October is in full swing with an epic walk-off for the Phillies in Philadelphia and statement win, complete with GIF-ready jawing, for Mike Shildt's San Diego Padres in Los Angeles.
Former Cardinals' fingerprints are already all over the postseason.
Meanwhile, in 最新杏吧原创, the Cardinals are retreating into a "reset," complete with changes to the front office, the coaching staff, spending, and much more.
You've got questions, and probably plenty of complaints and criticism. The Cardinals have time on their hands in the coming weeks to begin shaping, deciding, and enacting their plan.
Sounds like the City of 最新杏吧原创 is testing its outdoor warning sirens.
That's the signal to start the chat.
As always, a real-time transcript of the chat will appear below the window for easier reading on your phone, laptop, tablet, or wherever it is you catch the chat. Questions can be asked in the window. Questions and comments from subscribers and chatters are not edited for grammar or spelling. They are ignored and deleted for vulgarity.
Away. We. Go.
Mark: DG, I think I noticed in a recent chat that you mentioned the possibility of Contreras learning to play 1B. I can see that as a possibility for both him and Herrera to get both of their bats into the lineup (1B & DH), and maybe even have Pages catch the same day. Do you think that there is a good argument for keeping all three of them on the major league roster and do you think it is being discussed by the Cardinals? Thanks for your top-notch reporting!
DG: Thanks for the kind words. Keeping all three on the MLB roster is definitely being discussed by the Cardinals, and even explored how they do that. If anything, that's where they start their roster -- with those three on it. That's because Contreras is signed, Herrera is out of options, and Pages is trusted behind the plate. First base is one outlet for solution. Contreras has 51 innings at first base, so there's not a ton of experience there, but it's also not new to him. It would be "learning" for any of them, and there has been no indication from the Cardinals as of yet that they see any of those three as their first baseman ahead of Alec Burleson, who has been mentioned as a possible 1B for 2025. That leaves a few other alternatives. Count Contreras among the group of veterans that the Cardinals will approach about what they want to do -- and if they want to find another place. Gray, Arenado, and Contreras stand out as that group that the front office will have to talk to (if they haven't already) about the direction the Cardinals are headed and how they fit in. Another alternative would be trading Herrera, who will get interest -- and potentially lot of it -- and that would set up the Cardinals to have Pages for sure and Crooks on the way. These are avenues the Cardinals will explore certainly by/at the GM Meetings.
Bryan C: I do not see anything wrong with what Jack Flaherty said, do you?
DG: I don't understand the art of cursing.
(All kidding aside: I don't blush when people curse in the heat of the moment. Not too keen about insults, but hey -- they're adults. They give. They take. And cursing is going to happen in competition.)
Capstone: Unless lots of youngsters make major strides,, it doesn't look like the Cards have the hitting or pitching to be a top six NL team in 2025. Arenado has age related regression. He has a costly and complex contract. Even if they have to eat salary, should they trade him (assuming any team swings that deal) and strengthen the farm season. They are not playoff caliber until 2026 at the earliest.
DG: Trading Arenado would be a move driven to move him to a team that he feels gives him a better chance to win. From there, for the Cardinals, it would be about a) alleviating salary and b) getting something in return, but toggling how to do that without paying more of the salary will be the art of the deal. Arenado has a no-trade clause and a super-complex contract that includes deferred money with interest from the Rockies, deferred money without interest from the Cardinals, and an additional year added on to counterbalance some of the cash value. So, this isn't a deal that "strengthens the farm system." That deal is trading Helsley or Contreras. And, no, the Cardinals are not a Top 6 NL team at the moment.
Joe B: My buddy and I have a long-standing debate about the value of coaches (like say, a hitting coach). He points to the poor stats as a reflection of poor coaching, I think it's a reflection of poor performance. If the Cardinals had a different hitting coach this year, do they have the same offensive woes?
DG: Here is now I view coaching, not that you asked, but I hope it helps.
Coaching is about preparation.
Coaching is not about performance.
If a team is not prepared or a player is not prepared, then consider the coaching, or at least how the message is reaching the players -- and if they're closed off to it, or they're not getting it. Same with preparation when it comes to scouting and knowledge of the opponent and preparation for what you might see in a situation, a moment, or from an opponent, hitter or pitcher. All about the preparation. Heck, think about a first/third base coach and the preparation they must to do be ready to read pickoffs. That's coaching. Preparation.
A coach does not step into the box or cross the line or toe the rubber to perform.
So, I'm on your side of this argument. And it's difficult to know if they have a different coach do they have different results. There's no indication that the players were unprepared. That doesn't appear to be the case -- and when asked about that the hitters pushed back hard. A new voice can always find a new way to reach players. But new doesn't mean better. It means different, and different results -- giving how the Cardinals got to those results does not seem likely.
If there are examples people saw about preparation, I'm all ears and happy to discuss or explore them.
Donald N: Derrick; Does your reporting reflect a possibility that Cardinals would really trade Sonny Gray and Ryan Helsey? Tony LaRussa used to say that in building a team from scratch, he would first want a closer because of the damage a ninth inning loss does to a team's psyche. I appreciate your hard work! Donald
DG: There is that possibility, yes. These are two different types of deals. The Cardinals have said, on the record, they'll talk to Sonny Gray about their direction and his fit, and whether that is something that he wants. Mozeliak told me that conversation has to be a "two-way street" and respectful of the fact that the Cardinals sold Gray on being a perennial contender when they signed him. If Gray, who has a no-trade clause, wants to stick and stay, then he stays; if not, then the Cardinals look to shed some of that cash and who Gray will accept a deal to. He's got the power. As far as Helsley -- that would be a sell-high move for the Cardinals just ahead of him hitting the arbitration jackpot. He's in a good spot for a big raise in his final year before free agency.
The Cardinals will explore the market for both players in those opening weeks of the offseason, and the offers will dictate if a possibility becomes a real option.
cardsfanintheozarks: Hi Derrick, always enjoy the chats. If you had to rank the likeliness of the following Cardinals being traded from most to least likely how would you rank: Helsley, Gray, Contreras, Arenado? Thanks!
DG: I wish I could do that. I don't know at this point, because it involves other teams, some of which are focused, as you can imagine, on the postseason. Plus, you're talking about multiple players with no-trade clauses, and they've got a few weeks to consider what they want to do with those. As you can imagine, we're still in the opening weeks here of October, and players unplugged after the season ended. Or, they huddled with their family and they'll take time to make that call. Without that information, I'll have a hard time doing anything other than just flat out guessing.
I prefer not to flat out guess.
It's better to provide you an answer when there is more information available -- first to the time and from other teams, and then what reporting can reveal and also confirm.
I hope folks don't come to the chat for the latest guess.
Jim: Hi Derrick - do you know if Hence is OK? I haven't seen an update since he got pulled from his last start
DG: My colleagues had a few updates in the newspaper and online following his removal. He was checked over, given the usual exams, and the Cardinals found something that caused them additional alarm. He had soreness, some fatigue, and was prescribed rest. This will be circled back on once he gets a bit into the offseason, but the updates following his departure was that he felt better a day or so later, and there wasn't a root cause that led to additional concern.
Jim: Also interested if there is any talk of Graceffo moving to the pen
DG: Sure. That's standard as a young pitcher arrives, is ready for the majors, and the rotation is full. The Cardinals are open to the idea that Graceffo's first extended look in the majors would be in relief.
Mark: If, in 2024, the veteran corner infielders had 30/100/.280 seasons...and, say, Dakota Hudson channeled his inner (peak) Adam Wainwright for an entire year, how different would this chat be?!
DG: Hard to know. The chats, like social media, through the years, tend to bend toward anger. So, there would be something.
Bryan C: Poll question. Of the 4 NL playoff teams who are the Cardinal fans hoping makes it to the World Series?
DG: Isn't the answer the Padres?
DCG: DG, You foresaw all this, noting back in ST chats that the makeup of the roster would allow the FO to change direction quickly if the season didn't work out. I don't think I absorbed that fully back you noted it. Now that the change is here, I don't really understand the Cardinals' approach to 2024. Supposing that Walker and Gorman still struggled, but Arenado and Goldy had hit just enough to turn some of those low-run losses into wins and the Cardinals snuck into the playoffs, what would be different about the state of the franchise? The same problems would exist (low performing prospects, understaffed minor leagues, an aging pitching staff with only one top end pitcher). So, what was 2024 really about? What would have made the FO not see the need for the changes they are going to implement?
DG: Thanks for the recall and pointing that out. This is a great question.
