Jeff. Gordon.
Jeff Gordon is an online sports columnist for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Get email notifications on {{subject}} daily!
{{description}}
Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items.
Followed notifications
Please log in to use this feature
Log InWhile the Paul Goldschmidt trade was great for the Cardinals and their entitled fan base, it was still another bad sign for the baseball industry.
Just two years back the Arizona Diamondbacks won the wild-card game before falling to the Los Angeles Dodgers in a National League Division Series. Last season they finished 82-80, staying in the postseason hunt for five months until losing 20 of their last 28 games.
But in 2019, this will be one of many stripped-down teams taking a near-term beating while hoping for long-term reward. The Diamondbacks will be just another seller heading toward the cellar.
They conceded their campaign by trading Goldschmidt for pitcher Luke Weaver, catcher Carson Kelly, infield prospect Andy Young and a high draft pick. Pitcher Patrick Corbin departed for the Washington Nationals as a free agent. Outfielder A.J. Pollock also hit the open market.
People are also reading…
- Just what are those castles in the Mississippi River?
- Country-pop queen Shania Twain’s journey from darkness leads to celebration
- St. Louis Archdiocese’s reorganization will close more than 30 parishes
- Woman sues rapper NBA YoungBoy after being thrown from stage at St. Louis County show
- Here are the Catholic parishes that will close or merge in the Archdiocese of St. Louis
- BJC HealthCare to combine with Kansas City-based St. Luke’s
- Cardinals prospect Jordan Walker's mechanical tweaks unleash his potential in Memphis
- Becky, the Queen of Carpet and beloved icon of St. Louis advertising, dies at 67
- Longtime prosecutor returning to St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s office to lead homicide team
- Hochman: Seven thoughts on the state of the St. Louis Cardinals
- Sources: Cardinals recalling top prospect Jordan Walker, set to join team in Pittsburgh
- 'American Pickers' Frank Fritz and Mike Wolfe reunite
- Woman accused of harassing south St. Louis family now faces civil rights charge
- St. Louis Circuit Attorney Gabe Gore picks familiar face to lead trial team
- What's next for Mizzou baseball? MU should start with these potential coaching targets
This is one more example of how baseball’s middle class has evaporated. The competitive balance is long gone. In any given season, a large percentage of MLB teams are eliminated before opening day.
The bad teams routinely lose 100-plus games in this environment and contenders must shoot for 100 victories. The gap between the haves and have-nots is massive, and so-so teams tumble deep into the void.
If the Cardinals want to contend every year — which is Bill DeWitt Jr.’s stated goal — then management must dig deep and go for it every year. There is not much in-between these days.
The Houston Astros started the tank-and-rebuild trend, losing 106, 107, 111 and 92 games while trading proven players for prospects and losing deliberately to gain high draft picks. They won a World Series that way, as did the Chicago Cubs after losing 91, 101, 96 and 89 games.
The tanking epidemic is terrible for Our National Pastime, rendering several teams unwatchable any given year. Former Diamondbacks general manager Dave Stewart threatened to go there before getting fired after the 2016 season.
His replacement, Mike Hazen, insists he wouldn’t go that far. “One, I think it’s tricky to do that,” he told reporters earlier this month. “I think it’s a risky strategy. I just don’t think our draft is built the way other games’ drafts are. There’s a long development process.”
OK, but what if the loss of Goldschmidt, Corbin and other stars buries the Diamondbacks miles behind the front-running Los Angeles Dodgers?
“I’m not sure exactly how I feel about it, honestly,” he said. “If we get put in that situation, we’ll have to react to that situation. I don’t think treading water over a long period of time is going to be an answer to winning a World Series. We need to make some hard decisions and we will if we have to. I still see a lot of creative solutions out there, if we can put it together the right way, and that’s on me. I’ve got to do that.”
Translation: “Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that, but if it does the garage sale will continue.”
The Cardinals have exploited this trend by acquiring Marcell Ozuna from the tanking Miami Marlins last winter and landing Goldschmidt this time around. But they should mourn the demise of baseball’s middle class.
The Cardinals famously won the 2006 World Series with a team that won just 83 times during the regular season. Historians will look back in time, see pictures of blurry Jeff Weaver and Anthony Reyes winning games, and wonder what happened.
Twice since 1996 they reached the playoffs after winning 88 games. Twice they advanced with 90 victories, winning another World Series in one of those seasons.
But these days, teams are either in or they are out. Often that determination is made long before Christmas.
The Diamondbacks bailed early on the ’19 season, as did the Seattle Mariners, who won 89 games last season and still finished 14 games off the American League West pace. They have been ditching talent this winter at a frantic pace.
