Cardinals chat: Derrick Goold takes your questions at 11 a.m. Monday

Cardinals chat: Derrick Goold takes your questions at 11 a.m. Monday

Bring your Cards questions and comments to a live chat with Derrick Goold at 11 a.m. Monday

    I have no clue, sorry. Wouldn't the Blues have had to be involved?
    It’s pretty clear that the way the Cardinals evaluate outfield talent is lacking, at least in terms of understanding their offense potential. So, how do they evaluate these guys? Is exit velo more important than OBP to evaluators? Are they doing some kind of discrete proprietary eval of their swing path or pitch recognition ability to assume results? Ultimately, I guess I’m asking does the org understand how and where it is failing, and what are they going to do about it?
    They do all the things you suggest, and they don't rely on one thing to make that decision. As detailed earlier in the chat, one of the big failings appears to be playing time. Thomas was poised for some, and then got injured, and rather than turning to Arozarena -- a high performer at Class AAA -- the Cardinals veered back to run prevention and the glove that Harrison Bader flashed in center. 
    I get the sense this question is based on Arozarena's success with Tampa Bay and the struggles of the outfielders that the Cardinals kept, and ... who else? Mercado? Piscotty? Grichuk? Aren't they all about the same. Ozuna? Sure, now let's talk. Again, the question the Cardinals must confront and answer isn't the evaluation as much as it's the animation. How do they get the talent they see, the talent they traded for in the case Ozuna, Thomas, and O'Neill to manifest and then maximize. Arozarena got playing time with the Rays he did not for the Cardinals.
    He also got more than month in quarantine to add 15 pounds of muscle.
    Could the Cardinals have done that sooner, got to add that muscle sooner? It's a fair question for the team to explore. Ozuna was a monster for the Braves, but he also had two or more months off to rest that shoulder that he did not with the Cardinals. Could they have afforded to give him half a season off to get half a great season from him? Would fans have allowed that? Would Ozuna -- as a pending free agent?
    These are all circumstances to consider. And they all get back to the notion that it's not entirely an evaluation of the ability. It's how to access that ability. How to bring forth. How to get it to flourish.
    What are the odds that the cards freeze any big spending this year and save up to make a run at one of the big money SS available next winter, moving dejong to 3b where he probably should be?
    Probably lower than you wish. Sorry to be the one to have to say that.
    I saw your earlier comment regarding baseball betting and Shoeless Joe Jackson. Would you view Pete Rose in the same light? Or is it different because he specifically bet on baseball and his own team?
  • I think there is a difference between the two -- their actions, the evidence of their actions, their positions, their eras, and so on -- but Rose should also be reconciled when this happens, yes.
  • Hey Derrick will the cards sign any free agents this off season?
  • Probably. They would be foolish not to.
    (I guess, technically, they already have.)
    A statement from Cardinals on Martinez:
    "The St. Louis Cardinals were informed earlier today that Carlos Martínez had participated in a public gathering event this past weekend in Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic.
    We are currently gathering details from this event, but it is our understanding that Carlos was not arrested nor are there any pending legal charges against him.
    Certainly, we would not condone anyone from our organization knowingly violating community laws or health regulations."
    Thanks for your time and expertise. As the vaccine becomes available, surely some people will opt out of taking it. How will this choice by the players be approached by the team owners/ general managers, obviously they can't dictate acceptance or refusal. What's your best guess?
    As with anything, this will be a discussion with the players' union. A policy will be put in place, and as a business major-league baseball can set parameters/policies by which it will operate. The players will have questions and concerns about any mandates, just as they will have questions and concerns about being put at risk of contracting the virus.
    Do you expect the cardinals to be involved in the third base market? Or will a mix of carp, edman, and at times sosa be the likely options?
    I would not rule them out for the market of infielders, some of whom also play third base. As far as chasing a specific third baseman who doesn't also play second -- not so sure. But a versatile infielder who plays multiple positions definitely something they'll explore.
    I may have missed something but I think the cards left their roster at 39 players. Are you surprised they didn’t add another player? Is there a reason for it?
    Nope. Teams leave spots on the roster so they can sign free agents and so they can participate in the Rule 5 draft. A full roster means no access to the Rule 5 draft, and this would be an odd year to do that. The Cardinals have that spot open, and if they add to the roster in the coming week or so, then they'll have to make a subsequent move to keep the room for a Rule 5 pick. That could be a non-tender in the coming weeks, for example. It is entirely common for teams to leave spots open.
    Do you have a team (in any sport) that you have as much passion for, and participate in as much hand wringing about, as we chatters do for our Cardinals?
