They have offers from teams that will present them prospects. The Cardinals haven't been that eager to move him just to get a free spot on the 40-man roster. That's a risk that leaves them exposed. They were looking to flip him for a lefty that they wanted -- or a lefthanded hitting center fielder, possible. Neither happened, obviously. Going into the market for Miller as a free agent certainly lessens the urgency for the Cardinals to trade Martinez. They can keep him now as strong insurance for right field, and look again at possible moves during spring training if another need or another match lines up.
First, I don't buy that any of this talk has any influence on potential trade interest. Teams aren't that foolish. They have Internet connect just like you. They can see box scores and check stats and see past the bluster. I think opinions that the Cardinals are trying to "inflate" Fowler to drum up interest from other teams is hogwash. Doesn't work that way. I don't think teams are that naive. Just me. Second, I don't see any lovefest. Third, they are clearly committed to him because they have a contract committing millions to him. That's not a secret. Both sides acknowledge this. For the Cardinals, they have a heavy investment in Fowler being Fowler. For Fowler, he has said repeatedly that he has to earn the opportunity to prove he's worth that contract for Cardinal Nation. If anything, they've echoed some of the sentiment that fans have said about the contract. Not sure what else they're supposed to say about that. If he had one year remaining on his deal the conversation would be different, for sure. That's business. They get it.
I believe it. I believe they are not alone in that message. It's pretty common.
Please scroll back. That was a report in the Sun-Times -- about all the moving parts and gears and gizmoes and levers and pulleys that would lead them into the Harper market. Good story from Gordon Wittenmyer.
Or until there's more than footsie going on. How about that? Things really haven't changed all that much in the past few weeks. It's not like he went on a tour, Machado-style, to stoke chatter and real news.
Yes. I will be taking a sabbatical in 2019 and hiding in the mountains. You're on your own.
Any speculation on the chances -- 50/50, 60/40, 23/77 -- is wrong the moment I type it. And that's just because it's a number based on little empirical evidence. Here is what we know about Goldschmidt and the Cardinals' plans for an extension. There was a sense on the other side of the negotiations for the trade that the Cardinals had a sense already of what it would take to sign Goldschmidt -- and that they made the trade fulling willing to make that offer. Sources have confirmed that the Cardinals believe they have the ability to make a strong, market-right offer to him at any point, if he's willing. They didn't want to shove an extension down his throat in his first few days of being a Cardinal, and they are far more willing to let him get acclimated, see if he digs it, and see how he fits for them, and then make the move. So, yeah, sometime during the season makes sense. They've done these things in June, in July, and in September, of course. There are two parts to this. The Post-Dispatch has reported that a five-year extension would look something like five-years, $150 million. There was also a report that Goldschmidt was seeking a six-year deal. These two reports can coexist. A six-year deal would include this year and give him a bump from his $15.5 million salary and thus add to the total value of the deal. The one thing that has not been said, will not be said, and will have to be revealed at some point privately by Goldschmidt is how much he wants to be a free agent, and if he would like to pursue a chance to get closer to Houston or play for Houston and, if so, if the Astros can do something better than the Cardinals because they have a DH spot to offer longevity that the Cardinals do not. That's what is the unknown. The Cardinals feel they have a good chance to sign Goldschmidt to an extension. People close to Goldschmidt insist he has an open mind about sticking around.
Whoa, slow down there ... Yes, Albert will be working with O'Neill. And his influence should help the young slugger. But I doubt he'll get any more attention than, say, Harrison Bader, who also needs to improve as a hitter to assure his everyday place in the lineup.
It does not. The Cardinals have had internal discussions about using an "opener" but they are confident in their rotation and their depth of starters so they don't see the benefit with their roster.
It's a good question, and it's one that -- trust me -- several of us have asked and asked often times. There are some differences. Price was for fewer years. Heyward had been with them and they felt they knew his habits, his work ethic, his health, his fit well -- and were willing to get past that puke point -- their words -- and make that lengthy offer. Stanton was a trade. They had to make a move for the contract that some other team signed him to, and trust me they weren't thrilled about it. (No other team really was with the Marlins. That's why so many teams wanted the Marlins to pay some of the freight for the contract.) Pujols was an iconic player who they were trying to make a lifelong Cardinal. Way different conversation there. Far, far, far different. Here's what I can tell that sets the Harper deal apart: Cardinals want to avoid the length deals when possible, and especially when they don't feel they have the personal, close familiarity with a player. That comes up a lot, whether you agree with it or not. The Cardinals are also reluctant to turn so much leverage over to the player with the opt-outs and the length. They, as a team, see that as a lose-lose for them and only to the benefit of the player. Other teams have different views of opt-outs. I think what it also comes down to is you're talking about a lot more money for Harper at this point. The Cardinals' offers to Heyward, Price, and Pujols were all in the $200 million range -- some just under, a few over. Harper is in the $300-$350 million range. That's a steep hike. Stanton? Cardinals were willing to take on $255ish million of his deal. And you're still talking a steep uptick from there. So, yeah, the bulk guarantee sets Harper apart -- and that can not be ignored in this discussion.
You're not wrong, you're just not using all of the data available, and you're doing so by choice. What metrics do is augment the eye test by measuring the plays that you don't remember, the routine ones that don't stand out, or the forgettable ones that don't resonate. We're human. Any eye test is going to favor the mistakes -- we remember those -- or the great plays and do some internal calculus on whether a player had more mistakes or more great plays. That's only natural. Analytics are the impartial observer. They add to the picture, strengthen it, but aren't the compete picture. That's how I see it. DeJong was an above average shortstop by one measure that did give him the benefit of strong positioning (hello, Jose Oquendo). DeJong has improved his reactions, his feel for hitters, and the true-ness of his throws. All of those things will benefit him. He has the ability to be an above-average shortstop and fit right in there with the production of the best of them. If he's Trevor Story at Sea Level, that's a really good player.
They have. The traded Mike Leake in a deal not too long ago. One reason the Cardinals don't always do it is because they're busy handing out no-trade clauses. That's a factor.
They realize when they cannot deny the obvious. It's counterproductive if we're all writing and asking about what they're doing to deny what they're doing. Might as well just admit it.
Sure, if they're losing. They'll do that. But it will be the least of their concerns.
I think it's entirely by design. One last go with this group and if it doesn't more they can move on with tremendous flexibility and a mandate to go in a new direction for the hitters.
Yes. It's unfolding all around us.
I never got a sense there was much momentum for Bellinger at all. Never made sense to the people I talked to, who were dubious that the Dodgers were eager to trade a controlled player who may just be one of the best players on their team. That seemed ... off.
No. Not their brand. And with the pitching they have -- why?