DeWitt Jr. is a staunch opponent of tanking, but will he embrace the “all in” mentality needed to reach postseason play? True contenders must load up on talent, pound the tanking teams at every opportunity and build a huge victory total.
The wild-card play-in game was supposed to keep more teams in the race, but it offers marginal incentive to make big late-season additions. Increasingly, general managers see their challenge as division title or bust.
(The play-in game was just one more harebrained scheme from Commissioner Bud Selig, who had lots of them. Single-elimination baseball is exciting and unpredictable, but so are Australian ax fights. Either is OK as an occasional tiebreaker, but neither should be regularly scheduled in civilized society.)
As for baseball’s rebuild-mania, it puts managers like Torey Lovullo of the Diamondbacks in a most difficult position.
“I want to go out and win and expect to win every single night,” Lovullo told reporters at the winter meetings. “And I think the players feel the same way. It’s something that I’ve rehearsed, saying it publicly, that I want these guys to know that there’s a special group left there.”
Good luck with that.
QUESTION: What are the chances Goldy signs an extension by midseason?
GOOLD: Any speculation on the chances -- 50/50, 60/40, 23/77 -- is wrong the moment I type it. And that's just because it's a number based on little empirical evidence.
Here is what we know about Paul Goldschmidt and the Cardinals' plans for an extension: There was a sense on the other side of the negotiations for the trade that the Cardinals had a sense already of what it would take to sign Goldschmidt -- and that they made the trade fully willing to make that offer. Sources have confirmed that the Cardinals believe they have the ability to make a strong, market-right offer to him at any point, if he's willing. They didn't want to shove an extension down his throat in his first few days of being a Cardinal, and they are far more willing to let him get acclimated, see if he digs it, and see how he fits for them, and then make the move.
So, yeah, sometime during the season makes sense. They've done these things in June, in July, and in September, of course. There are two parts to this. The Post-Dispatch has reported that a five-year extension would look something like five-years, $150 million. There was also a report that Goldschmidt was seeking a six-year deal. These two reports can coexist. A six-year deal would include this year and give him a bump from his $15.5 million salary and thus add to the total value of the deal. The one thing that has not been said, will not be said, and will have to be revealed at some point privately by Goldschmidt is how much he wants to be a free agent, and if he would like to pursue a chance to get closer to Houston or play for Houston and, if so, if the Astros can do something better than the Cardinals because they have a DH spot to offer longevity that the Cardinals do not. That's what is the unknown.
The Cardinals feel they have a good chance to sign Goldschmidt to an extension. People close to Goldschmidt insist he has an open mind about sticking around.
QUESTION: With the addition of Goldschmidt and the confirmation of Fowler back in the lineup, the majority of the starting eight for 2019 didn't have a particularly good first half last year. With this being Shildt's first spring as manager, has he addressed how he's hoping to prevent a repeat?
GOOLD: He has not. This is a fair question. Marcell Ozuna and Matt Carpenter also had slow starts. I think it's a question to ask in the early weeks of spring training and particular as games begin. What kind of hitting plan does new coach Jeff Albert have in place, what kind of playing time plan will be in place for the regulars and how will they get the reps to be sure they don't start sluggish again.
Fowler stands out as the player that has to assert himself in spring training, perhaps more so than in the past. They're going to give him a chance to get ready, sure, but he's also got to show with performance that he's right. This is something to watch.
QUESTION: What makes Harper different from Stanton, Heyward, Pujols, or Price? They were all high-dollar long-term contracts that the Cardinals were ready to commit to. Why is the front office so afraid to try in this case? They’ve often said they would be in on a generational talent, and now that there’s one available, they’re all out instead of all in.
GOOLD: It's a good question, and it's one that -- trust me -- several of us have asked and asked often times. There are some differences. Price was for fewer years. Heyward had been with them and they felt they knew his habits, his work ethic, his health and his fit well -- and were willing to get past that puke point (their words) and make that lengthy offer. Stanton was a trade. They had to make a move for the contract that some other team signed him to, and trust me they weren't thrilled about it. (No other team really was with the Marlins. That's why so many teams wanted the Marlins to pay some of the freight for the contract.) Pujols was an iconic player who they were trying to make a lifelong Cardinal. Way different conversation there. Far, far, far different.
Here's what I can tell that sets the Harper deal apart: Cardinals want to avoid the lengthy deals when possible, and especially when they don't feel they have the personal, close familiarity with a player. That comes up a lot, whether you agree with it or not. The Cardinals are also reluctant to turn so much leverage over to the player with the opt-outs and the length. They, as a team, see that as a lose-lose for them and only to the benefit of the player. Other teams have different views of opt-outs.
