Sure. Has to be discussed.
Ah, player control. There is still going to be part of that. Mostly it's going to come in the form of revamping the arbitration system. Remember, the union represents players on the 40-man roster. The players who don't have to be on the 40-man roster or aren't yet, are not represented by the union, and you're going to see the union focus the changes it does seek around that. So, again, the situation would not be different for Liberatore if they get what they want. It will be when he's on the 40-man. He might have a chance to make more earlier than say Flaherty has.
The numbers do not lie. He is a Hall of Fame pitcher with Hall of Fame credentials and Hall of Fame performance against the Cardinals' lineup -- and many many many many others.
You should not expect a huge amount of return this winter. Better deal to explore a year from now.
They have both given credit to the coaches -- both with the Cardinals and coaches they have sought out on their own with the blessing of the Cardinals. They also would, rightfully, change their ability and talent to adapt and improve.
I will be giving this more thought in the next 24 hours, as you can imagine, but as of right now I'm leaning toward Goldschmidt. You mentioned some of the reasons. I continue approach the word valuable as to who was most "influential" in the team's success. I try to look at it through that lens. Last year, Adam Wainwright was the MVP of the Cardinals, by far. For that reason. This year, Goldschmidt, I think at the moment. Though it's close.
I have written a lot about Flaherty's use. It will be in short usage, not long. I'm not sure where you read that either, but Flaherty has been limited to less than 25 pitches. That's not length. That's targeted usage. There is a reason why I've mentioned Mikolas and Hudson, and that's because reporting and questioning the Cardinals have pulled those two names directly from their plans.
So they haven't met either standard. Doesn't exactly answer the question. Goodness, some people really want to find any reason to skewer the front office -- I offer one that they haven't met ownership's 95-win mark, and you won't even take it. What time to be alive.
It's the name of the team, mostly. Just try my best to write for Twitter like I would for the article, and I'm not dropping an stlcards in the middle of a newspaper headline or sentence. And I use both when they fit.
Almost everyone of the major shortstops available could be considered for a leadoff role. Story. Seager. These days, those hitters could bat leadoff to maximize their times at the plate.
I don't get that sense, no. They'll take a look at the shortstop market. I know not everyone agrees with the assertion I'm making here, but I'm not doing it without reporting, checking around. The Cardinals see the shortstop market as a place they should at least look, at least consider, for a possible improvement, and, again, the DH does open up options.
The Cardinals not likely to give up the pieces necessary to get Reynolds from a division rival. I doubt they want to get a couple of years or so of him and watch Walker play six years for the Pirates, or however that would work out. The Pirates would be wise to make a move this winter with Reynolds if his control does not overlap with their plan to contend, because his cost is rising and the return on him will be great -- like when the Sox traded Eaton to the Washington Nationals. That's the model to follow.
They are not. Bring on real baseball in extra innings. Thank the maker.
I don't know yet. And I also don't quite know what "hard" means -- does that mean do they light up the rumor mills and Twitter with interest? If so, no. They don't do that. They are famously absent from commenting on anything, anything at all, even when they have a deal in place. If by "hard" you mean getting into a ferocious bidding war, then no. That's not their style either.
I can empathize. Had an issue with fazes/phases recently and for the life of me could not type the write one even when I new it was the wrong won.
Maybe. They're friends. They'll talk. But money talks louder. Money and years. And players respect the right of the other player to go chase the biggest offer they can. Free agency doesn't happen for every player, and they work hard to get there, and friends, being friends, will likely advocate for the pot of gold. But if the offers are all equal, then maybe it helps. So does spring training location, honestly.
I don't get that sense, no.