Quick Hits: Goold on the Cardinals

All things being equal, of course they'd like to trade for a transformative bat like Stanton, but that contract remains -- as we've outlined many, many times -- problematic. The Cardinals will sweeten their offer with prospects depending on how much of the contract the Marlins are willing to pick up. Yes, that means players from the major-league roster, young, cost-controlled players. Yes, that means one or two of the better arms.

The Cardinals are not going to be able to land the bat they covet -- whomever it is -- without giving up at least one of the "best young arms." The Cardinals are ready to do this. That could be Jack Flaherty. That could be Sandy Alcantara. That could be Dakota Hudson. They would prefer that it's not Jordan Hicks. This is established.

But the return will be strong for a bat this winter, and the Cardinals know it will take them past their pain point.

Follow-up: Cards have any interest in Jay Bruce?

GOOLD: He would be down-ballot, as they say. He's not a target at this point because the Cardinals have eyes on trading for a bat, not going back to the free-agent market. They will have to pivot and possibly look at Bruce if the trade moves fizzle on them. But that's not their preference, at this point.

Follow-up: Any interest in Eric Hosmer? He could solidify first base for several years.

GOOLD: Hosmer, to me, would add welcome depth to the Cardinals lineup but also an overlap of sorts with Matt Carpenter. That could help the lineup, but is it enough to change the lineup? Possibly. Enough to make it a sure thing? I'm not so sure.

The Cardinals going after Martinez does not seem likely. And if they got to that point, it wouldn't be because only the Stanton deal didn't happen. It would be because several of the deals the Cardinals would prefer to make trading for a bat didn't happen.

Martinez is an interesting player, no doubt. Power does play. Power also pays. And the Cardinals rarely win the auctions for players like him. This seems like an unlikely series of events.

Follow-up: What if the front office fails in its goal of an impact bat? Will they be up front with the fans, or do we get a line about "we have great internal options"?

GOOLD: Whether you get that line or not, it would not be a successful winter unless the alternative is an addition elsewhere. This is a pretty simple winter when it comes to grading out the Cardinals. They need additions to improve.

Here's a new name for the chat that is going to be one to watch, and depending on how the market moves for him could be right in the Cardinals' wheelhouse: Tyler Chatwood. Check out his road splits. Consider he had a second Tommy John surgery. That he's young enough and perhaps interested in a short-term, two-year deal to build up his value, and that he'd be looking to do that for a solid team at a friendly ballpark, and that he's going to be a darling of the analytic set for his advanced metrics. Watch the conversation about him and around him unfold.

As the roster stands right now, the Cardinals could go for a shorter-term deal for a starter and cover what Lynn would offer while maintaining the opening they want for a young pitcher.

Follow-up: Do the Cardinals have any interest in C.C. Sabathia? Reports are he might be available for 1 year/$10 mil.

GOOLD: He's come up in recent chats and in many ways he's an interesting candidate -- and one that proves an earlier point about there being many alternatives when it comes to pitching for the Cardinals. They could wait and still have a fitting selection. What's unclear about Sabathia -- and I apologize for repeating myself here -- is what he wants and where he wants to go. He has discussed in the past wanting to get a chance to play out west, closer to his home. That has been an appeal to him, and it took the Yankees with a recruiting effort and mega deal to lure him to the East Coast. Now that he has a chance to choose where he wants to go does he look for a place out west to go and win finally?

I want to offer one note of caution with the Cardinals and Cozart. The Cardinals believe that DeJong could grow into Cozart, or at least be similar to Cozart in total production. Better offense. Capable glove. That kind of thing. And I was given that comparison this past summer when I asked around about whether the Cardinals would try to trade or sign Cozart, and more than one person told me that they already had "their Cozart." They were talking about DeJong.

Follow-up: If the Cards decided to go for run prevention, which defense-first shortstops are available for them to discuss?

GOOLD: Angels' Andrelton Simmons would be one of the targets pursued. Detroit's Jose Iglesias would be next, and he could be traded. He would be of interest. Alcides Escobar is a free agent.

Swarzak has an appealing K/9 rate. He's one of the group of pitchers with high fastball velocity (94.7 mph average), and he's got the movement/bite on the pitch to go with the classic FB/breaking ball reliever mold. He stormed into Milwaukee with some wicked stuff -- and the Cardinals got an eyeful of it the first time -- before all the work and strain seemed to get the better of him in the pennant race. Pick through this stats and you see the makings of a guy who could blossom as a closer if given the chance and if he is able to take the same stuff from setup into the ninth. I find the facets of what he offers interesting.

Follow-up: For a baseball town that is lauded for its baseball acumen, why do so few Cardinals fans understand how good Matt Carpenter is and has been? 