I think what it also comes down to is you're talking about a lot more money for Harper at this point. The Cardinals' offers to Heyward, Price, and Pujols were all in the $200 million range -- some just under, a few over. Harper is in the $300-$350 million range. That's a steep hike. Stanton? Cardinals were willing to take on $255-ish million of his deal. And you're still talking a steep uptick from there.
So, yeah, the bulk guarantee sets Harper apart -- and that can not be ignored in this discussion.
QUESTION: Just read that the Cubs had a 3-hour meeting with Boras and Harper during the winter meetings and that Epstein told Boras not to agree to any deal until talking again with the Cubs, as they will beat any other team's deal. So, Harper won't be signing autographs at the Cardinals Winter Warm-up, right?
GOOLD: Doesn't mean he'll be signing autographs at CubsFest either. The teams are still circling, circling, circling Harper, and one of the interesting elements of the chase is the fact that some teams don't want to deal with the length of the contract -- but one team has already had its 10-year offer revealed.
So, how does Harper position himself for the teams that want shorter years -- and is that even appealing. The Cubs are going to have to do what the Dodgers did and clear salary and room in order to make a run at Harper. Patience may pay off for Harper, as we've seen before with Boras clients. Wouldn't discount Washington in all of this.
QUESTION: Are the DeWitts in this thing for life or could you see them selling the Cardinals in our lifetimes?
GOOLD: If you ask them -- and I have -- they say they're in this for the "long haul." Does that mean our lifetimes? I don't know. There is a sense that Bill DeWitt III will be the chairman at some point and lead the ownership group, though there has been no formal talk of this or any plan revealed for how that would take place. Bill DeWitt Jr. has told me that he is sticking this out -- his family business is baseball, and while he may not get the attention nationally, it's probably impossible to find an owner who has more influence over the game than DeWitt at this point. He was part of the group that negotiated the current CBA. He chaired the search committee that recommended/hired Manfred as commissioner. Oh, and he sits on the Hall of Fame's board and has had a role in dictating some of the recent changes to the induction avenues there. He's got fingerprints all over the modern game.
And he's got a front office tree -- there's Luhnow, Girsch, Oakland's assistant GM, Mozeliak, Baltimore's new general manager -- all with ties to the Cardinals analytics growth championed and funded by DeWitt and there will be four pitching coaches in the majors -- it's at least four -- with ties to the Cardinals' pitching development, another trunk that DeWitt helped plant when the team 14 years ago insisted on a better farm system. They're roots are deep and their branches have reach.
QUESTION: Is there any interest in signing Dallas Keuchel? Lefty, 200 innings, mid-3 era. Sign him and move another starter to the 'pen?
GOOLD: Makes a lot of sense and would definitely alter the look of this team immediately. Here's what I understand about the Cardinals and Keuchel. Yes, they've had discussions with his agent -- because they've met a lot with his agent. His agent is Scott Boras. You know the drill. One of the directions the Cardinals explored coming into this winter was what if they couldn't add the needed bat, what if they couldn't change the look of the lineup -- well then they would go heavy on run-prevention. Keuchel fit that approach -- from my viewpoint and also from one viewpoint I had explained to me by a source. They could get him, go heavy on defense, and attempt to smother teams with a Chicago Bears-like defense. Monsters of Mound City. You know.
Now, with Goldschmidt in the middle of the order, the Cardinals can take a more opportunistic look at the starting pitching market. It was clear that Corbin was going to set the market. For me, Keuchel offered a value play. He's being billed as the Tom Glavine of the market and Boras wants a contract to match that lofty comparison. If the length isn't there, the dollars should be, and it would be a wise move for the Cardinals to at least entertain in January what it would cost. That, to me, is a sneaky move that would put them ahead in the division as much as adding another position player. That may just be me.
QUESTION: We've read that both NY teams were scared off by Miller's health issues. Should that be a concern for the Cardinals?
GOOLD: Sure. And they weren't alone. The Cardinals are not just betting on Miller's health and what their doctors saw from him but also their plan to keep him healthy. It's a big bet on the department of performance and the medical/training approach the Cardinals have worked to establish over the past few years, so here they go -- here's the test.
QUESTION: Now that they have their lefty stud in Miller, what kind of value would the team be looking to extract for trading Jose Martinez? Prospects? A K-heavy RHP from the AL? Is there anything on the radar right now?
GOOLD: They have offers from teams that will present them prospects. The Cardinals haven't been that eager to move him just to get a free spot on the 40-man roster. That's a risk that leaves them exposed. They were looking to flip him for a lefty that they wanted -- or a lefthanded-hitting center fielder, possible. Neither happened, obviously.
Going into the market for Miller as a free agent certainly lessens the urgency for the Cardinals to trade Martinez. They can keep him now as strong insurance for right field, and look again at possible moves during spring training if another need or another match lines up.