    I do not, alas. It's something missing, maybe. I don't think so, because the game still gets me to my feet when it's amazing, and my fondness for baseball grows each and every day I get to cover it and be around it. I enjoy the game of baseball, and a great game of baseball is better than anything, and I don't need a rooting interest in it to care about what happens or be thrilled to see it happen. My passion manifests in a different way -- with interest in covering one team and the sport it plays, but not its results, a player's performance, on the scoreboard.
    The why fascinates me, the story fascinates me, the tension fascinates me, and I can enjoy it regardless of which team it tilts toward. I'm sure there are other fans that feel that way too, for sure.
    I do like soccer and get caught up in UEFA Champions League games. They're a favorite of mine. But I'm not likely to take to Twitter or into a chat with that fondness. I recognize that's not much fun. It's just me. I reserve the right to possibly adopt STL City as a team and then pepper Tom Timmermann with questions.
    Haven't you heard from other fans that I'm an automaton? That's what Twitter says.
    Looks like Martinez cant stay out of trouble. No mask amd breaking all social distance rules? How will cards respond
    They'll gather the facts. They'll talk to Martinez. They'll release a statement.
    They've done all of that in the past few hours.
    I think that O'Neill and Bader are two of the most confounding prospects Mo has had to assess in his tenure. Both are plus fielders, so by that measure you can justify having them out there everyday. But they both are like pure centers in today's NBA, they came along at the wrong time, the wrong era for this club. This club needs offense, period. And neither has shown the ability to provide anything close to consistent offense. So in that regard, they are redundancies of one another. So who goes and who stays as a 4th OF?
    This is a fascinating way to position the question. I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the opinion here, and there is a lot of truth in there. There is room for both. I don't see the redundancies as so, so profound overlapping that they cancel each other out. They do different things. Bader is an elite center fielder. O'Neill has power that other outfielders don't, if he can connect with it more often. Those aren't overlaps to me. They can both fit.
    Derrick: heard you on the radio. How do you justify voting for Bonds and Clemons for HOF, but not for others such as Palmeiro, McGuire, Sosa and others. At least these others had the decency to admit to their transgressions. Bonds and Clemons don’t have the kahones to own up to the obvious. Surely you don’t think there is a possibility that they were innocent, particularly when Bonds body and head blew up in later years. Either all of them or none of them.
    I have explained this many times. I never had a chance to vote for Palmeiro. I had one chance to vote for McGwire. That was in 2016, his final year on the ballot. I did not vote for him. I did not have room on my 10-spot ballot for all of the players tied to steroids, and if I was going to vote for one, I was going to vote for them all, all of them that I felt was deserving. I use the tools at my disposal to meet the requirement of a max-10 ballot. If I feel there are eight players deserving of the Hall, then I'll vote for all eight. If there are 14 on the ballot that I think are deserving, I, by rule, must trim that ballot to 10, and that means using the tools at my disposal to do so, and one of those tools is to consider their transgressions. So, I have not voted for Bonds or Clemens until this past year, and I did so with lots of thought about the message the vote would send, about the precedent it continued for myself. And the importance of being transparent and consistent with my vote, as I hope to be always for you and other fans.
    So, yeah, I don't know where we disagree. I have voted for all or none, and I have only voted for all one year -- when I had room.
    Sammy Sosa does not crack my ballot. Others are more deserving ahead of him.
    If you heard the interview I gave on the radio, I clearly spelled out that their transgressions can be put in print, under my byline, so I don't know how you'd read that as somehow presuming their innocence. There is a preponderance of evidence. Again, I have a hard time seeing what your issue is with my ballot and my discussion when what you outline harmonizes with what I've said, and how I've voted.
    DG, thanks for the coverage and the weekly chats.
    Why is there such negativity about this team? Winning record 20 out of last 21 seasons, 4 WS appearances, 2 championships.
    I agree the team has needs, has made mistakes but some trust has been earned.
    The chats and comment boards seem to act as if management is incompetent, the owners cheap, and the players are terrible.
    We made the playoffs this year, the NLCS last year.
    Are we the fans just spoiled or is it online society and a need to complain?
  • A mix of all of that. You don't get many people who are content driven to express their opinion. They're content. Anger is discontent is a powerful motivator when it comes to sharing an opinion. So, things like this or Twitter are going to skew that way because the audience as something to say, some discontent to share, and that's fine. It's been like that long before there were chats and Twitter, and there were only Letters to the Editor. Wasn't much reason to write a newspaper to tell them you're happy with the coverage. That's what you pay for. You expect to be happy. You're driven to write when you're angry, not pleased with the return or the opinion or something that has happened. 