What was 2024 about? Well, it wasn't a bridge year -- a bridge to a rebuild, if you will. And it wasn't a stopgap year. Was it a Hail Mary year? There's probably an argument that was the case toward the end of Goldschmidt's deal and into the heart of Helsley's peak. The Cardinals signed two veterans to one-year deals banking on good, reliable, predictable performance from both. They could have gotten injuries from both, so there was a risk there, right? They were counting on trend-level production from their pillars, and that seems fair. They were counting on breakout, rising performances from prospects, and they got it from Winn, Burleson, and not from Walker and Gorman. And they bet big on Kittredge and Middleton providing setup for Helsley. They got the surprise in Ryan Fernandez to cover for Middleton, and every team that contends gets a surprise from somewhere.
The word that I've tried to use to describe 2024 for the Cardinals is this: They addressed their biggest weaknesses from 2023, and they had a complete and utterly unexpected collapse of what should have been a strength -- the lineup. The roster was built for the Cardinals to roll Yahtzee and see how far it went. And they did not. That is what 2024 was about. Building a team that had the potential to go right in a lot of ways, that was going to have a good lineup and a good bullpen and try to roll Yahtzee. And if it did then the revenue would grow, the tickets sold would increase, and so on and so on.
One issue.
That expected lineup's production ghosted, leaving the Cardinals to try and roll Yahtzee with four dice.
What was 2024 about? It was about buying time and remaining competitive as a new model moved in as support before it took over as the guide. It didn't work.
Several years ago, I wrote an essay for Baseball Prospectus about the Cardinals being in the worst possible position: On the fence. It was a theme I explored later and often for the Post-Dispatch. They weren't all-in on a contender, not like their rivals, and they weren't pulling the plug like the tankers. They were on the fence. And that's the worst spot to be in the modern game.
QED.
Millo Miller: Derrick, not sure if you were watching Game 1 between the Phillies and Mets, but the inning the Mets scored 5 runs it was the result of a walk and 5 singles I believe. They also ran the bases aggressively. This is the type of offensive strategy I hope the Cardinals get back to. Over reliance on damage has hurt the Cardinals. I understand damage is needed but good situational hitting is needed also. Keep the line moving, trust the guy behind you and improve your 2 strike approach. Your thoughts?
DG: I would be reluctant to rely too much on that approach just because of the math. You're asking something that happens at best 1 out of every 4 times to happen in five consecutive times. Good timing with your question because, it's Yahtzee again.
You can try this at home.
If you happen to have five four-sided dice nearby, roll them. Let's say a base hit is 1. See how many times you get one on all five dice. What damage does it doesn't change the roll -- it changes the dice. Instead of rolling 4 side dice, now you're rolling 10-side dice, and you don't need to get one of the numbers on the dice, what you need is a number that we assign for total bases. You're reducing the number of hits you need to generate a run. A single needs help. A homer is a run. That's reducing the probability of stacking events to create a run.
I saw Game 1, and that's great for the Mets to defy the odds and put things in motion and make it happen. They saw an opportunity and seized, and that's a facet of a good offense. One that can score in many ways.
I also saw Game 2. And that game shifted on power. Power that helped teams defy probability in an era when it's hard to hit than ever. Lower batting averages throughout the majors. Harder to string hits together. That makes power/damage more valuable than ever, and it's an offense that can do that -- and then also be opportunistic and score in other ways, that is going to be the best offense. Cardinals going back are not going to make them better, unless you mean going back to 2013ish when they had high OBP and a lot of doubles for damage, and that was a robust offense.
Capstone: Cards seem to have interlocking challenges: player under-performance; sub-optimal roster construction; failure to get the hitting and pitching labs up and running. The latter is an ownership issue of under-investment --a corporate failure. Doesn't look like ownership is prepared to invest as necessary in a timely fashion
DG: That is a fair assessment. We'll see in the coming weeks/months if that changes.
BL: The disappointing part of this is that they didn't have to sit on the fence when it came to their player development system. While I get the "fence sitting" part, I think it's much more applicable when it comes to NBA and NFL discussions. MLB is such a different beast because the league/each team own their own player development systems, whereas the NFL and NBA in large part farm that out to the college system. Mo/DeWitt didn't need to let their systems fall by the wayside the way it did, including just simply having bodies in positions and an average amount of instructors at each level, not even getting into the tech side of things.
DG: One other element that is in play here is that the the NBA and NFL also have salary caps. So while spending has ballooned on the big-league level, it has also mushroomed in the minors, too. One of the things that is a tangible change is how much teams are spending on minor-league players (they're unionized) and their housing/support, and also the increase in salaries for coaches, because of competition. These are all good things. And they did come before and then escalate coming out of the pandemic. The Cardinals made their choice on spending from the same pie, and didn't get the results at the majors, and that cost them results below. Among the worst possible outcomes. But they are not alone in shrinking spending on player development and scouting. Some teams have radically reduced their scouting departments, for example.
DCG: One thing I've been thinking of a lot recently given the Cardinals' last several years and their inability to maintain/develop a championship-caliber roster is the incredible good fortune to have had Dave Duncan for so long. It's hard to put a number on how much money he freed up each year for their everyday player payroll by getting low-cost or bargain-cost pitchers to perform well above their salaries. From betting on high-end talent like Chris Carpenter to workman-like talent of Jeff Suppan, the team could happily pay for stars and veteran depth with the tens of millions they saved on the pitching side. I think he was about as important as Pujols in perpetuating the Cardinals' dominance during that era. Is there an MV3 if they have to pay top dollar for the quality of pitching performances that they got during that time? It's hard to see, right. The man should be in the HoF.
DG: Good news, he's in the Cardinals Hall of Fame. As for the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, I wrote recently about that: "Cardinals put revered coach Dave Duncan's legacy in bronze. Will Cooperstown take note?"
Dave: Derrick, I live on the East Coast and just reupped my digital subscription because of you and the rest of your colleagues Cardinal coverage. There wasn't a comment box so let your bosses know you should get a monthly slice of that!
DG: Thank you for subscribing. We know that we have to earn your investment -- and the start of the offseason is a great chance for us to prepare and look for new and better ways to do that. This is a big winter for coverage, and the PD is getting ready to expand what we do and rise to that occasion. It's not covering games that will make history. It is about covering the future for a team trying to reclaim its history.
Terry L Brown: Derrick, Mo had the nerve to say this is a results based business on KMOX yesterday regarding the firing of Turner Ward. How in the world does he justify keeping his own job?
DG: In his view -- and his bosses' view -- he is getting results then that they put value in. The measurement may different if ownership made its decision based on a poll on Twitter. If that is the baseline he presented for maintaining a job, then it's fair to ask what results ownership is basing its decision on, and we have through the years. And their answers have been provided.
Also, keep in mind Turner Ward's contract was set to be renegotiated, so there was an easy out, and it's not the first time the Cardinals have used an expiring contract as a reason to initiate churn.
Aaron Knopf: I get what you鈥檙e saying ... The coaches and players devoted the necessary prep time, but the players didn鈥檛 execute, so that鈥檚 on the players. But does that absolves the coaches? Were the players preparing in ways that made them execute to the best of their abilities? If coaching is about approach, it stands to reason that two different coaches with two different approaches could end up with divergent results from the same group of players.
DG: You're like proving my point. Even in your question, you ask "Were the players preparing in ways that made them execute to the best of their abilities?" You use the verb prepare, as in preparation. I stand by what I wrote. Coaching is preparation. Players are performance. Preparation can be the message being sent, how the connection is made, and how a coach helps a player maintain from game to game to game to month to month to month what is necessary to perform. Was the player prepared to perform? That's the coaching question. Did the player perform? That is the player question.
Redbird_rooter: Derrick, love your chats. Cardinals Nation is lucky to have your insight and thoughtful comments. My question is who employs the Cardinals TV broadcasters, the team or Bally Sports? If Bally were to stop broadcasting the games would Skip, Brad, Jim, Jim & Alexa be out of work?
DG: As broadcast partners, the team and Bally work together on those hires and keeping the broadcast groups together for contuinity. And you likely notice that the broadcasters do other events for the team. They are involved in promotions that related directly to the team, and Brad Thompson for example also hosts content beyond the broadcasts for the team. When Dan McLaughlin broadcast games for the Cardinals he was also heavily involved in organizing and even editing and producing promotion material for the team, as an example. There are also appearances that the broadcasters make for the team. So the club and its partners cooperate on the hires. Same goes with the radio. If there is a change in broadcasting networks (say the Cardinals launch their own) it will be up to the team and the individuals, but it's possible there is a seamless move.
BL: The one response to the singles/damage Yahtzee scenario (and this is someone who largely agrees with you) - given where StL plays half of their games, don't you have to take into account that it would be like playing yahtzee on a table that's tilted to prevent some of those big rolls from happening?
DG: Sure. And yet doubles do happen at Busch III. It is possible to slug there and be successful.