QUESTION: Are you buying the commitment, faith and lovefest for Dexter Fowler? Or is that posturing to make him look better for possible deals? Or just acceptance because they have to pay him so they're saying he'll be fine?
GOOLD: First, I don't buy that any of this talk has any influence on potential trade interest. Teams aren't that foolish. They have Internet connect just like you. They can see box scores and check stats and see past the bluster. I think opinions that the Cardinals are trying to "inflate" Fowler to drum up interest from other teams is hogwash. Doesn't work that way. I don't think teams are that naive. Just me.
Second, I don't see any lovefest.
Third, they are clearly committed to him because they have a contract committing millions to him. That's not a secret. Both sides acknowledge this. For the Cardinals, they have a heavy investment in Fowler being Fowler. For Fowler, he has said repeatedly that he has to earn the opportunity to prove he's worth that contract for Cardinal Nation. If anything, they've echoed some of the sentiment that fans have said about the contract. Not sure what else they're supposed to say about that. If he had one year remaining on his deal the conversation would be different, for sure. That's business. They get it.
QUESTION: What is the next move for the Cardinals? Are they going to make some quiet moves and do you think they will make one more impactful move?
GOOLD: They must add a backup catcher -- and they want to do that with a minor-league contract, so as to avoid any 40-man hassle -- and they are going to still pursue a lefthanded bat off the bench. Jed Lowrie (above) fits what the Cardinals are seeking, however there's been no indication from Lowrie that the Cardinals and a bench role is what he's looking for. Time could change that. Lowrie, a switch-hitter, is going to want to go where he can get playing time for obvious reasons. Now, if the offers shrivel or don't manifest with playing then Cardinals could make a play for him like they did with Mark Ellis.
Their goal now is to fine-tune the roster, add some depth (Shelby Miller?), and if there's an impact move that falls their way, consider it. They aren't exactly actively chasing it.
Follow-up: Asdrúbal Cabrera doesn’t seem to be getting a lot of talk. Could he be seen as a fit or does he carry too high of a price tag?
GOOLD: Agreed. He is definitely on the short list of possibilities. It's somewhat like Lowrie's situation -- what are the other options out there and how much playing time is he seeking. With Cabrera there's past history that the Cardinals have in pursuing him. There's somewhat comfort in the fact that if needed he could play shortstop. He's the switch-hitter that adds a lot to the bench. A good name to keep in mind especially as the teams with playing time start to fill their spots and guys are left looking for the best offer, not always the best opportunity to get at-bats.
QUESTION: The Cardinals often speak of a lefty bat as an interest. With the likes of Berkman and Beltran in their recent past, do they have any interest in Carlos Gonzalez on a 1-year deal?
GOOLD: It's a good question because it's the same one we've asking for -- what? -- five years now. It's like inevitably Carlos Gonzalez is going to be a Cardinal, right? Like Troy Tulowitzki.
Alas, no. It does not appear that way. The Cardinals have said their preference is to get someone who plays a few more positions, and if that person can play the left side of the infield or center field, all the better.
QUESTION: With John Gant (above) and Mike Mayers not having any remaining options, the flexibility for the bullpen would seem to be limited. Could one of those two be moved?
GOOLD: That seems doubtful at this time. But it does rivet them in place. The Cardinals are more likely to try to make a move with one of the lefties they have -- or just move on from a lefty if they continue to struggle in spring training. Mayers has a place in the bullpen and the Cardinals are reluctant to lose him through waivers. Gant, too. If it appears that they've been bounced from a role -- by Helsley? by Wainwright? -- then look for a trade later in spring because of the options issues.
Room is filling up on the bullpen, for sure. But injuries and performance will often sort this out before the Cardinals have to look to trade.
Follow-up: Do you see the Cards addng another bullpen arm either by trade or by free agency.
GOOLD: Inevitably. Could be a Bud Norris-like move on the eve of spring training. There are so many relievers available that it wouldn't be a shock for them to land one a one-year, Neshek/Norris type. Going to take a few weeks or so before there's a good sense of the names who could be that reliever.
QUESTION: Thanks for the great coverage, well worth the subscription. Do the Cards need a bullpen arm like Roberston or Norris, someone with closer experience, if Miller faces Yelich or Rizzo in the 7th or 8th? Is Hicks ready for that? Would love to see Dallas K. in the rotation and move Martinez to bullpen. Miller, Hicks, Martinez — that's lights out.