GOOLD: Not sure. It's confusing to say the least. I don't think it's widespread, though. So maybe don't judge the whole town based on the questions of a few folks in a little ol' fly-over chat for a Midwest paper that Giancarlo Stanton chooses not to subscribe to.

The Cardinals could also do what we've seen Pittsburgh do, a lot. That is, put a guy in center field and then position the better fielders around him in such a way that all parts of the field are covered. Center is the name. Doesn't have to always be the responsibility. Either approach is possible, and in that way the Cardinals give Fowler the chance to let his performance dictate his position, while having an honest conversation with him about the other options the Cardinals have.

Piscotty, coming off a difficult year, has the guaranteed contract. A team is really going to have to be sold on his upside and his breakout this year to make that work.

At most, he's offered up a preference or interest or musings about playing on the coast. That's not unusual. Hear that a lot from players and players around the players. Same thing with the Yankees. Some players want a chance to play for the Yankees. Remember back in 2004, a young switch-hitter with the Houston Astros talked about the kind of team he wanted to play for as a free agent and did everything but name the Yankees as that team. Of course, that player, Carlos Beltran, signed with the Mets. Things change when there is a contract put in front of them -- or an opportunity.

I do know that there has been some speculation about Stanton and St. Louis that is based only of the supposition by the writer/talker that Stanton couldn't possibly want to be in a Midwest town in the middle of fly-over nowhere like St. Louis. Whatever that means. I hear such things a lot. They're guesses, often rooted in that person's opinions, not the player's. Presumptions abound this time of year.

I think Magneuris Sierra is still underappreciated given his skillset and speed and what he could be for a team as far as picking liners in center and stealing hits and, if he improves, stealing bases. That kind of talent has a place in the modern game and could have an impact.

Comment: Wow, a bout of decisiveness from the Cards front office! Rather than drag Rosenthal along and hedge that he comes back, meanwhile not committing the appropriate resources to replace him in the short term, they just made a finite decision. Applause!

GOOLD: Fair assessment.

It's the likelihood he won't (deal is backended to make the opt-out less appealing) and the possibility he will that just creates curves of this deal that are so unusual and don't really have precedent.

Follow-up: Could Jeter tell Stanton, "It’s STL -- or remain a Marlin?"

GOOLD: Not sure yet. But it is entirely possible that the Marlins have to do a sales job to Stanton for the deal they want, if that deal is the Cardinals. Then, by all means, they'll have to sell him on winning, or having a chance to win, or being part of the legacy of power somewhere, or the idea that he could go to a signature team and sweeten Cooperstown credentials, or if he doesn't win the MVP this winter then make the point that if he was in a different market with a winning team he would have been a unanimous pick. All of those things are possible as the Marlins try to sell him on the deal they want to make -- instead of seeking out the deal that he will accept.

For a long time now deals are more like Eaton and more like Heyward and not so much like McGwire and Walker. That's the twist to this winter. Now, leaking into the market, are a few retro deals where a team wants to get out from under a contract and here the Cardinals are again, able to make that move like they did in the ol' days. It's also worth noting that in 2004, DeWitt, the chairman of the team, talked about how the age of making those deals was starting to fade as teams locked up young players and got smarter with their drafting and acquisition and more analytical. He pushed the Cardinals into a more self-sustaining model and that brought in a lot of the decisions you've seen, from promoting Mozeliak to hiring Matheny to creating that culture of Cardinals and focusing really on the in-house options. That worked for a dozen years.

Now, change is needed. The next evolution is necessary.

Reason No. 1: Simmons time on the writers' ballot was short for curious reasons that no one has rightly explained to me. Part of it was he played in the same league as one of the best ever to play his position, Bench, and like Trammel to Ripken or Raines to Henderson the Hall of Fame candidacy of the second-best is always limited when the best-of-all is in the same generation. This happened with Edmonds as he appeared alongside Griffey Jr. and his support suffered as expected. This is an old saw for me, but it's still in tune, and so you'll hear it again. Simmons shouldn't be dinged for being second- best to Bench in his era; that should be a positive, a boost to his candidacy.

Reason No. 2: So, you're telling me that former players get in a room and use the opinion of baseball writers to guide their vote? Give me a break. Players and managers should relish the chance to tell writers that they got it wrong. They like doing it when we're talking about the modern game. What's better than doing it now? I find it odd that I could go to a former player and suggest that Simmons is a Hall of Fame catcher and that player will tell me, "But you're just a writer. You never Played the Game." And that same player, when confronted with a chance to vote for Simmons in the Hall of Fame would say, "But the writers said ..." Give me a break. Shove it in our faces that we got it wrong. Shout it from the mountaintops that the writers messed this one up. See?

The writers got it wrong and the players needed to swoop in and put Simmons where he belongs. With his peers. In the Hall of Fame.