ON THE INTERNET BUDDY: Good afternoon. Thank you for another strong year of reporting. Approximately, how much will this restructuring of the minor leagues cost? Spitballing here - eight (?) coaches, technological equipment, etc. What I鈥檓 getting at is - can the org walk and chew gum at the same time?
DG: This is a good question, an important question, and I know it's one that I need to be sure to seek out and pin down an answer. As of right now, what they're talking about is an 8%-12% increase in spending on the development program. That's a seven-figure number, but obviously how big is vital to the conversation. So, I'm working on better understanding that. I know that the shifting of spending on the minors ranged from year to year because they had a heaving investment in tech for all hitters and for the hitting barn in Jupiter, but they could not also get the increased spending necessary for the pitching lab at that point.
Matt: Hey DG, thank you for another great season of coverage. Which current Cardinals players without a First Basemen's mitt will be purchasing one this off-season?
DG: None that I can think of. Is there someone you're referring to specifically? Perhaps that person already has a first baseman's mitt and it just hasn't been advertised?
They also could borrow a left-over one. Goldschmidt, you may or may not know, is known a bit for leaving behind a glove for a teammate or coach to use. I'm not even joking. He's done at least a few places.
Bigguy00: Why assume payroll drop will be only 2 years? Many of these changes will be continual costs, like instructor salaries. Also while Cards鈥 salaries down other going up causing bigger gap
DG: I'm not assuming that.
I'm not assuming one way or the other. I prefer to wait to see exactly what moves and actions they're going to take -- and then we don't have to assume anything. We know.
Joliet Dave: The RSN issue has me confused. I have subscribed to the MLB internet package for 10+ years. That is how I have watched all Cards games. How will that work going forward.?
DG: Likely the same. You will notice a change in the production -- no more Bally branding, and only branding to whoever is putting together the production (Bally's replacement, new branding, or the team). The other change you might experience is the cost. That could go up because teams are taking on more of the production cost.
Jojo Disco: In Breaking Bad there were two episodes titled Half Measure and Full Measure. I think you could break DeWitt鈥檚 ownership tenure into two parts 1997-2015 Full Measure and 2016-2024 Half Measure. Even this latest move was a half measure because he didn鈥檛 clear Mo out
DG: I'm partial to the "Fly" episode. Don't at me.
Travis W: Given the health struggles, do you think Tink Hence makes more sense as a reliever? His stuff in the 9th inning would definitely get my attention and I think his style would really appeal to viewers and those who enjoy watching the young guys play. Plus, it might make trading Helsely at his peak a little more palatable for the front office.
DG: When it comes to Tink Hence specifically, his "health struggles" are worth watching from a development standpoint -- a workload and caution and strength-building and maturing standpoint. It is far too early in his career, heck, in his age, for this to be something that leads any discussion of his talent. That said ...
When it comes to "health struggles" and pitchers I want to caution against presuming a shift to the bullpen will be a proactive and protective move.
It's much more nuanced and personal. For some pitchers, the shorter bursts and less workload would be helpful, but that comes with the need to be ready on back-to-back days or multiple times in a week. For other pitchers, it's not the workload that is the issue, it's the recovery and the need to pitch every few days and not available every day is better for their health. The discussions have to happen on an individual basis.
Which brings us back to Hence, and while he's nearing these conversations as he nears the majors, such considerations for what is best individually for him is on the horizon, not yet determined.
Ryan V: Hey Derrick, no question, but wanted to say I'm grateful to see another person stand up for "Fly." One of the all-time great episodes of television!
DG: Agreed. "Bottle episodes" can be classics -- and the context of putting together a compelling show while also reducing costs to meet a budget adds to that.
Hey, wait.
Hmmmmm.
Cardinals 2025: Their bottle episode?
Reduced costs.
Character development.
Polarizing for fans.
I think we're on to something.
Bob the Subscriber: Hey DG, the Matt Carpenter interview on BPIB was interesting and very illuminating re hitting. Fantastic stuff. Great work. When can we expect the next epidode?
DG: Imminently. This week. I had a chance to take a few days off and did that over the weekend. Back at the keyboard today and that means back at the microphone and editing this week.
Bob the Subscriber: Do you expect the team to put out press releases or otherwise publicize Bloom's work on the minor leagues? E.g., you get an email that says "Cardinals announce hiring of three new MiLB coordinators" or whatever?
DG: I do not. I do expect media to ask and that is how the information will get to fans.
Bob the Subscriber: Hi DG, given that Roby missed significant time (again), I find it a little surprising that he's not off to the AFL again this year. Do you have any insight as to why?
DG: I do. The key word -- and you used it -- is "again." Space is limited in the AFL, and teams are assigned specific spots on the roster to fill, and they can negotiate between the teams to get the ones they want. Since a team only has so many spots, they have to weigh whether it's important to get a pitcher another look in the AFL (or another player for that matter) or give someone new a shot at it. In this case, it's the latter, and that's not unusual.
Travis W: Thanks for answering. I definitely hadn't thought of those aspects of pitcher development. With Bloom taking over in '26, do you think he could see Tink as a candidate for an "opener"? That would allow a more consistent schedule, but with less innings, right? So kind of the best of both worlds?
DG: That would have to be a roster decision, too. You would have to build a bullpen that could sustain the added workload every fifth day. The way a team could do that is by loading up on relievers who have options and going through the churn. Lots of risk there. Lots of stress too. And the only way it works is with a lot of depth. So, it's not a decision that can be made based on one pitcher, but a handful, if not more. I don't see this as an option for the Cardinals or a route for Hence to follow. It would not maximize him, could avoid addressing his health in a meaningful way, and will definitely create stress points elsewhere.
Robert California: Derrick, I'd like to further explore your comment, "Coaching is about preparation. Coaching is not about performance". Performance can be quantitatively measured, but are you suggesting coaching effectiveness can only be qualitatively measured, devoid of metrics?
DG: I'm not saying that at all. Consider a third base coach. His preparation can indeed be quantitively measured. We can measure baserunning, so we can measure the bases that a coach suggests a team take and that is reflective of the coaches preparation for that situation with the scoreboard, that situation with the runner, and that situation with the opponent. We can indeed measure that. Likewise, when a team looks completely unprepared for a specific pitch from a specific pitcher -- and players say as much later. Or, with the game plan. If there is a static, outdate game plan for the catcher and pitcher and that shows up in predictable pitch selection and poor results, that preparation is easily measured in tangible, publicly available statistics.
Andy: So . . . The Cardinals have lost their way and are resetting. Was this what Mike Shildt was arguing with Mo about? Was Shildt pointing out the same things Bloom identified but Mo just wasn鈥檛 ready to hear the truth?
DG: According to reporting at the time and subsequently by the Post-Dispatch and multiple outlets, Shildt was expressing his concern for how it was happening and who was being allowed to leave in the process. How Shildt shared his opinion was just as big of factor as that he had this opinion. When it became clear that he had one year remaining on his contract and it was going to be difficult for the group to continue to work together, the Cardinals moved on. Shildt was not alone in bringing up some of these criticisms. How he did it during the post-season meetings was part of what guided Mozeliak's decision after looking into it. It was, for example, public knowledge and reported that the Cardinals had vacancies in the minor-league system and that Chris Carpenter was going to work for the Angels. Others in the organization had also expressed their concerns.
Matt L: I would like your expert opinion on the following question: More likely than not, do the cardinals make the playoffs in the next 3 seasons? (I know there is a lot of unknowables in this question and I acknowledge I am asking you to guess and speculate. I am asking you to do so because you have superior knowledge and experience and your best guess may be useful in informing our expectations for the future. Thanks.)
DG: Probably. The NL Central remains vulnerable and open to volatility, awaiting either the Reds' roster to manifest results or the Cubs to spend like a big-market team or the Cardinals to catch up on the development track. As long as there is a guaranteed spot from the NL Central in the playoffs and the format is what it is, then there's always next year for the teams in this division.
Aaron Knopf: I have an 鈥渋nside baseball鈥 question (pun intended 馃榾). What makes an intriguing question to you in these chats? As someone who greatly appreciates and wants to be respectful of the time you devote to these chats, what are the hallmarks of good questions to put in the queue? Should we just ask the thing we wonder about the most and just hope it gets answered? Or should we stick to whatever topics others are discussing as the focus for the day? Conversely, what is distracting or unhelpful to you when you鈥檙e moderating? Thanks again for all you do.
DG: I do wish that it was entirely based on the subject -- and that I could pluck out the questions that either challenge me to a new way of thinking or offer me a chance to write a short essay on a topic of interest to me, or something that I have reported on that hasn't found its way into print yet or just doesn't fit an article. Something, to borrow your phrase, that is really "inside baseball" and perfect for this chat.