GOOLD: Thank you for being a subscriber. This is a good question, and it's one that the Cardinals have offered a sneak peek into their thinking in recent days. Spoke to John Mozeliak after the conference call Friday with Andrew Miller and he mentioned how we keep asking about the closer, the closer, the closer. It is possible he said, that the Cardinals can finally break from the closer role -- and this is something they've talked about doing in the past. They thought they were about to this past season, but manager Mike Matheny made it clear that he wanted a name-brand option in the back end and he stumped for the signing of Holland.
The thinking now is that they will have a handful of options for those final few innings and they can sort them by matchups. Miller/Hicks are going to be the "destination" relievers -- they're trying to get the games to them. Hudson could also be a part of this. Brebbia has been effective, and should get a look. When you scan that list of names, it makes sense to go well, goodness, how different would that look with a Robertson in place. Seems like that would bring the group together. That's why the Cardinals haven't closed off that possibility (or a Robertson-like ), but Shildt has spent this winter talking to the relievers about a more "fluid" approach to roles in the bullpen so that he can be aggressive with matchups and he said he's gotten a buy-in from the group. Should be interesting.
QUESTION: Was Andrew Miller always the pick over Zach Britton (above), or did the Cardinals get spooked by a bigger role/contract ask from Britton's camp?
GOOLD: From what I understand they were chasing both and seeing which came in at the preferred contract offer. I think what we're seeing with Britton is more interest from Phillies and Yankees and the bidding is rising. I was told to get Britton the Cardinals would have to "come strong," and I wasn't sure if that was dollars or years or role or all of it. There are big-spenders in the mix for him, and the Phillies have been described to me as "aggressive" for Britton.
Seems like the Cardinals saw their better match with Miller in recent weeks and also saw a value play that they could make with a high return, if healthy.
QUESTION: Jordan Hicks' fastball and sinker are great pitches, but batters still seem to make contact. Shouldn't a closer be a guy who has swing-and-miss stuff. With all the groundballs that he induces, shouldn't he be a starter if he develops a third pitch?
GOOLD: His slider -- that second pitch -- is going to be a swing-and-miss pitch. It's not all that unusual for a high-velocity guy to get a lot of foul balls. Look at some of the fastest pitches in MLB over the past four, five years. They're rarely swinging strikes. They are foul balls or they are balls. Hitters can time them -- they just don't make solid contact on them. That has value.
I get where you're coming from re: starter. But in today's game the ability to have a flamethrower from the bullpen who can handle that role for years to come has immense value. Look at the volatility of bullpens. You'd be doing away with that with one role. You would be making a certainty. It's not a coincidence that some of the best Cardinals teams in recent years had Motte and Rosenthal emerge for late innings from within. Hicks is that reliever.
QUESTION: Just don't get the Reds-Dodgers trade. I get that the Reds unloaded Bailey's contract and saved money, but all three players they received are in their walk year.
GOOLD: Sort of like the Cardinals, eh? Ain't 2019 going to fun. Lots of urgency in the NL Central to win now with these rosters -- or show now, or contend now, or reassert themselves now. Change is coming. The teams that lose out this year are going to have to revamp for 2020 and they have the rosters built for changeover.
Follow-up: As of Dec. 24 (plenty of offseason to go), how do you envision the Cards stacking up in the division?
GOOLD: Second right now. If the rotation pitches to its peak (or even reasonable expectations) then the Cardinals could be the best team in the division. Pitching still wins during the regular season.
QUESTION: Could you share a position and pitching prospect that you’re excited for this season?
GOOLD: I don't have one. But Cardinals fans should be eager to see Ramon Urias (he hits) and Genesis Cabrera (he's a lefty with sizzle). They could contribute in some way this season. On the horizon, there's a young hitter from Cuba who could join Gorman as the team's top two position player prospects in the next 12 months and both could be top-50 talents a year from now, easy. His name? Malcom Nunez. Stay tuned.
Follow-up: Does Nolan Gorman make a big jump this year?
GOOLD: He will have a chance to finish the year in Class AA -- getting there before he turns 20. That will be especially true if Springfield is in the postseason and that's where he can get some playoff appearances.
QUESTION: Do you see a risk in the fan base not appreciating Goldschmidt next year, regardless of his performance, because most will still be whining because his name isn't Bryce Harper? I feel like the excitement over him was short lived and moved too quickly to 'OK, now Harper too'. Goldschmidt is the superior player and I hope he gets his due in the Lou.
GOOLD: None that I can tell. Free agents and such have been reluctant to embrace St. Louis for more tangible reasons -- the success of the team, where they think the team is headed in the standings, the manager, what the team is offering, the lack of a beach or a Madison Avenue or spring training in Arizona, and in some cases the reputation/perception of the city. The online angst of the fans on Twitter has not come up at all in the conversations I've had with agents and players.
