"not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread

[letsgocards89]

The offseason began with a lot of comments from the front office about being aggressive, roster makeover, etc. Now, to be fair, the roster will look different than last season. However, my frustration comes from the fact that after years of being fairly passive the expectation that they would be aggressive was welcome but in reality, the message is really more of aggression in looking for sensible transactions instead of aiming for a division title.

Is aggressiveness defined by the pursuit, or by the results? I think the Cardinals have been anything but "passive" in recent years.

That's a good question. I think we're getting to the point where it's moving from the pursuit to the results. The front office is good at identifying needs and players that can fill them, but as soon as the potential deal moves to an uncomfortable point they bail out.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for being reckless, but there are times when going past the "Puke point" is necessary and I haven't seen them be willing to do that for transformative players and that's how you end up with a 85 win, not-bad-but-playoff-missing team, IMO.

[MrCrowesGarden]

I was done with the games. If you'd like to have a civil discussion, we can do that.

Stop it. You're a mod........ act like it.

There was nothing uncivil about the discussion that I was having, and nobody was playing games. It was a 100% baseball-related discussion, until you chose to "LOL", and become condescending when I had to explain to you what we were talking about.

I understood what you were talking about. I'm not impressed that they've paid market prices for average-ish players. I was lol'ing the idea that we need to defend an organization rolling in cash by saying they paid market price to Gregerson.

They're going to have to get more than what they've got, specifically top end players. They did good with Ozuna. They need to do more. They're probably going to have to pay more relative to what they did for Ozuna. I hope they realize that.

[letsgocards89]

Why are some people acting like the offseason is over?

Because of on-camera quotes by front office personnel mirroring past offseasons in which expectations were muted, to put it simply.

[Socnorb11]

The offseason began with a lot of comments from the front office about being aggressive, roster makeover, etc. Now, to be fair, the roster will look different than last season. However, my frustration comes from the fact that after years of being fairly passive the expectation that they would be aggressive was welcome but in reality, the message is really more of aggression in looking for sensible transactions instead of aiming for a division title.

Is aggressiveness defined by the pursuit, or by the results? I think the Cardinals have been anything but "passive" in recent years.

That's a good question. I think we're getting to the point where it's moving from the pursuit to the results. The front office is good at identifying needs and players that can fill them, but as soon as the potential deal moves to an uncomfortable point they bail out.

They didn't bail out on Fowler, Cecil, Stanton, Gregerson, etc. I don't think they've bailed out on guys like Donaldson and Machado........... it's just that those teams are choosing to not move those guys right now. Frankly, it's probably a smart move by those teams to hold out for better offers.

They actually didn't even bail out on guys like Heyward and Price. Both of those guys very specifically wanted to play for other teams.

[Jocephus]

2nd place is 1st loser as some say.

i never felt fowler, cecil or leake pushed the needle that much. nice additions/bandaids and in combination with other (possible) moves or better players in house they'd really make a strong roster. i like ozuna too but he's not going to push the team over 90 wins alone, at least i wouldn't think. so yeah, they technically spent money (between those 3) around 130 million and got around 2.3 WAR out of them all (i think i got that right between work tabs) (did you know leake had a 0.0 WAR in 2016?) (i know WAR isn't everything/only way to assess value).

as others have stated, they seem fine to roll the dice with a wild card type team and hope the breaks go for them. and i mean, it might work. it has worked and there is still time to adjust roster...just seems risky as currently constructed.

[dmarx114]

The offseason began with a lot of comments from the front office about being aggressive, roster makeover, etc. Now, to be fair, the roster will look different than last season. However, my frustration comes from the fact that after years of being fairly passive the expectation that they would be aggressive was welcome but in reality, the message is really more of aggression in looking for sensible transactions instead of aiming for a division title.

Acquiring an all star outfielder isn't aggressive enough?

It's not enough. Just like Fowler wasn't enough last year.

Mo got you your big bat.

Who do you want now?

[MrCrowesGarden]

The offseason began with a lot of comments from the front office about being aggressive, roster makeover, etc. Now, to be fair, the roster will look different than last season. However, my frustration comes from the fact that after years of being fairly passive the expectation that they would be aggressive was welcome but in reality, the message is really more of aggression in looking for sensible transactions instead of aiming for a division title.

Acquiring an all star outfielder isn't aggressive enough?