The way the inbox is set up is that I only see a few questions at a time, and sometimes they move so fast I don't get a chance to see them. What would help everyone in the chat is this:
The shorter the questions the better.
I appreciate the research that some folks put into their questions and I do my best to respect that and respond to it. But there are times when all of the questions are loooooooong -- filibusters, if you don't mind the callback -- and when that's the case I may only see one of the questions at a time. That slows the chat down, and creates a sluggish exchange that doesn't allow for the best of the chat which is
... chatters responding to the topics.
... chatters introducing new topics.
... chatters challenging the thinking of all of us with a new angle, thought, view.
Jim Lang: What exactly do you mean by "How he did it"?
DG: How he did it -- how he verbally expressed his concerns. Either what he said (in its substance not in a "magic words" like for an ejection or "cancel culture" way) or who he said it to in the meetings that followed the season. Again, that was only part of it.
Ncas: What is your best guess for 2025 Cardinals opening day $$ payroll number?
DG: I don't have one. They don't have one yet, either. And, as mentioned earlier, I'll do my best to avoid guessing.
Ncas: How come MLB teams don't trade draft picks like in other major sports leagues?
DG: It has to do with avoiding the rich getting richer, honestly. When you look back how the draft was for four decades, it was about getting the teams that finished with the worst record the access to the best players. Didn't always work out that. Signing bonuses shifted the draft, made some teams with earlier picks and a penchant not to spend to go with the top signable talent, not the top talent. But for the most part that still allowed MLB to argue against trading picks, because it meant that the teams had to make those early picks, they could sell them off for money or for talent to the bigger teams and just perpetuate the dominance of a few teams. Imagine what the Dodgers would do to get access to top picks and what they would offer? That's a driving reason why.
We can definitely take the stance that if picks could be traded a team could accelerate a turnaround by trading top pick for now help. But we all know the financial factors in play and how, say, the Marlins would trade the pick based on financial concerns.
Eric D: Do you think the Cardinals are directly viewing the Brewers model as the secret sauce to win this division? Young and hungry players. I don't hear much from them on pointing that out. Brewers won by 10 games.
DG: I've heard it brought up by name from several people within the Cardinals' leadership group, especially when it comes to how they have to catch up with the Brewers on the pitcher development side. The Brewers get brought up a lot.
bo: Derrick- i continue to see Hence highlighted as one of the future stars . Why in the world is a player who literally gets hurt every year a building block for this team. Reminds me of how we hear about Matz every year . I think instead of making him a lynchpin how about we just say he is a a player who amy surprise in the future not a building block as the Cards FO seems to make him
DG: Tink Hence is 22 years old.
He has a lot of talent. He has a lot of upside.
I am astonished at the questions in this chat that seem to know all about a young man who is just now maturing into his talent, his frame, his ability, and professional baseball. He hasn't had a chance to show the fans who he is.
Why rush to do that for him? Sheesh.
Timbo02: Do you think that some of the problems that the team is addressing this off season, had a part in Matt Holiday's unexpected acceptance and even more unexpected early exit to being the Bench Coach? Did Matt see the writing on the wall somewhat?... or was it just a decision that he didn't think through enough...that caused him to quit days after accepting the job?
DG: I do not. The notion that Holliday "saw some writing on the wall" is very popular in places that don't have to prove that notion or answer to the facts of the matter.
Matt Holliday accepted the job, was eager for the job, and then as the winter progressed his son became the top prospect in all the land the potential No. 1 overall pick. If you recall, there was a time when the Cardinals thought they might draft Jackson Holliday -- well, as the draft neared, that became clear it wasn't going to happen. Same thing for the family and for what they realized for both Jackson and Ethan. At the same time, the reality of the time commitment was taking root as the calendar turned and planning for spring training began. All of sudden, Holliday weighed the time away from family and the wish/need to be there for his son Jackson and decided to make the call. It is entirely possible that the team the Cardinals had played zero into his decision.
Being a parent did.
Roy Earl: Derrick, do you have any idea what happened to/with Alec Burleson after the All-Star break? I think he only hit four home runs. Did the league figure him out or did he run out of gas or both or something else? Thanks.
DG: Figure him out? We'll see. The league adjusted for sure. He talked a bit about the shift in pitches he saw and the way teams started to adjust to what he did to do more damage, to be more selective in his contact, if you will. He saw pitches that then teased out more contact. I tried to quickly look up the change in pitch types/percentages, but I've been bogged down here and it's not loading. Not sure why. Maybe someone else in the chat as that quick access and could share, so I don't idle anymore.
David: Why the delay in the Jupiter renovations? The past 2-years they鈥檝e talked about construction beginning as soon as ST ended and now it鈥檚 going to take another year?
DG: You're going to love this.
Almost as much as the Cardinals do, as their years of frustration is palpable.
Well, it has to do with a) building permits, b) bureaucracy, and c) the lease.
The lease hurdle has been cleared. To make the improvements the Cardinals wanted to make had had the money to make for almost a decade now, they also had to get the same commitment from the Marlins. The lease requires a balance between the sides -- not in specific things, but in investment. So, like the Cardinals built their hitting barn, and the Marlins did not, but they also invested to improve something else on the back fields. That was the lease, and with the agreement approved about 2 years ago, both sides were set to make the same balanced improvements and upgrades and also committed to the overages.
(The Cardinals were even prepared to shoulder the inevitable overages -- which could be in the millions -- because they wanted the changes so much.)
When construction was supposed to start following the 2023 spring training, there was equipment on site, and shovels ready to go -- but the permits were not in place. You may recall this reporting from the Post-Dispatch, and that reporting included the scramble to organize a clubhouse that the Cardinals and staff had expected to be shuttered for 2024. The Cardinals and Marlins had to stall their construction while the local construction permits that weren't completed by another party could be finalized. That took time, and delayed the construction another year. It also explained why there were posters around the ballpark in 2024 for hearings/approval in the local community of said construction plans. And, yes, bureaucracy was involved in that. Here they are.
Bob the Subscriber: Anything you can say about what sort of offseason training/practice Gorman and Walker will be doing? Driveline? Winterball? hanging out in Jupiter with Steinhorn and the TBA hitting coach?
DG: TBD. Except that Jordan Walker lives in Jupiter, Fla. Bought a house there. Masyn Winn is also doing the same. And one of the reasons they've opted to do that is to have access to the Cardinals' facility there. Such as it is.
Aaron Knopf: But any idea if Holliday would be interested in coaching next season as the new hitting coach?
DG: Ethan Holliday, his son, could be the first overall pick in the 2025 draft. And Matt Holliday has expressed an interest in bench coach, manager, etc. That is what he's said publicly and when I've spoken to him. Hitting coach was not on that list.
Long time Cards Fan: Any suggestions on who would be a good choice for hitting coach?
DG: The Cardinals have talked to Ryan Ludwick before about the job or a job with the major-league staff, and the time commitment hasn't been appealing. They may discuss that again. Howie Clark is another internal candidate, and he's had a strong relationship with the young hitters and good reputation within the organization for his work with Class AAA Memphis. Donnie Ecker is a name to keep in mind, though he has a bigger role at the moment with the Rangers. He and Marmol are close. Ecker has the resume that the Cardinals are looking for when it comes to development. Just not sure at the moment if he has any interest or if he'd be available.
SE Steve: I say pump the breaks and bring Hence along slowly and let him grow.
DG: That is exactly what they're doing.
MaryStreet: Am I the only person who's not concerned about a reduced payroll? Mo has spent, but not particularly wisely at times. I'm also not writing off the team they'll put on the field next year given the core they have. I guess I don't think the sky is falling.
DG: I don't know if you're alone in that view. It just may not be a view that's shared much, and that's OK. Thank you for doing so.
bo: Derrick- with respect i was suggesting the cards are the one putting the onus on Hence as they have often done with players and prospects regarding injuries' . i certainly don't know him but i do know how often we as fans have been misled by a team that does know a player much better and the team constantly sells the fan base on oft injured players instead of actually tempering enthusiasm because of health concerns . This team is selling hence as a future star when he has yet to complete a minor league season . There are a lot of 22 year old pitchers who have in fact pitched full years in the minors at the very least .
DG: There are indeed. I don't know that the Cardinals are "selling Hence as a future star." He's highly ranked by Baseball America and MLB-dot-com and other places that rank prospects. The Cardinals aren't doing those rankings. The Cardinals are choosing their Future Stars selections, and he has been that, for sure. So they've trumpeted him as a prospect. I have not heard the Cardinals say he's going to be in the rotation and leading it in the near future, nor have I heard them say they expect him to lead the rotation at some point, as a star would. They are reserved in such pronouncements. And wisely so, for reasons you outline.
Let us pause and point out that some of the time that Hence has missed is to be proactive against injury, not because of injury. Keep that in mind.