Now, the reaction to Fowler at times on social media probably should be something players consider -- and I know of at least two players (and I'm sure there are more) who have reached out to Fowler to express disgust for some of the things he's had thrown at him or said about his family. So, I guess players take note of that.
QUESTION: For all this Harper talk, wouldn't the Cards be a much better team if they had kept Pham?
GOOLD: If Tommy Pham played to his ability, sure. He'd be in center, and look at them go.
I am struck by how fast they moved away from Pham and will have another starting center fielder for a fourth year in a row.
Quick Hits: Goold on the Cardinals
Rounding up the hot topics from baseball writer Derrick Goold's weekly chat with St. Louis baseball fans.
QUESTION: What are the chances Goldy signs an extension by midseason?
GOOLD: Any speculation on the chances -- 50/50, 60/40, 23/77 -- is wrong the moment I type it. And that's just because it's a number based on little empirical evidence.
Here is what we know about Paul Goldschmidt and the Cardinals' plans for an extension: There was a sense on the other side of the negotiations for the trade that the Cardinals had a sense already of what it would take to sign Goldschmidt -- and that they made the trade fully willing to make that offer. Sources have confirmed that the Cardinals believe they have the ability to make a strong, market-right offer to him at any point, if he's willing. They didn't want to shove an extension down his throat in his first few days of being a Cardinal, and they are far more willing to let him get acclimated, see if he digs it, and see how he fits for them, and then make the move.
So, yeah, sometime during the season makes sense. They've done these things in June, in July, and in September, of course. There are two parts to this. The Post-Dispatch has reported that a five-year extension would look something like five-years, $150 million. There was also a report that Goldschmidt was seeking a six-year deal. These two reports can coexist. A six-year deal would include this year and give him a bump from his $15.5 million salary and thus add to the total value of the deal. The one thing that has not been said, will not be said, and will have to be revealed at some point privately by Goldschmidt is how much he wants to be a free agent, and if he would like to pursue a chance to get closer to Houston or play for Houston and, if so, if the Astros can do something better than the Cardinals because they have a DH spot to offer longevity that the Cardinals do not. That's what is the unknown.
The Cardinals feel they have a good chance to sign Goldschmidt to an extension. People close to Goldschmidt insist he has an open mind about sticking around.
QUESTION: With the addition of Goldschmidt and the confirmation of Fowler back in the lineup, the majority of the starting eight for 2019 didn't have a particularly good first half last year. With this being Shildt's first spring as manager, has he addressed how he's hoping to prevent a repeat?
GOOLD: He has not. This is a fair question. Marcell Ozuna and Matt Carpenter also had slow starts. I think it's a question to ask in the early weeks of spring training and particular as games begin. What kind of hitting plan does new coach Jeff Albert have in place, what kind of playing time plan will be in place for the regulars and how will they get the reps to be sure they don't start sluggish again.
Fowler stands out as the player that has to assert himself in spring training, perhaps more so than in the past. They're going to give him a chance to get ready, sure, but he's also got to show with performance that he's right. This is something to watch.
QUESTION: What makes Harper different from Stanton, Heyward, Pujols, or Price? They were all high-dollar long-term contracts that the Cardinals were ready to commit to. Why is the front office so afraid to try in this case? They’ve often said they would be in on a generational talent, and now that there’s one available, they’re all out instead of all in.
GOOLD: It's a good question, and it's one that -- trust me -- several of us have asked and asked often times. There are some differences. Price was for fewer years. Heyward had been with them and they felt they knew his habits, his work ethic, his health and his fit well -- and were willing to get past that puke point (their words) and make that lengthy offer. Stanton was a trade. They had to make a move for the contract that some other team signed him to, and trust me they weren't thrilled about it. (No other team really was with the Marlins. That's why so many teams wanted the Marlins to pay some of the freight for the contract.) Pujols was an iconic player who they were trying to make a lifelong Cardinal. Way different conversation there. Far, far, far different.
Here's what I can tell that sets the Harper deal apart: Cardinals want to avoid the lengthy deals when possible, and especially when they don't feel they have the personal, close familiarity with a player. That comes up a lot, whether you agree with it or not. The Cardinals are also reluctant to turn so much leverage over to the player with the opt-outs and the length. They, as a team, see that as a lose-lose for them and only to the benefit of the player. Other teams have different views of opt-outs.
I think what it also comes down to is you're talking about a lot more money for Harper at this point. The Cardinals' offers to Heyward, Price, and Pujols were all in the $200 million range -- some just under, a few over. Harper is in the $300-$350 million range. That's a steep hike. Stanton? Cardinals were willing to take on $255-ish million of his deal. And you're still talking a steep uptick from there.
