Right, but any of them are likely to move this offseason. Their performance, while different, does not change the fact that the Cardinals will entertain discussions on any of the outfielders, and who moves depends entirely on what another team is willing to offer. So, yes. They're all in the same level right now.
That conversation is coming this winter.
There are other options at this point. Sierra as Adron Chambers does make a lot of sense.
Good point. I do need to fix that. And I apologize for that. I know better. I do.
It's one possibility. Giants need outfielders. Not a guarantee, though. It's not really clear how eager they will be to shop Piscotty. The Cardinals and other teams are going to have to evaluate where his bat is headed after this difficult season and then adjust their view of his upside.
No, he's a human being. Only the NFL qualifies players as "depreciating assets."
OK. OK. Got that out of my system. Now let me try and attack the spirit of the question if not the wording of the question. Yesterday, on Twitter, I had a sarcastic remark directed toward me about how in the world will the Cardinals ever replace a .240-hitting leadoff hitter. I suggested that they would be lucky to replace him with a .370-OBP leadoff hitter. Those are, of course, the same person. Carpenter remains one of the best at getting on base, and the act of getting on base is, by definition, not making outs. Not making outs is very valuable in this game. He has seen a steep decline in slugging and average, so that OPS has gone down, and that's worth noting. What is interesting now is how much of this year is related to the shoulder injury. How much of the early season was truly related to the oblique concern. And does his value increase if the Cardinals can just make a commitment to him at first base. Or, is that impossible with their roster or how the manager uses the roster. If his production slowed (e.g., OPS!) because of the shoulder issue/oblique concern, then health would be a boost and that's value. If his production, even improved, is misapplied because of the roster, then the Cardinals are voluntarily reducing the value of a player and that should be addressed.
I have no clue. Nor was I given a straight answer.
Not sure. I would imagine, so. Carpenter said "everybody knew."
Milwaukee is on the rise. If the Cardinals don't also make moves to be on the rise, they will be passed.
He will chase those milestones, especially 3,000 hits.
I did not. I was on deadline at the ballpark. I did watch Twitter for updates, however.
This year? Not likely. In the story linked earlier in the chat he talked about returning as a starter.
What are you trying to do? Put me out of work?! Isn't my biggest role here to help explain the ins and outs of the rules re: 40-man roster and the difficulties of trades! If people look that up on their own, what good will I be?
That, and not pursuing Max Scherzer. Those are the two points that people can point to as far as defining absences for this Cardinals Era.
This is a common question, and please believe me when I say that front offices don't often do calculations like this. They don't stew over contracts they regret, they work then to shed them, and then the action reveals everything. Trading Allen Craig revealed what the Cardinals felt about the out years of that deal. Trading Mike Leake this past week tells you all you need to know about what the Cardinals felt about his future performance for them and how it compared to the arms they have coming. Etc. Etc. Fowler isn't the fit the Cardinals imagined -- but that's because this isn't the team the Cardinals imagined. They are relieved that he's producing as the cleanup hitter because you know what? They didn't have that. And while he's not the traditional cleanup hitter, he's also not making a traditional cleanup hitter's salary, and the Cardinals, like a lot of teams, do dig value.
I joined via Skype. So my "scenic" view was just another hotel room.
Yes, but can a robot make a pun? I think I'm good until that happens.
It does not. Lynn is a starter and could be the starter they look at.
Look, we'll head down this road again, and will likely travel the route many many many many many more times in the coming months: In a vacuum, Giancarlo Stanton makes a lot of sense for the Cardinals, as much sense as any player out there who could be moved. There is evidence that the Cardinals were clearing space to make a run at Stanton before he signed this extension. They saw him as a player they could get -- and keep. But then the Marlins went all $300m on him. Over and over and over and over again in the past few months, I've heard from sources and executives and people in and around the Cardinals how problematic that contract is -- for any team, not just for them. Not at all.
I was scoffed at awhile back when I brought up the idea that if the Marlins offered Stanton to a room of GMs -- all one had to do was raise his hand, and take on the contract -- that it was an open question if ANY GM would raise his hand.
You know what? We got the answer. It didn't happen.
Stanton cleared waivers. No team, given the chance to claim one of the hottest power hitters in the game for the stretch drive, took on that contract. Doesn't that tell you something about the view of that contract in the industry? It should. It should with blinking neon lights. So, it's not just the Cardinals. It's the Yankees. It's the Giants. It's the Phillies. It's the Dodgers. It's everyone. They'd love the 50+ homers today and the 50+ homers tomorrow and next year. The contract is a turn off. The question becomes how do you mitigate that contract, then. And that's where we find the Cardinals.
Let's look at your questions/assertions, one at a time.
1) Yes. They do. Also, contending is their brand, so it's not isolated on Carlos Martinez.
2) Harper and Machado are not Stanton, Stanton is not Harper and Machado. So, this is comparing apples to Macs. They're different, and thus this argument falls flat.
3) This, in spirit, is true. Also, two years of this kind of play.
4) See above. Since no teams took on the big contract, now its about what are the Marlins willing to absorb, and that is going to be costly. That's where the prospects come in.
5) There is evidence the Cardinals can afford more than a $180 million payroll. So that number appears just arbitrary. Like a lot of these payroll arguments. It's best just to say the Cardinals have the money to do what they want. Start there. Now watch how they try to find value with their money. They can throw money at anything. They just don't want to because that's not their business model. And that is also true for about 24-27 other teams.
Stanton is going to be the No. 1 target for many teams. What I also find interesting is that talks with the Marlins about Stanton might not land Stanton, but could lead to an outfielder that's pretty good too. Don't limit the scope here. There are ways for the Cardinals to improve even if it's not Stanton walking across campus in Jupiter next spring.