Please.
Chuck Long Island: Hi Derrick. Thanks to you and the staff for always making the ball season better with the PD coverage. Perhaps asked already, just dropping in, of the vets with big contracts which would the Cards like most to move? Not most likely, most desirable, We can have a tied for first if need be :)
DG: This has not been asked, not with that twist about who the Cardinals want to get out from under. We could do the bottom line on this and point to Sonny Gray's $30 million salary for 2025. That would be a quick drop in payroll by moving it. That's a larger cash guarantee than Arenado is owed due to the money being paid by Colorado on the deal ($5m). If they're making purely financial decisions -- and that is possible, we'll see more with the option calls -- then the biggest cost is the one they would prefer to move. After that, then you'd have to look at the roster and where there is overlap. That would likely be at catcher, not 3B. Though fans could make compelling arguments on either side. This is a good question, and I'm outlining the considerations the team would make. I don't have a definitive answer, but what your question has done is giving me a way to look at chasing that answers. Good angle to take. The answer from the team would be revealing.
Simple.10: Derrick - I'm kind of tired of all this happy talk about the Cards being "more transparent". Come on. If they were winning, no one would ask for them to be transparent. As Even Drellich pointed out, "Winning Fixes Everything."
DG: I guarantee that I would be.
SE Steve: It seems like players have to find there own coaching labs in the off season. Does the player pay for this? If so is this another reason Cardinals cut back on coaching?
DG: Short answer .... It is not.
Medium length answer ... All players and all teams have this going on, whether they have the lab in house or not. It's why you know Driveline as a brand, for example.
Longer answer ... Players do this with the blessing from the team, and they cover the cost -- or sometimes the labs do for promotions sake. You see the clips on social media, etc? Yeah, they're selling a product and the player can play into that and benefit from it as far as the trip and the attention and use of equipment in exchange for being in the promotion.
(Quick grammar/verb-noun agreement note -- "they" in the above sentence refers to players, not team. Players cover costs. They organize trip with team's blessing, even with team's connections or the coach's connection as some pitchers did with Blake's guidance a year ago.)
Max: Does your reporting suggest the FO and ownership became too insulated and surrounded themselves with "yes" people? Always loved Doris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rivals - about how Lincoln surrounded himself with people who offered views that challenged him. I get it that the FO has had a lot (a ton actually) of brain drain since the years where they were on the cutting edge. I'm most curious about when they think they lost their edge and why.
DG: That is the question I've been asking ownership since 2018-2019, and it is a common theme brought up in the chat. The Cardinals pushed back on it. When I asked DeWitt if he was concerned about being siloed off and continuity becoming a cover for staleness, he pushed back and said that there is value in continuity and the Cardinals had benefited from it. He made the point that other teams came for the talent in the Cardinals' front office to help get that same stability at their place. They felt continuity was a strength.
This past year suggests the question wasn't as out of left field as the answers at the time insisted.
Jay Lewis: Thanks for the great work. Count me among those excited to see what the young players can do. Random comment alert: Don Blasingame was my first favorite player, because I played 2nd base in Little League.
DG:聽Thanks for the compliment. Excellent reason to chose a favorite player. My first signature glove was Dave Winfield. But my favorite player later came by way of the position he played and the access I had to see his college box scores. Maybe a cool baseball card had something to do with it too. I've definitely had favorite players from my youth based on a cool baseball card.
Follower in GA: Great chat today. Was especially intrigued by the concept of fence-sitting, which is a perfect fit for the "not enough to win, but not enough to lose" action it seems the team has followed the last few years. To me, that seems a major failure in club management and leadership. And I get that in the end, the players have to perform, and this year the hitters certainly did not. But given the fence sitting policy, is it really fair for management to seem to be saying now, "You all didn't perform, so we're blowing up. Sorry, fans, come back in a few years and we may have a new product."?
DG: That is really for fans to decide and for columnists to opine on.
My role, candidly, is to provide you with the information to make the best decision possible when it comes to shaping that decision and rooting it in facts. To that end, the Cardinals must be clear with fans -- or to fans through the media -- about what they're doing here. What they're selling in 2025 is an open question and why fans should support them at the ballpark has to be part of that messaging. So do details on when they plan to meet the expectations of history and the brand that history demands from them.
Ncas: My vote is to trade high on Helsley, as we do not necessarily need a superstar closer for a 2025 retooling Cardinals team. Is there a potential trade fit with TB and any of their young cost controlled starters?
DG: There is. But only if Tampa Bay feels it's in position to need that same closer -- or if the Rays want to see how it goes for a few months and then be able to trade said closer at the deadline for a haul. Keep that in mind, too. Maximizing when the return will be for Helsley is on both the Cardinals' mind and who they find interested in him ....
Simple.10: DG - Would you attribute the under allocation of spending at the development level as an attempt to "win" during the Goldschmidt/Arenado era? or maybe during the Bill Jr era? It sure seems like Mo knew what he was doing, but chose to pursue that strategy, likely with Bill Jr's support.
DG: There's definitely some of that, for sure. And there's also the projects that they ere going to spend on that got delayed (Jupiter) and projects they did build (hitting barn and Jeff Albert's staff, etc.). There was the spike in cost for the MLB payroll that ownership agreed to make for the acquisition of Arenado. That was a significant one -- and it was a shift from a few years earlier when the Cardinals did not make a bid for Bryce Harper after trading for Goldschmidt. So, there definitely was a shift in spending -- some of it because of circumstance, and some of it to pursue a larger payroll in MLB and get a greater return than they did.
The chat has been consistent in this: It's not how much they spent -- it's how they spent.
Ryan: Your take has always been this ownership wouldn鈥檛 tolerate a rebuild. Remembering the famous DeWitt Jr quote from Matheny presser that .500 ball won鈥檛 due around here. Why the change of heart all of a sudden. The optics from the latest presser show an old man who appears out of touch, a son who doesn鈥檛 like baseball and only worried about making money and a GM, who always thought he was the smartest guy in the room being a little sensitive now that his model was tested and failed so maybe he鈥檚 not the smartest guy in the room. Just bad looks for a once storied franchise. Hard to get behind those guys anymore.
DG: Those are your optics. I had a different view of the press conference.
And please be fair with how you present my "take." You are welcome to check the receipts.
I have reported and answered many times in the past that ownership has stated it does not feel that the fan could has "the stomach" for a rebuild. What they mean by that is that it the fans would not continue to support, buy tickets, watch, etc. a rebuild -- especially a dramatic one like that took place with the Cubs and Houston. Those are the two point of references. One is a rival, and the other was run by a former Cardinals executive. For more than a decade, the Cardinals have stated that the fan base doesn't have "the stomach" for a rebuild like that, and then they support that statement by saying the Cardinals' "brand" is contending every year. They sell that to fans, and my "take," if that's the word, is to hold them to that brand, to that assertion. My view is academic, and I'm not sure if you care. But my role is to convey their view to you, and that is what it was.
Side note, Mozeliak is not GM, hasn't been for many many years now. He's the President of Baseball Operations.
Side note, Bill DeWitt III likes baseball.
A lot.
Not sure what else to say.
David: Any update on Yadi? Is there an expectation he鈥檒l be offered a chance at the same role in 2025?
DG: There's really nothing for him to do at the moment outside of I guess visiting the Academy in the DR. I suppose he could hold a voluntarily catching camp -- akin to instructional league -- in Jupiter, but there's been no word of that. As for 2025, it's TBD. We'll see if there's a chance that he prefers with another organization or what the Cardinals have in mind.
Ed AuBuchon: Mo is still being blamed for firing Mike Shildt. Cardinal fans place all of the blame on Mo and he serves some of it. But Mike Shildt shares blame also. If Mike was still here dosen't mean we're in the playoffs.
DG: It does not, unless Shildt also had a .910 OPS in the middle of the order. Maybe then the Cardinals would be.
Michael: Good reference to Team of Rivals by the chatter above. What are the chances the new regime hires, and tolerates, a field manager who isn't afraid to disagree with the front office?
DG: That's more of an industry question than a Cardinals question, as much as fans don't want it to be. If you're still reading this chat, or someone else wants to chime, give me an example of what you mean in today's game. If you come back with Tony La Russa, then cool -- that's the legend. Now produce the facts. And in today's game -- a GM/POBO game, not a manager game -- you're not going to find that because they have to complement and get along with each other, to work together. That's a major part of the hiring process. Look around at who is being hired and who is not.
Missouri Kevin: DG, What gave you the insight to start reporting a couple years ago that a tear-down was a possibility?
DG: Lots of conversations. Lots of keeping track of trends and hearing from people who had direct contacts with the Cardinals. Lots of talking with people in and around the Cardinals' organization. Paying attention to the details of contracts. Relying on past actions -- layoffs, etc. -- that were not being addressed with present actions. And some Spidey sense.
