They’re buying time for the Springfield brigade. If enough of those guys pan out, they can improve without spending or committing to long-term contracts. That’s the gambit.
Plus they will need to devote most of their offseason time and resources to drafting up another preemptive extension for Marmol.
And Girsch has been working on Project 2028 for three years now - you can't just change the title to Project 2027 at the last minute.
They’re buying time for the Springfield brigade. If enough of those guys pan out, they can improve without spending or committing to long-term contracts. That’s the gambit.
Yeah, my concern is that strategy just continues until they have new owners. BD3 says they’ll spend like they used to but I’d like to see some indication that it’s happening.
No, they will never spend like they used to relative to the league. The only difference between them and the Brewers might be an inclination to retain their talent. But that’s TBD.
There was also an earlier part of the discussion where Goold was saying a cap could allow the Cardinals to make some moves because not only might there be a floor they have to meet, but there'd also be some teams who might have to cut payroll, as well as several teams who wouldn't have the room to take advantage of it. Not sure how that's worked out in other leagues when a cap was added.
Looking at how the NBA deals with its cap, at least partly designed to be confusing so you stop questioning why these billionaires cry poor so often, should make us all run a mile from anything similar in MLB. Caps are solely designed to put more money in the pockets of owners.
If MLB had one, the Mets and Dodgers would still be right at the top and the Rays would still be right at the bottom. Nothing would change, other than players would earn less. Don't be fooled by ownership water-carriers like Goold.
There was also an earlier part of the discussion where Goold was saying a cap could allow the Cardinals to make some moves because not only might there be a floor they have to meet, but there'd also be some teams who might have to cut payroll, as well as several teams who wouldn't have the room to take advantage of it. Not sure how that's worked out in other leagues when a cap was added.
Looking at how the NBA deals with its cap, at least partly designed to be confusing so you stop questioning why these billionaires cry poor so often, should make us all run a mile from anything similar in MLB. Caps are solely designed to put more money in the pockets of owners.
If MLB had one, the Mets and Dodgers would still be right at the top and the Rays would still be right at the bottom. Nothing would change, other than players would earn less. Don't be fooled by ownership water-carriers like Goold.
It’s not a pro-cap argument and my impression is that Goold doesn’t see a cap as a solution to anything. The point made above is just that if there is one implemented the Cardinals are so low (I think they might now be 30th after shedding most what they owe to who they traded) they can add payroll without nearly as much concern for how a cap would affect them.