It's not enough. Just like Fowler wasn't enough last year.

Mo got you your big bat.

Who do you want now?

Another bat and/or a starter and/or a closer that aren't lottery tickets.

In a broader sense, I want the Cardinals to be committed to being great instead of being good and hoping for breaks.

[Jocephus]

David Kaplan of NBC Sports Chicago said on the network's Cubs Talk Podcast on Thursday that Alex Cobb rejected a three-year, $42 million offer from the Cubs this offseason.
Kaplan hears that Cobb was "interested" in the offer but was convinced by his agent to turn it down. It's unclear when the offer was extended, but Kaplan says the Cubs would put it back on the table "in a second" if Cobb has a change of heart. Jon Heyman of FanRag Sports has reported that Cobb "is believed to be willing to sign in the four-year, $70 million range." The Orioles, Cardinals, Rangers, Yankees and Brewers are other clubs that have been connected to Cobb.
Related: Cubs
Source: NBC Sports Chicago
Jan 5 - 5:13 PM

[letsgocards89]

The offseason began with a lot of comments from the front office about being aggressive, roster makeover, etc. Now, to be fair, the roster will look different than last season. However, my frustration comes from the fact that after years of being fairly passive the expectation that they would be aggressive was welcome but in reality, the message is really more of aggression in looking for sensible transactions instead of aiming for a division title.

Is aggressiveness defined by the pursuit, or by the results? I think the Cardinals have been anything but "passive" in recent years.

That's a good question. I think we're getting to the point where it's moving from the pursuit to the results. The front office is good at identifying needs and players that can fill them, but as soon as the potential deal moves to an uncomfortable point they bail out.

They didn't bail out on Fowler, Cecil, Stanton, Gregerson, etc. I don't think they've bailed out on guys like Donaldson and Machado........... it's just that those teams are choosing to not move those guys right now. Frankly, it's probably a smart move by those teams to hold out for better offers.

They actually didn't even bail out on guys like Heyward and Price. Both of those guys very specifically wanted to play for other teams.

You have a good point. I mean as far back as 2017 they overpaid a bit for a player that fit a need (Fowler) but I think my perception has been created from the Kozma/Porcello draft, passing on Scherzer, etc. and I can't get past it.

When I see stuff like "Donaldson/Machado/etc won't be traded without overpaying" I really want them to just once go, "ok [expletive] it, let's do this" and make a deal for a stud.

[Popeye_Card]

The offseason began with a lot of comments from the front office about being aggressive, roster makeover, etc. Now, to be fair, the roster will look different than last season. However, my frustration comes from the fact that after years of being fairly passive the expectation that they would be aggressive was welcome but in reality, the message is really more of aggression in looking for sensible transactions instead of aiming for a division title.

Is aggressiveness defined by the pursuit, or by the results? I think the Cardinals have been anything but "passive" in recent years.

That's a good question. I think we're getting to the point where it's moving from the pursuit to the results. The front office is good at identifying needs and players that can fill them, but as soon as the potential deal moves to an uncomfortable point they bail out.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for being reckless, but there are times when going past the "Puke point" is necessary and I haven't seen them be willing to do that for transformative players and that's how you end up with a 85 win, not-bad-but-playoff-missing team, IMO.

I think part of what makes them smart is that they generally stick to their valuations on players, and if they extend too far out of their range, then they walk. Sure, it would be nice to win some of those prizes sometimes (we did on Fowler). But sometimes folding on a big pot in poker is the smart play if you don't think you can win. I'm sure Cub fans are more upset that they "won" on Heyward than we are upset that the Cardinals "lost".

Same thing on trades. Cardinals are willing to put (IMO) competitive packages out there in many cases. I'm not a fan of going too far outside of a reasonable comfort zone just to make something happen.

"Puke point" is a fun way to poke fun at it, but the Cardinals have generally demonstrated that not extending that point has been wise. I would argue the bigger mistakes over the years have been not even getting in on the bidding on some big-dollar players, like Scherzer.

Sure, all of this leaves us with a lot of unspent "dry powder", and broken promises if we want to consider them that way. I'd rather the Cardinals continue to keep the franchise in a good, competitive spot then to extend themselves too far and end up with years of re-build. Maybe if we haven't had so much (relatively) recent success I would think differently. 2011 is 7 years ago now, but it still seems like yesterday to me--and I get that others may not have that same patience.