So, yeah, the bulk guarantee sets Harper apart -- and that can not be ignored in this discussion.
QUESTION: Just read that the Cubs had a 3-hour meeting with Boras and Harper during the winter meetings and that Epstein told Boras not to agree to any deal until talking again with the Cubs, as they will beat any other team's deal. So, Harper won't be signing autographs at the Cardinals Winter Warm-up, right?
GOOLD: Doesn't mean he'll be signing autographs at CubsFest either. The teams are still circling, circling, circling Harper, and one of the interesting elements of the chase is the fact that some teams don't want to deal with the length of the contract -- but one team has already had its 10-year offer revealed.
So, how does Harper position himself for the teams that want shorter years -- and is that even appealing. The Cubs are going to have to do what the Dodgers did and clear salary and room in order to make a run at Harper. Patience may pay off for Harper, as we've seen before with Boras clients. Wouldn't discount Washington in all of this.
QUESTION: Are the DeWitts in this thing for life or could you see them selling the Cardinals in our lifetimes?
GOOLD: If you ask them -- and I have -- they say they're in this for the "long haul." Does that mean our lifetimes? I don't know. There is a sense that Bill DeWitt III will be the chairman at some point and lead the ownership group, though there has been no formal talk of this or any plan revealed for how that would take place. Bill DeWitt Jr. has told me that he is sticking this out -- his family business is baseball, and while he may not get the attention nationally, it's probably impossible to find an owner who has more influence over the game than DeWitt at this point. He was part of the group that negotiated the current CBA. He chaired the search committee that recommended/hired Manfred as commissioner. Oh, and he sits on the Hall of Fame's board and has had a role in dictating some of the recent changes to the induction avenues there. He's got fingerprints all over the modern game.
And he's got a front office tree -- there's Luhnow, Girsch, Oakland's assistant GM, Mozeliak, Baltimore's new general manager -- all with ties to the Cardinals analytics growth championed and funded by DeWitt and there will be four pitching coaches in the majors -- it's at least four -- with ties to the Cardinals' pitching development, another trunk that DeWitt helped plant when the team 14 years ago insisted on a better farm system. They're roots are deep and their branches have reach.
QUESTION: Is there any interest in signing Dallas Keuchel? Lefty, 200 innings, mid-3 era. Sign him and move another starter to the 'pen?
GOOLD: Makes a lot of sense and would definitely alter the look of this team immediately. Here's what I understand about the Cardinals and Keuchel. Yes, they've had discussions with his agent -- because they've met a lot with his agent. His agent is Scott Boras. You know the drill. One of the directions the Cardinals explored coming into this winter was what if they couldn't add the needed bat, what if they couldn't change the look of the lineup -- well then they would go heavy on run-prevention. Keuchel fit that approach -- from my viewpoint and also from one viewpoint I had explained to me by a source. They could get him, go heavy on defense, and attempt to smother teams with a Chicago Bears-like defense. Monsters of Mound City. You know.
Now, with Goldschmidt in the middle of the order, the Cardinals can take a more opportunistic look at the starting pitching market. It was clear that Corbin was going to set the market. For me, Keuchel offered a value play. He's being billed as the Tom Glavine of the market and Boras wants a contract to match that lofty comparison. If the length isn't there, the dollars should be, and it would be a wise move for the Cardinals to at least entertain in January what it would cost. That, to me, is a sneaky move that would put them ahead in the division as much as adding another position player. That may just be me.
QUESTION: We've read that both NY teams were scared off by Miller's health issues. Should that be a concern for the Cardinals?
GOOLD: Sure. And they weren't alone. The Cardinals are not just betting on Miller's health and what their doctors saw from him but also their plan to keep him healthy. It's a big bet on the department of performance and the medical/training approach the Cardinals have worked to establish over the past few years, so here they go -- here's the test.
QUESTION: Now that they have their lefty stud in Miller, what kind of value would the team be looking to extract for trading Jose Martinez? Prospects? A K-heavy RHP from the AL? Is there anything on the radar right now?
GOOLD: They have offers from teams that will present them prospects. The Cardinals haven't been that eager to move him just to get a free spot on the 40-man roster. That's a risk that leaves them exposed. They were looking to flip him for a lefty that they wanted -- or a lefthanded-hitting center fielder, possible. Neither happened, obviously.
Going into the market for Miller as a free agent certainly lessens the urgency for the Cardinals to trade Martinez. They can keep him now as strong insurance for right field, and look again at possible moves during spring training if another need or another match lines up.
QUESTION: Are you buying the commitment, faith and lovefest for Dexter Fowler? Or is that posturing to make him look better for possible deals? Or just acceptance because they have to pay him so they're saying he'll be fine?
