Wash U. exists. Moving on ...
Don't see the line up there. Why would A's trade Olson? They're not in the business usually of adding payroll and moving an impact player.
Britton, yes. Makes a lot of sense. I've not heard much uptick on Miller or Ottavino from Cardinals. Still trying to get a sense of the interest the Cardinals have for the right side of the bullpen -- if any.
Cardinals tried to make a trade for Sonny Gray before, and they do see value there. Roll is an interesting wrinkle at this point. If Yankees are out to move him at any price and the Cardinals don't have to take on much risk at all, it's possible to see a match, absolutely.
Harper and one of the two would be a substantial upgrade at this point and change the look of the Cardinals on the field and the perception of the Cardinals in the industry, for sure.
Cardinals have no interest in trading Jack Flaherty. They see him as the next ace. They see him as the future frontman for the rotation. They have every reason to buy into that -- and other teams asking about him only fortifies that position. I'm not so sure that a "major" trade would be built around Carlos Martinez as the center piece. A good trade, for sure. But you have to remember that he has a contract that pays him solid coin. Team-friendly coin for sure. But he's not a guy making the minimum or close to for the next three years. Younger pitchers will be.
Not usually. Not with the teams I've covered. And increasingly, teams are feeding their own media outlets for obvious reasons, or just handling the announcement on Twitter on their own, again, for obvious reasons.
That would be the plan, yes.
Already has. See the Rockies spending of a year ago, and look to the salary that contract that Joe Kelly is going to get as a non-closer. Heck, the Cardinals are part of this issue by the contract they gave Brett Cecil. Pitcher valuations are changing, and rapidly.
Not in the same way, but something similar. There are two-year and three-year options out there that would come late in the contract. Remember Wainwright had a deal initially like that as a young player that had a two-year team option that had to be exercised at the same time. Not one year at a time, but both at once. It's hard to see a team having enough leverage in this game, in this modern market for them to negotiate an opt-out in the middle of a deal.
They have a whole weekend of events planned. There will be giveaways, undoubtedly. There will be standing ovations. There will be highlight videos. And so on. No plans to retire his number at this point. That's not done until, you know, the player is retired -- and for the Cardinals the player also must be in the National Baseball Hall of Fame. That's the current rule. It's not hard and fast. But it's their guideline at this point.
Financially, it seems doable. Not sure of the want at this point. You're talking about two significantly different contracts at this point. And it wouldn't address the left side of the bullpen.
Voted before I left, yes. Easy process. Made sure to do it. Important to do so. Did the same thing in 2016, and in 2014, and in 2012, and so on ... Yes, the arbitration process for middle relievers have changed. It is still lagging behind the game, however, because the stats aren't as good in the arbitration process. At some point in time in the near future those are going to have to catch up. Right now, teams present their case and agents present their case and they're left to decide whether they spend 10 minutes explaining a good stat or 10 seconds relying on a readily understood stat and then trying to make the case from there. One step baseball should do is get arbiters that are well-versed in baseball's advanced stats and thus eliminate the need to explain the fancy stats and just all get on the same page. To me, that's a flaw in the arbitration process because players with 3-6 experience are being judged by one set of numbers for their salaries and then they hit the open market and deals are negotiated by two parties well-versed in advanced metrics. Just seems like baseball could streamline and homogenize the process for a better result.
Either way. Whatever improves them in aggregate. Go for the offense or veer to the run prevention. The name of the winter is improve, and either way they do it it has to be to widen the run differential.
I don't hear that same declaration from the Washington front office. Interesting.
Get out there and vote, folks.
Excellent question. Here's where the Cardinals are from my view: They need to pay to address the left side of the bullpen. Certainty there is necessary, and it's going to be pricey because by nature the reliever spot is volatile. From there, they have the depth to throw arms at the situation and see who rises to the roles. That's always a good way to go because this past year's Jordan Hicks could be next year's Ryan Helsley if given the chance. Bud Norris happens. Pat Neshek happens. Both were veterans signed on the eve of spring training, and expect another move like that, too. Add numbers. Add depth. That's how you add answers.
I will stand firm on the opinion Bryce Harper did not have an "off" year. If there's a stat that shows it that matters, I haven't found it. That's the homework for the week. If someone wants to make that case, come with the proof. I'll hear the arguments in the next chat. We all know we'll have plenty of time for this debate this year.
Alright. That's going to have to do it for this week. Still feel like I didn't make a dent in the questions. That's a credit to you -- and a reason why we will continue to do these chats all winter long, wherever the offseason takes the Cardinals. They don't know yet. They don't. The front office has hopes just like the fans, and at this point they have as much information as the fans on how it will work out. That's what this week is for. To better understand the landscape. And that's what the story will be about for tomorrow. Setting the stage for a few days of discussions -- and prelude. The GM Meetings are prelude. Enjoy.