Max: 100% true and I know you've said for years to watch what they do and not what they say. They've reassigned Girsch and committed to a smaller MLB payroll. Are we as fans to believe this is all that needed to be done?
DG: Not at all. They need to improve and modernize their minor-league system. That's where the action has to be. Both of the things you mentioned could be part of that. We're waiting to hear what Girsch's projects will be, and some of them mentioned could be directly or indirectly part of upgrading the minor-league infrastructure. Some of the spending reduction in MLB is supposed to go to the MiLB side. OK. The Cardinals should detail that. A dollar not spent on a hitter but spent on a pitching lab should be accounted for and explaining publicly, no? That will be a goal of mine with the reporting -- to make that connection.
Ken: Forgot about the chat Derrick . We are battening down the hatches here in Tampa Bay. What鈥檚 the gist of the chat today?
DG: Stay safe. Watching the news and the alarming amplification of that hurricane and hope everyone takes every precaution possible. We'll catch you up on the chat at another time.
Brian: Do the Cardinals have an Arenado replacement? Someone who could at least hold up the dominant side of a platoon while looking like a passable MLB-caliber player. I don't see DeWitt going for an embarrassing level team, so I think that will be a factor in their decisions about who to move on from. They have 1Bs and catchers maybe starters, but I don't see a 3B.
DG: To me, no. They do not. If they see Donovan or Gorman there, that would be a stance they'd have to explain.
Michael: Shildt comes to mind
DG: Ah, I see. Thanks for elaborating. My thought was you meant more publicly -- or more dramatically. You've given me welcome context. This was revisited above, and it was revisited before, and it will be revisited again. But for the sake of this discussion and your point about not being "afraid to disagree with the front office." Well, Shildt wasn't alone in his criticism of the direction or decisions made by the front office. And some of the people who questioned or suggested another direction are still with the Cardinals and they're -- brace yourself -- free to disagree. They do. There were times that Matheny, Shildt, and Marmol all shared similar disagreements with the roster and that showed in how they used it, and then it led to changes or discussions and no one lost their job. They are not a team of rivals, no. But there are disagreements between the clubhouse and the front office. Here's one: A year ago there was some discussion and debate about the data being used for defense, and how to improve and better implement that. The discussion/debate about that and the results led to a new approach that showed better returns this season. There was an area of concern, of criticism, of disagreement, and that disagreement led to resolution within the same group.
Joliet Dave: Refocus, retool,rebuild, does ownership/fo think they will even come close to 2.8 mill attendance next year?
DG: They are braced for less, and they are talking about enhancing the game-going experience to try and draw fans to the ballpark for the event. Winning still sells the most tickets. A soft April, however, and moving tickets will take creativity.
DCG: I'm trying not to ask this in such a way that calls for you to try to put some random percentages on things. We know the results are a big reason the Cardinals are making the changes that they are, but to what degree (sorry, don't know how else to phrase it) did the fan apathy factor in. It had to be part of it, but let's assume they still drew 3 million last year. Does the reset still happen?
DG: Fan apathy is a factor, for sure. It's something they've had to respond to. Does 3 million tickets change that? Probably not, not alone. They've budgeted for 3.2 million in the past, even shot for 3.4 million. They were ready for 3 million to be a high-target this season, and thought -- back in spring -- they would get there. A slow start to the season and reduced entertainment spending kept that from happening. That said, if they did get to 3 million then it's likely that jolt came from coming to a see a playoff/contending team. So it wouldn't be the 3 million that delayed or dissuaded a "reset," it would be the root cause of that 3 million, which is the performance on the field. That better barometer, truly.
Palmetto State Fan: One man's opinion. The Cardinals are in a rebuild period. Call it what you may. It is a rebuild, which may or may not be too "painful". We shall see. My vote is to get "off the fence". Let Goldy move on. See what the options are in terms of moving Helsley. Listen to Gray. Listen to Arenado. Beyond that everyone, on the 40-man roster is available with one exception. Masyn Winn. And, I would get him signed NOW. Possible Walker would be "untouchable". Let's move one. Thoughts.
DG: That is a fair viewpoint and an approach that other fans may champion.
DCG: So, I just learned something I've wondered about for a while thanks to your answer about why draft picks aren't tradeable in MLB. Awesome. I find it interesting that teams would worry about high picks being sold off. That doesn't happen in other sports, so why do they worry it might happen in MLB? If anything, I would think it would favor the lesser teams--you want our CF now that we see see we're not going anywhere? Give us your first round pick for the next two years. I do realize that MLB foolishly allowed a cash-strapped owner to buy the Marlins just so Jeter could be involved in baseball ownership, but even then, I can't seem them selling a pick. Decades ago, when it cost less to own a team, and some ownership might have been more amenable to the cash, I could see it. Not now.
DG: It does happen in other sports. NFL teams trade down all the time -- selling off higher picks to hauls to be used later or to reduce the cost of spending on the picks overall. The NBA does the same thing. Selling off picks doesn't mean only for cash. It can mean for future picks, it can mean for current players. Imagine if Miami just didn't want to spend the money on No. 1 overall pick in 2025. They could swap that for picks down the road -- multiple picks, and not spend the money but they would end up with the picks. Now they could push that spending down the road too and you see how this would benefit other teams, while allowing the Marlins to avoid the mechanism that is supposed to make them more competitive.
David J.: Derrick, I really appreciate the pieces you have written over the last year or so analyzing the finances of the Cards. Very few sports writers understand or even care about the business side of sport - and to state what should be obvious - money, profits and losses, and franchise value are very important to team success or failure. And as you know well, the Cards books (like that of almost all sports teams) are privately held - and therefore very hard to know with any kind of accuracy. I hope you do an updated piece this coming winter on the Cardinals financial model for the next few years. Specifically, I was really puzzled by the recent press conference by the Dewitts and management where they tried to spin the upcoming downturn in payroll as a need to invest more in player development. The puzzle: the big league payroll is very large relative to that for development. And the bigger reason for reduction in payroll is reduction in revenue, including the collapse of the TV deal. Is that right? It would be great to read a detailed piece from you that puts all of this in perspective. I really appreciate your hard work and perspective on this.
DG: The largest downturn in revenue from a single source is, yes, the TV revenue. Cardinals are expecting around $76 million for 2025, and if we look at what has happened elsewhere that number -- depending on how this plays out -- could see a cut in 40%. That is sizeable. And you're right the shift of money to the minor-league side is not going to be near that. The Cardinals said it will be between 8%-12% greater. Just put a dollar figure on that cut it would be $30 million dropped -- and it's a one-year total, but keep in mind this is a huge hit for years to come because the Cardinals aren't even in the most lucrative years of their deal with Bally Sports Midwest/Diamond Sports Group. They've not yet reached the halfway point of the total $1.1-billion promise. That's huge. And if you really start adding it up, it's hard to see how teams, let alone the Cardinals, regain that ground in the opening years of a streaming model. So, that's a factor, for sure.
And I didn't see the Cardinals hiding from that. They acknowledged it. They'll acknowledge it when asked. They'll bring it up as a major factor. If anything, they're answers about player development and such was because that's where the change was coming, where the news was, and where the questions were. Not at some cover for something that we all can see so plainly -- and that's the cable problem.
Revisiting this topic in detail and in print throughout the offseason is a must, for sure. You make a good point about that, and it is on our mind as it's one of the biggest stories surrounding the local pro sports teams and their fan bases.
Michael: What are the chances the next tv model involves the Cardinals owning their own network? Perhaps purchasing what's left of BSMW?
DG: That's possible. It wouldn't exactly be buying what's left of their partner if it liquidates. It would be taking the rights back, and then borrowing from the structure already in place from MLB to create a direct-to-consumer model. A "network" of their won would spawn from there, but they may not need to get on the local cable channel (the distribution element) if they have that app that reaches interested fans directly. The tech is already there. It would shedding the Bally sports, and moving into a modern connection with fans, not moving into the old suit.
Joliet Dave: You mention entertainment and fan experience for next year. Right now I only see opening day for the Clydesdales, and the red jackets as the only thing worth experiencing next year. I like bobble heads, but my wife says she is tired of dusting them.
DG: And yet there are fans around MLB that are going to ballparks for the social aspect. Coors Field is a leading example of how a ballpark can open up a mixing area with food, bar, etc., and the game is the backdrop to a night on out on the town. Other ballparks are following that lead. Heck, movie theaters are doing that more and more, too. There's a bar there at the theater. There's a local movie theater here in 最新杏吧原创 that advertises being a place to go to watch sports -- not a movie at all. That may not be for you, and that's cool. But it may before hundreds of fans who want that setting, and a ballpark finding a way to accommodate those fans and also give you seats for the game is key. Heck, it's no different than a baseball writer realizing they have to provide content in a chat, in a podcast, in print, and online and not just -- you know -- write a game story on deadline like it used to be.
