They have strong scouting reports and they have had good success in that market -- better success going abroad for Oh and Mikolas than they have staying home and going after free agents. There will be lobbying from within the front office to make a play for him.
Sipp is going to be in play for the Cardinals. Don't see the fit for Soria, at this point.
There's a free agent of note that bats lefthanded and brings some thunder at the plate. He's going to make a lot of money. There is also Mike Moustakas. At this point the unmentioned slugger with prodigious talent is the likelier target but at some point Moustakas could float into the conversation. As far as trade goes, don't see that answer out there at this point. That's so last year.
Interesting question. Whatever teams can get their hands on they will. I've heard stories -- and I think I've shared them before -- about clubbies being asked what a guy is like in the opposing clubhouse when he visits Busch Stadium. Agents are prepped to answer these questions, too. Players on the team will be brought in for their opinion. Matt Holliday was often asked for his view of a player the Cardinals had interest in, and I'm sure the same is now true of Yadier Molina and Matt Carpenter and any player who has crossed paths with another player, or shares an agent with the player. They'll go back to some of the draft interviews. They'll scour stories from the media about the player. They'll trust their scouts to have viewed some of the interactions of players with the targeted free agent. Anything. Everything. There are some scouts that watch interactions during BP just to get that sense ...
A conversation about the pitchers makes a lot of sense for Cardinals.
It is not. That's the best part of this market. It's got depth and it's got variety. There are many many many many many ways for the Cardinals to improve here.
They have got to find a way to utilize their assets to improve the pitching. That's where talk of moving Simmons begins. They need to get some young, ready talent in place around Trout so that they can have the larget contract and still have contention. Look no further than the rotation they have and the rotations their division rivals have for the gulch between them. That has to mend. So they can spend. Or they can trade.
My point was that the Cardinals could do that quantity of talent and actually pivot to a run-prevention like team. Pollock was definitely brought up. Count me in the grop that sees Keuchel as maybe the better buy than Corbin will be based on the return. Corbin is going to get a lot of Chatwood-like attention and there's going to be a lot of money spent on spin rate, for sure. Iglesias would factor into that kind of move as well, or a shift to Moustakas. There are ways to improve a team by one major move or by a series of moves or by both. Again, that's why this market is so fascinating. It's the Target of offseasons. Something for everyone.
I'm more pragmatic than romantic in these regards. Spending and winning bring in the free agents. If they win with Harper, then they have the winning, but they would still need to spend on the free agents. So, it comes back to money. Will they spend? That's the honey.
He has an option remaining. This is possible.
Britton. Keuchel. Iglesias. Not really much of a secret.
I disagree. There are many ways to improve the Cardinals.
All indications from the Cubs and the coverage of the Cubs is the exact opposite. They are already nosing the soft cap.
That was kind of their idea last year.
Kimbrel would be a curious departure from the Cardinals' practices of the past 12 years and specifically the past 12 months.
They are constantly tinkering with the equation if that's what you mean. The biggest shift that we've seen from the Cardinals in how they identify and judge talent is going to go back to the winter they signed Fowler. That offseason was when the reality of the market socked the Cardinals between the eyes. It had gotten away from there. Teams were not making decisions with prospects that the Cardinals had baked into their formula. They couldn't compute how the Sox got so much for Eaton. They had to change how they looked at protecting players because San Diego was dipping into short-season for talent. And so on. The Cardinals pivotated from talks of trades to offering another year -- out of character -- to get Fowler, because the need for a Fowler at that position was so much that they felt the pinch of what it would cost to convince him to come to the Cardinals. Likewise, when they pursued Stanton. We have seen in recent years the Cardinals evolve their way of evaluating and assigning values that suggest they're willing to meet the market -- not wait for it to bring a Holliday, for example, back to them, or a Mikolas or a Norris or jump ahead of it for a Peralta or a Cecil ... So, it's not the postseason (or lack thereof) it's what they see other teams willing to do for the talent, and what stretch they have to make sure to get the commodity that is the costliest of them all, certainty.
Natural churn. I bet Mejdal wants a new challenge, honestly.
I have a hard time buying that argument. The World Series isn't transferable.
If Ozuna's number are double what he had last year, you could say the same thing. If they are the same as this past year, you could say the same thing. And so on and so on and so on. There are many things that could happen in the next 12 months that would mean they don' re-sign Ozuna, and not the least of which is the outfielder they do or don't get this winter. That's probably more important than Ozuna's production in the coming season.
The writers have walked away from me. I think they went for lunch.