This is a rather damning comment -- but it has the gift of hindsight, which you readily admit. I've tried to explain before that ownership doesn't always rely on that as the litmus test for what the front office does, whether you agree with that approach or not. Honestly, ownership championed the trade for Stanton and the front office expressed reluctance. They went through the process. The trade didn't happen. It's proved to be fruitful for them. Does ownership credit Stanton with that? Does it acknowledge the front office with the information we now have? Tough call. But in the moment, ownership heard from the front office the risk of doing so, and those risks panned out -- for some other team. That's just one example that I have from how ownership has explained to me ways it evaluates the front office. Yes, the total organization is a big part of that. You dismiss their ability to develop from within. DeWitt Jr. has stated that's one of the most important factors for him, period.
I'm not going to go one by one through your list because there are obvious mistakes in there, for sure. I'll just offer some context for a few:
The Cardinals thought Zac Gallen was going to be good, and he is. They needed him to get Ozuna, and decided they'd rather make that trade than not have Ozuna. I bet you agreed at the time.
Paul Goldschmidt is who they thought he was, no? I guess he didn't finish top five in the MVP this past season. So, that counts against the evaluation? I'm not sure I follow this one.
They chose trading Carson Kelly over having him rust behind Yadier Molina. That's not a misread on Kelly's talent. That's a reality of having Molina as the starter and trying to salvage value from the best catching talent in the minors.
Pham remains a confusing move.
You didn't mention Mike Leake. What's up with that?