Tim in NJ: What is your take on Terry Francona as the next Reds manager? What does a club really offer someone to come back to managing e g. promises of certain players to fit a philosophy, etc?
DG: A job -- one of only 30 in the world. A salary -- one that's more compelling than not working, because the hours are going to be brutal. A owner who resonates with you in some way, whether that's spending or commitment to win or something else. A support staff that will make them as competitive as the manager has an appetite for, and in many many chases for a veteran manager a chance to win, but that's not always the case, because sometimes it's just the rarity of the role, the adrenaline hit of having one, and the really swell salary. Please keep in mind that a team can talk a good game about spending, and does, but it's unlikely that they speak definitive when talking about players to be added because teams cannot do that unilaterally. Player may choose to go elsewhere, or a team may trade to choose elsewhere, so promises made a manager about a specific player is unlikely. More likely they'll talk in general about spending and in the sense of the type of additions they'll try to pursue.
rabidmonkeyfish99: With changes in leadership, coaches and instructors, do you think some of their unestablished players will get a fresh look (ex. Liberatore as a starter) to see if the new voices/perspectives invoke a different result?
DG: Maybe. That's always possible, even likely. Not sure about Liberatore specifically. That was a question I asked of Marmol in the closing days of the season, and he did ask for a bit of time to meet with Liberatore and talk it over with the staff before describing what the lefty's offseason would be like. His role is not in a vacuum. The need for him in the bullpen may be greater than it is for him in the rotation. We'll see. But specifically on him, that is a question to be answered in the near term.
Michael: Hopefully it will also include the return in some form of some games to broadcast tv
DG: What a bind for the team, right? If a team puts games over free TV then they're guaranteed to get less in revenue from it than if they sell ads and a subscription. But hey that may also reach a larger group of fans to then grow the fan base. At the same time, it would mean less revenue for spending, and how would fans respond to that. It's a bind.
Joliet Dave: I understand that, yet sadly it seems that is saying goodbye to old fans like me)68+ years old) and catering to newbies that could really care less who wins.
DG: It's a big ballpark. There's room for both -- and much much more.
My son is still a teenager, and he enjoys going to the game to watch the game. He has friends who prefer to go for the event. These things can coexist. It's about interests and entertainment, not age group.
Kyle: Not necessarily. Develop an app then sell a block of games to an over the air provider like Gray Media. Gray would want some kind of exclusivity but I bet something could be worked out with it being on the app and over the air.
DG: So take on the expense of the app. Take on the expense of the production. Take on the expense of everything but the distribution and then charge for the rights to show the games for free -- where the revenue would be on the ad sales. Right?
Again, not as lucrative as RSN model.
Not even close.
And it's at higher cost.
Oh, and deal with selling an app subscription to fans at the same time you're giving the product away for free to others. As someone who has worked in newspapers for almost 30 years, let me tell you how that goes ...
Michael: Gotta find a way to do both. Get Sunday games back on 11, 5, or one of the antenna channels that kids can watch even if they don't have a subscription. Or, offer an occasional free game on their app, like Apple does with MLS.
DG: And I only get several dozen complaints about the Apple games when they're free.
Anyway, the Cardinals are looking into all of those models. There is also one where the season ticket holders get access to the app, that subscription is included in the cost of the season ticket. Or, something like that. And also key to this is dropping blackouts.
Major League Baseball would love to pool the streaming rights to all local teams and sell them as a blackout-free, Netflix-style app service and then split that among the teams and have access to all that contact to expand the reach of MLB Network and its live game content. But that's not going to happen when individual teams have better deals than they'll get a group. Someday it will get there. Today is not that day. And it's going to be rocky as the industry moves in that direction. But it will be better for fans. It will be. It may cost more. But it will be a better product with better access.
Michael: They have to improve upon the current model. It isn't working, and isn't reaching fans they way it used to.
DG: You are echoing Cardinals' ownership, which has been saying the same thing for several years now.
DCG: Ok. I was being very literal when you used the word "sell," though I would not characterize trading a higher pick for more picks as "selling." I distinguish between trading and selling. I still don't think it's bad at all if a team trades a high pick for more picks. I think parsing motivation is a silly thing for MLB to be concerned about, and to me, it's another sign of weak leadership. They make a rule that affects all team for fear of a financially weak owner making certain moves instead of not approving the sale to said owner in the first place and forcing the selling ownership group to find a more stable buyer.
DG: That's all fair. Please take in account other differences -- no salary cap, players drafted now who debut years (many years in some cases) later, and also a draft that has a long history, slow to change. I'm not defending that last one, just explaining it.
Matt: Any uniform or stadium changes coming for next year?
DG: The short answer is yes. The longer answer is to come. The STL fleur de lis logo that was part of the City Connect jerseys as a patch is going to become more prominent in 2025. There is discussion of using that logo on hats -- and those hats could be the batting practice hats which give them daily use, not just city connect day use. We'll see. Stadium changes will be around the ballpark, not necessarily to the playing surface. And those too will be detailed this winter.
Ron: What's the plan for walker and Gorman going forward?
DG: Get them in an offseason program to address what was exposed in their swings and need to be changed to improved to make them everyday players in the majors and power sources for the Cardinals.
Ryan.W: I believe there was a P-D article recently that Carpenter has an interest in returning for another year, partly because he enjoys the mentor role he had this year. To your knowledge, has there been discussion about retiring and being offered a coaching role rather than taking a spot on the bench? I think his presence and experience are definitely beneficial for this team going forward, especially as the roster gets younger. But having an actual spot on that roster...
DG: He has interest in playing again in 2025 -- not limited to a return to the Cardinals. He enjoyed the role and felt like it could be a role he has elsewhere, too. So, the report on him being interested in the role and in playing in 2025 was not specific to the Cardinals. He'd take an offer from another team if the fit was right.
I have not heard of any conversations with him about being a coach imminently. In the future? Absolutely. That has been on the mind of some members of the Cardinals, but I have not heard about that being a current conversation. I will continue to check.
Matt: Who do I message about the players wearing non-game day jerseys in the promo photos and videos? Really takes me out of the realism when I see a 50-foot picture of Burly on the scoreboard without a front number. Thanks
DG: Cardinals ownership, though be prepared for them to agree with you because it has to do when the jersey manufacturer makes the delivery, too. That is something related to the what jerseys they can get ready and to them by the time of spring training. They don't have the official jerseys there. It's been a thing we've had to adjust to with photos for the Post-Dispatch special preview section, too. At one point we looked into purchasing official jerseys and having them delivered, because that was going to be quicker ... but costlier, too.
Kyle: Bottom line...and I think what is happening now in baseball with the Cardinals and the increased salaries in MiLB, owners will gear up for a salary cap at next collective bargaining agreement. It could get ugly again. When is the current contract up?
DG: The current CBA expires after 2026. A salary cap is a non-starter with the players, and we've already lost a World Series due to that stance, so I doubt such a thing would be good for the game at all.
Uncle Redbird: Do you think the emphasis on minor league development also has a bearing on trade acquisitions at the major league level? If we won't compete for top free agents on price, we need to leverage prospect capital, and we haven't had the quality AND breadth to do so in recent years.
DG: That is definitely in play this winter, yes.
Uncle Redbird: Do you think the increased emphasis on minor league development also has bearing on the Cardinals' acquisition efforts at the major league level?
DG: To be specific, the Cardinals have said they are unlikely to pursue free agents who are attached to draft picks this winter. So any free agent that gets a qualifying offer is likely to be off the table for them, according to the front office.
Brian: Thank you for introducing me to the concept of a 'bottle episode'.
DG: You're welcome. It's a good one.
Nor Cal Cards: I was fascinated by how (The Athletic's) article about the lack and demise of talent development raised a stir, yet, I first heard of the issue on the chat over a year ago. Not being critical of any of this at all, but was curious if you wrote an StLPD article earlier or made mention of it that just didnt hit with the same timing? Either way, I give you cred for noticing. Too bad the FO either a) didn't notice; b) did and chose not to be transparent about it; or, c) simply hoped going all in on Goldy and Arenado for '24 would give those extra 10 W's needed and they wouldn't be in the PR/apathy/Oakland A's portent they are right now.
DG: There were articles in the Post-Dispatch about the subject, but you're right -- perhaps it was the timing, perhaps it was what readers were seeking, and it was definitely over time, over many articles, so not consolidated into one as my colleagues and I tracked what was going on in real time. Some information also appeared in other stories, such as season preview stories. I appreciate you pointing that out. It is something we've discussed in the chat, and there was also a lengthy podcast on the subject not too long ago.
