Fat Strat wrote:

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.

A little confused by this statement. You have to throw money at FA's to get them to sign and -- with the possible exception of Heyward (depending on how you do the math) -- there hasn't exactly been a rush of players who have rejected more money from us to play for someone else for less. And while we have a few examples in our past of players taking a little less to come here, the whole "home town discount" thing hasn't been real since the 2000's. And even then it usually didn't work -- see Renteria, Pujols, etc.

It was down to us and Toronto for Fowler, and we ALREADY had the top bid for his services. He still wasn’t sure he wanted to play for the Cardinals. They threw on more money (on top of what was already the best offer dollarwise) because of it.

Really? Where did you hear this?

I will try to find a link but we offered 4/60 and Toronto offered 4/56.

dmarx114 wrote:

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

You seem to be completely missing my point.

Both the Heyward and Robert offers the Cardinals made were extremely similar to deals they ended up taking with different clubs from what I understand. And, while I can't find a link that the Cardinals offered more than the Sox, I also can't find one that the Sox offered more than the Cards for Robert other than teams just saying so...

Regardless, don't you find it problematic that in the recent past, the Cardinals have had to pay more money to players to convince them to come to St. Louis? They haven't been able to land players by simply offering them market value (heyward, robert), they had to offer them more (Fowler/Leake) to get them to come. With Fowler in particular, it seemed to be a troubling case that went like this:
Cardinals: Here's our offer, it's the best out there.
Fowler: I don't want to play in StL.
Cardinals: Come have a chat with Mike Matheny and John Mozeliak.
Fowler: Okay
**Meets with team**
Fowler: Meh.
Cardinals: Okay, fine. Here's an extra $10Mil
Fowler: Meh, okay.

I guess you could just say that's good negotiating, but given the recent past of also losing guys like Heyward and Robert (ignoring if they would have been good signing or not) to teams with extremely similar offers, doesn't that give people pause.

Now throw on top a guy like Stanton refusing to come to StL, and it's a full blown problem. Rather that problem is the City of Stl, a clubhouse problem, a manager problem, a front office problem, a combinatoni of them all, I don't know. But, I know this isn't something we've seen in the past or can continue to see in the future if they expect to be a successful organization.