OK, this can get confusing, I know. The Cardinals can tender offers to players they have control of -- players like Trevor Rosenthal, Seth Maness, Michael Wacha, and Matt Adams. That process is done in early December. If the Cardinals tender a contract to the player then that player can decide to agree to that offer or go through the arbitration process. That's tender. And if a player does not receive one it's a non-tender.
The Cardinals can provide Brandon Moss a qualifying offer, and that technically is a contract offer.
It's the offer of a one-year contract at a salary set by MLB/MLBPA, and this year it will be $17.2 million. So, the Cardinals can make that offer and by not taking it, Moss is turning down a guaranteed deal.
What you're probably asking is whether the Cardinals will pursue Moss as a free agent with a multi-year offer. As of now, they are going to pursue other interests. They want to find a center fielder, and if they're unable to pull that off then they could turn to Moss as a LF with Grichuk staying in center. So, there are tiers here. First, it's what other options they find for CF. Second, it's what Moss' market looks like and whether there are forces that push the two sides back together.
Sure. Makes some sense. I know that duo would like to play together again. There was a time when they really thought it would be in St. Louis.
Significantly. The tragedy defines this era for the Cardinals in many ways. If Taveras is in RF, then Heyward isn't. If Heyward isn't on the team, then Shelby Miller is. If Shelby Miller is on the team then maybe Leake isn't signed or Cardinals made a move for another outfielder, using Miller in that deal to get an Enciarte, for example. And so on. It had a profound and significant influence on the organization -- and will for years.
Pirates already, subtly, started.
There's no rush, if that's what you mean. Not sure why they would need the room today that they're going to get the minute the World Series ends, or soon after. They can let the players know that the option will not be exercised and when that player elects to become a free agent the moment the World Series ends then the roster opens up. All of these decisions are hinged to a date/deadline, including the protection of players before the Rule 5 draft.
Sure. A full season from an improved Aledmys Diaz has to be appealing. A full season of playing time for Randal Grichuk or Kolten Wong -- or both! -- should be appealing. Leake with a better defense behind him will be a better pitcher. Wainwright bodes well for 2017, given his improvement and strength he'll have being removed from the 2015 injury. And I maintain that a move for a CF -- or some other position if that doesn't work out -- could improve the team by altering the look at the top of the lineup. It's a subtle thing that could could yield significantly sharper play.
I'm a Cleveland Believer. Picked Cleveland to win the division and every time I got a chance to watch them, I was impressed. Small sample size, to be sure. Cleveland poses a problem for any team remaining in the postseason for the reason you mentioned. Starting with its bullpen.
He's done similar things in the past when the need is obvious. The Cardinals had need for a reliever at the deadline. He was advertising that, though I'll be honest I didn't catch wind of Zach Duke actually being a target until it happened. I had a bad read on what they were looking at with the White Sox. Entering last season, he was candid about the need for a utility infielder with offensive upside. Enter Gyorko. There's usually one need that is so obvious there's no need to play coy.
I covered college football, college baseball, the NBA, and the NHL as full-time beats before moving over to baseball, which was always the sport that I sought to cover wherever I went.
Signing Heyward would have blocked Piscotty or Grichuk for several years, and the need was in pitching, so a move could have made to alleviate the blocked player, utilize his value on the trade market, and acquire a starting pitcher at that point. That starter could have been the other core player if the deal was right -- or signed then to an extension -- again if the deal was possible. The way things happened did not rule out the possibility of adding two core players, nor did it put a deadline on when the Cardinals had add that core player. It just changed how they would do it.
Most likely? In the organization.
Sure, he's with the team in 2017.
No. That was an interview where both sides realized there wasn't a match.
It's being discussed. It might be to give Rosenthal an agreeable situation for him and an opportunity he wants -- even if it ends with him in the bullpen. There's no harm in letting him give it a shot.
He was one of only two candidates from outside the organization interviewed, and the Cardinals made clear that their preference was to hire from within. He was coming off the Boston issue and he acknowledged that he was dealing with off-field, personal issues at the time. That was the backdrop for his availability, remember. There was some belief that he was headed to Chicago for the Cubs' opening. His conversation with the Cardinals in Cincinnati was described as "casual" at the time but both sides also described how it didn't go as smoothly as other interviews. I just looked up the story that the late Joe Strauss did on Francona's interview and the tone of his comments are different than the ones Matheny and Sandberg gave me, and that Oquendo certainly had for Hummel.
"Whatever happens, happens," Francona said.
I think so. I made the case that he could be that for this postseason -- if the Cardinals got there. I wasn't told I was wrong. Not in so many words.
This becomes abundantly true every time I turn to Twitter.
You'll be the first to know. Should I swing by and do it in person? Or is the chat good enough?
More the former than the latter. I also think he's underrated as a guy who does not get out. There's an appeal to a player like that batting ahead of Matt Carpenter.
Exactly. Color me confused.
Not even the Cardinals know at this point. That's one of the great questions of the winter.