You can still find that here:
SE Steve: The Cards will not go after a free agent this winter.
DG: They'll have to go after at least some free agents to outfit their roster, but the level of said free agent is definitely up for discussion and debate. If they go a whole winter without signing a free agent... well, then we've got a lot of trades to cover.
Joliet Dave: There are some similarities to Holidays and Goldy presumed departure. Extension talks were reported, Holiday got hurt, Goldy decline continued. Holiday hit a goal fan farewell . Being at the final home game I don鈥檛 feel Goldy got what he deserved. Then the Cards moved on. Would you agree?
DG: I see the similarities, yes. We still have yet to hear from the market. That's the unknown at the moment.
Josh: Am I the only one that feels a bit of betrayal from the Cardinals franchise? Organizations make mistakes, I get that. But the fans have supported this team on level that's far greater than what's expected for its market size. To find out that the team is in the place that it is because ownership kept the spending flat for years and the front office had to choose between the majors and minors feels like it's just any other organization that tries to squeeze as much money as it can from the people that support it. That's the part that stings.
DG: I don't believe you're the only one who, in general, feels that way. The Cardinals have sold a brand to generations of fans, and they have made contending every year no matter what happens part of that. I've had this discussion a few times in the past few weeks -- about what is fair to expect from them. If they sell contending and then have a downturn year with production or, say, a injury to their ace (as they've had before), what does that mean for the expectations they're held to. I've felt that it's up to the team to adjust to meet those expectations, not the expectations to adjust to meet the team. When Adam Wainwright had elbow surgery in spring 2011, the Cardinals adjusted and they met expectations with a remarkable run to the World Series title. They met their brand and had to overcome a key injury to do so. That makes them true to what they sold the fans. Now should that shift? Well, the Cardinals are selling a different brand at the moment -- and they'll get into more detail as winter arrives. They're going into this "reset," if you will. And the owner told me they're "Going young." OK. Payroll down. Youth up. And away they go -- so what expectations should fans and media great them with? That's a question for us all to explore this winter.
Ryan V: Going to start calling you Derrick Gilligan, cause that connection of Fly to the Cardinals was *chef's kiss*
DG: I'll take it as a compliment.
Capstone: I'm participating in this chat while flying over the Atlantic to get home to the DC area, where I subscribe. Cards lack corner outfielders with slug. Doesn't look like they have anyone in the minors to fill that role. Burleson his a natural first baseman. Walker is learning. Should the cards target a true corner outfielder?
DG: This is one of the more compelling themes of the offseason. There is the possibility that the Cardinals make a move in this area that changes the look of their outfield, adds some slug there, and does make them better for 2025 than perhaps they eager to let on at the moment. That is an area they could change with a trade. At the moment, they are talking about accumulating and collecting and keeping young talent, not shifting it to make a deal. So, maybe the transformative move is off the table. But a substantive move is still there, and I'm eager to try and explore what those possibilities look like. The Cardinals would like their longterm presence in the outfield to emerge from the players they have on the 40-man roster. That is ideal. That is cost effective. That is reassuring and also a needed win for the player development. But it's also an area where they could improve more instantaneously -- with outside help via trade. And that brings me back to the search to find out how possible that is, and then gauging how interested the Cardinals are in doing that.
(Granted, this move would be more compelling of a move if they were beefing-up for 2025.)
Aaron Knopf: Thanks for the reply. And it鈥檚 hard to convey tone, so please know I was not trying to be a contrarian. It was more of a 鈥淵es, and鈥︹ We heard Turner Ward early in the season lament that too many hitters weren鈥檛 executing on the strategy that had been prepared. Things never really turned around, so it seems to make sense to get someone who offers a different mode of preparation.
DG: Thank you for circling back and expanding on your answer. That would definitely fit in the preparation pool.
Matt: When is the Club/Payer options deadline?
DG: It's within a few days of the World Series' ending.
BL: I'm curious about the case for/against using the Gibson option this year. I understand that they're cutting costs and that he wasn't an ace by any means, but it seems like there's value in the innings-eater role he would play from a tangible standpoint; a positive veteran presence in the clubhouse for young guys; and at the very least, most cynical view being, it seems his contract and performance has enough value to bring him back if not only to see what they may get for him on the trade market at some point, ie simply trying to buy prospects as some other teams have done with vet tradable arms...?
DG: To me, and I've said this elsewhere, but I'll try to be direct. There are two elements to this. 1) Kyle Gibson's value with veteran/reliable innings is clear, and then there's the added benefit he brings to the clubhouse and the rotation as far as a leader, presence, etc, and that too has value when a rotation bends young or a clubhouse does. So, in any other year for a team intent on contending and taking the stance that no one-year deal is a bad deal, then it seems like an obvious option to pick up ... which brings us to 2) Gibson's option as the canary that signals the coal mine of dropping salary wherever possible, and doing it quick by dropping options and taking the buyout. He was a good fit. He would be a good fit. This will be one of the early indicators of the Cardinals' direction with the payroll that is an action following comments.
(Aside: There is a 3), too. A one-year deal for a veteran player at his salary would also present a trade chip at the deadline, just as an example of another tangible benefit.)
RTS: Seems like Luis Robert could fit nicely into the reset--young, under control through 2027, slug, good defensive centerfielder . . . .
DG: Blast from the past that's likely a miss of the past, not a present move.
DoubleDownon11: Would you consider posting more links and news on other social media sites besides Twitter? Like say Bluesky?
DG: I am working on doing that, yes. It's about getting in the habit of it, but it's also about getting a response and readership there. It is on my mind to do this more consistently and see if readership can develop on other sites.
DCG: I didn't really care for the "Fly" episode. Never quite understood why it got such love. On a different note, and I don't care if you post this so long as you get to read it, you're approaching 5 1/2 hours of the chat. I no longer live in the STL, but I subscribe to the PD and do so only for the sports and the coverage of the Cards, Blues, and Mizzou. It's incredible to think of the talent that the PD has managed to bring into the sports desk over the years. You and you're coverage of the Cardinals are a huge reason I subscribe. I appreciate your thoroughness and everything you give us beyond the daily beat during the season. It's remarkable, in my opinion. I have a learned a lot from these chats, from the pod, and from your general coverage. Thank you for all of that. I don't follow sports with the passion that I did as a kid--my interests have diversified. I can't watch a non-Cardinals baseball game anymore as it's just too slow, but I'll always follow the Cardinals and love them, and it's so clear how much you respect that relationship between this historic franchise and its unique relationship with its fans. You honor it with all your work. Thank you!
DG: Thank you for saying this and sharing this, and you hit on a lot of what I try to achieve with all these outlets for coverage that the Post-Dispatch makes possible.
We can agree to disagree on "Fly" episode.
Britt: Derrick, Great chat today, and thank you. Do you think that the RSN challenges forced the Cardinals hand for this 'reset'. ( I don't agree with that framing, and would call it a rebuild) If they're going to be down TV revenue, they have to get cost controlled contributors and just can't keep kicking that can down the road like they have been. How much of a factor is this in their decision to pivot from the ML spending?
DG: It is, without question, a driving reason, yes.
Eric D: Derrick - thanks for the chat and all of the great content. Do you think the overall narrative of this "reset" should more clearly point out that Milwaukee has won this division for the last two years - including this year by a 10 game lead and spent $60MM less in payroll than the Cardinals? Young, hungry and less expensive players seem to win the NL Central.
DG: I'm not ready to buy into that last premise. The Brewers are a strong organization, built to win, and they've created a strong culture there. But they also had a strong first half by Christian Yelich, who is hungry, yes, but also costly and not young. They built around experienced starters, too, for awhile. What they have is a player development machine that is innovative and effective when it comes to pitching, and they've got player buy-in, depth, and on and on. What the Brewers are doing is impressive.
But what will win the NL Central is the team that can do that player development model -- and spend. The Cubs can do that. The Cardinals used to do that and they reigned over the NL Central for more than a decade. Not just because they had young, hungry, lower cost players like early Matt Carpenter, Trevor Rosenthal, Lance Lynn, Michael Wacha, and others, but because they added Carlos Beltran, Matt Holliday, Kyle Lohse to those groups and extended Yadier Molina, and Adam Wainwright. It wasn't just youth and hunger and lost cost that won the division a few years it was a blend and spend that dominated the division.
And can again.
Seems like a good place to end this week's chat. Which if you think about it -- one location, one person at the keyboard, lots of development, some plot twists, some snappy one-liners that fans may or may not like -- the chat is a weekly bottle episode.
Until next week.
And we didn't even have a chance to talk about Joker 2 or Megalopolis.
(This transcription is more than 400 inches long. That's like a short novella.)