    I would also suggest that there is something to the fact that the team has hovered around the same area for a long time -- no swings to extremes, just a steady pulse of a team, and that can be ... dull. Fans want the adrenaline rush, no? The jolt from a big signing, or the thrill of a big trade. And there would probably be fans delighted by a trade for Stanton, even if it meant a few losing years. 
    Also, a factor that Dodgers. They're strong, and they're going to be strong for a long time, and there is probably some element of concern that the Cardinals' claim as the winningest NL team when it comes to titles is in jeopardy. Fans should treasure that and not want that long-cherished claim to slip from the Cardinals' business card.
    Plus they haven't won a World Series title in nine years. That's like forever 'round here.
  • Mr. Goold, thank you for the informative chat. Your answers are always well thought out and knowledgeable. My question is about Hunter Renfroe. He was designated by Tampa Bay. He is a player who, along with solid defense, has provided alot of power the last 3 or 4 years. I know he struggled in 2020, but he seems like a buy low option to boost power in the Cardinals outfield. Is this a move you see the Cardinals exploring?
    Absolutely. They should. They will, or have to some extent. There's a lot to like about the move, and I'm surprised by the push back I've received from some Cardinals' fans.
    Hi Derrick, I saw where the NBA signing period began. There were a number of large contracts and plenty of player movement. The Celtics alone made a bunch of moves, including signing Jayson Tatum to a huge contract extension. Why do you think that there has not been the same level of action in MLB?
    Different calendars. Deadlines. And the biggest of them all: Salary cap. This was discussed earlier in the chat in greater detail.
    You and BenFred go head to head at a par 3 course...who wins?
    The pro shop with all the extra golf balls we'd have to buy. Now if you want to talk long-drive contest ...
    Giving meaningful innings to Carpenter and Fowler in '21 is having one foot in and one foot out as far as a "reset." Neither of those players will be on the roster in '22 (please let that be true) so why does this team waste a year playing them like they are owed innings?
  • Because 2021 matters. It's not a dress rehearsal for 2022. They're handing out a division title and playoff berths at the end of the year, and the Cardinals should be held to play their best chance at winning now, today, this year, not setting up the future. Because if they're setting up for the future, then get on with it. Knizner take over. Gorman come on up -- get some of that experience, man. Carlson play center. Williams play right. Hey, Oviedo, welcome to the rotation for those innings that will make you a winner come 2023. But if 2021 matters, act like it.
    DG,

    I have a question regarding the trade that fell apart for Stanton. It has been reported, and written in these very chats that Dewitt had pushed for that trade and was ready to take on that contract. This gets cited when people ask about the Cardinals willingness to take on these big contacts (Arenado). I believe it was also widely reported that Stanton was not going to waive his NTC to come to STL. I would imagine the Cardinals knew this, and I believe they even had a personal meeting with him. So I guess my question is how much of a risk was that to the Cardinals if they knew he was not going to come here? I applaud them for looking into it, and it made for great twitter takes, but it seems it was a low risk play for Dewitt knowing it was a slim chance of happening.
    The Cardinals had been told this, and still asked for an audience with him to convince him otherwise. They wanted an audience. They flew to California. They met with him. DeWitt was part of that group. They had a presentation for him. They answered questions from him. And they even had an advocate to consider them -- his agent. His agent told Ben Frederickson, on the record, that he wanted Stanton to hear from the Cardinals before dismissing them. I heard the same as the Cardinals prepared their presentation. Heck, I wrote the same at the time. They wanted to get in the room. They wanted just the chance to talk directly with him, to lobby him on the idea. They got it. And, you'll recall, the Marlins accepted their trade. That's it. The Marlins said yes. A "yes" from Stanton, and the deal was done. That's not a low-risk move considering $250 million-ish rests on that point. They went there having to be ready for him to say yes. 
    Also, goodness, why waste the money flying out there for theater? That makes no sense. 
    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Just predicting the St. Louis Cardinals offense in 2021.
    But the chats will be alive, if that's the case. Huzzah!
    As a follow-up to a question you answered earlier regarding Mo's capabilities, is it fair to ask if he is spread too thin with his role in the organization? Should he be more focused on his core competencies and empower others in his areas of weakness? From the outside looking in it appears Mo is involved in too much and that a guy like Girsch has power in his title only.
    It is a fair question. One he may be asking, and others too.
Powered by Platform for Live Reporting, Events, and Social Engagement