You are a big fan of Mo's, I can tell.
A few thoughts.
The Goldschmidt deal did not include $130 million. He signed an extension after he was traded. And yes, that was a good trade. I don't really know how anyone can argue that it wasn't. Luke Voit, and I'm a fan of his, was not going to almost singlehandedly fix an infield defense that was a big reason the Cardinals had become baseball's most error-prone team. The rush to rip Mo to the point that a trade for one of the National League's most solid two-way players is not only ignored but argued to be a negative is a very bizarre thing to me.
Piscotty's mom was dying. The Cardinals did the right thing. And now that's supposed to be a negative? Come on. It's not like Cardinals fans would have been happy with his play if he had stayed. Same for Grichuk.
You named a lot of decisions that have not worked. What about some of the good other than Goldschmidt?
Mikolas from Japan. We will see if extension was good or bad. Kim from Korea. Looks great so far. Wainwright on a cheap deal for 2020. Worked out great. The trade for John Gant that keeps paying off.
None of us know how deals with players who did not accept them would have played out, good or bad, so I don't factor those into the equation. (Maybe Stanton does not get hurt as often here? Stuff like that is unanswerable and pure guessing game.)
Point is, yeah, if you want to line up all of Mo's recent whiffs, ignore the things he has done right and explain away the things that can't be ignored -- like saying he has no hand in player development -- something he has prioritized and stressed at every turn -- then you can make a case he's not good at his job.
But it's a warped case.
He's had better stretches of time, for sure. No doubt about that. But sometimes some here make him out to be a disaster of a president of baseball operations. I can tell you he would have a job elsewhere pretty fast if he wanted one.