GOOLD: First, I don't buy that any of this talk has any influence on potential trade interest. Teams aren't that foolish. They have Internet connect just like you. They can see box scores and check stats and see past the bluster. I think opinions that the Cardinals are trying to "inflate" Fowler to drum up interest from other teams is hogwash. Doesn't work that way. I don't think teams are that naive. Just me.
Second, I don't see any lovefest.
Third, they are clearly committed to him because they have a contract committing millions to him. That's not a secret. Both sides acknowledge this. For the Cardinals, they have a heavy investment in Fowler being Fowler. For Fowler, he has said repeatedly that he has to earn the opportunity to prove he's worth that contract for Cardinal Nation. If anything, they've echoed some of the sentiment that fans have said about the contract. Not sure what else they're supposed to say about that. If he had one year remaining on his deal the conversation would be different, for sure. That's business. They get it.
QUESTION: What is the next move for the Cardinals? Are they going to make some quiet moves and do you think they will make one more impactful move?
GOOLD: They must add a backup catcher -- and they want to do that with a minor-league contract, so as to avoid any 40-man hassle -- and they are going to still pursue a lefthanded bat off the bench. Jed Lowrie (above) fits what the Cardinals are seeking, however there's been no indication from Lowrie that the Cardinals and a bench role is what he's looking for. Time could change that. Lowrie, a switch-hitter, is going to want to go where he can get playing time for obvious reasons. Now, if the offers shrivel or don't manifest with playing then Cardinals could make a play for him like they did with Mark Ellis.
Their goal now is to fine-tune the roster, add some depth (Shelby Miller?), and if there's an impact move that falls their way, consider it. They aren't exactly actively chasing it.
Follow-up: Asdrúbal Cabrera doesn’t seem to be getting a lot of talk. Could he be seen as a fit or does he carry too high of a price tag?
GOOLD: Agreed. He is definitely on the short list of possibilities. It's somewhat like Lowrie's situation -- what are the other options out there and how much playing time is he seeking. With Cabrera there's past history that the Cardinals have in pursuing him. There's somewhat comfort in the fact that if needed he could play shortstop. He's the switch-hitter that adds a lot to the bench. A good name to keep in mind especially as the teams with playing time start to fill their spots and guys are left looking for the best offer, not always the best opportunity to get at-bats.
QUESTION: The Cardinals often speak of a lefty bat as an interest. With the likes of Berkman and Beltran in their recent past, do they have any interest in Carlos Gonzalez on a 1-year deal?
GOOLD: It's a good question because it's the same one we've asking for -- what? -- five years now. It's like inevitably Carlos Gonzalez is going to be a Cardinal, right? Like Troy Tulowitzki.
Alas, no. It does not appear that way. The Cardinals have said their preference is to get someone who plays a few more positions, and if that person can play the left side of the infield or center field, all the better.
QUESTION: With John Gant (above) and Mike Mayers not having any remaining options, the flexibility for the bullpen would seem to be limited. Could one of those two be moved?
GOOLD: That seems doubtful at this time. But it does rivet them in place. The Cardinals are more likely to try to make a move with one of the lefties they have -- or just move on from a lefty if they continue to struggle in spring training. Mayers has a place in the bullpen and the Cardinals are reluctant to lose him through waivers. Gant, too. If it appears that they've been bounced from a role -- by Helsley? by Wainwright? -- then look for a trade later in spring because of the options issues.
Room is filling up on the bullpen, for sure. But injuries and performance will often sort this out before the Cardinals have to look to trade.
Follow-up: Do you see the Cards addng another bullpen arm either by trade or by free agency.
GOOLD: Inevitably. Could be a Bud Norris-like move on the eve of spring training. There are so many relievers available that it wouldn't be a shock for them to land one a one-year, Neshek/Norris type. Going to take a few weeks or so before there's a good sense of the names who could be that reliever.
QUESTION: Thanks for the great coverage, well worth the subscription. Do the Cards need a bullpen arm like Roberston or Norris, someone with closer experience, if Miller faces Yelich or Rizzo in the 7th or 8th? Is Hicks ready for that? Would love to see Dallas K. in the rotation and move Martinez to bullpen. Miller, Hicks, Martinez — that's lights out.
GOOLD: Thank you for being a subscriber. This is a good question, and it's one that the Cardinals have offered a sneak peek into their thinking in recent days. Spoke to John Mozeliak after the conference call Friday with Andrew Miller and he mentioned how we keep asking about the closer, the closer, the closer. It is possible he said, that the Cardinals can finally break from the closer role -- and this is something they've talked about doing in the past. They thought they were about to this past season, but manager Mike Matheny made it clear that he wanted a name-brand option in the back end and he stumped for the signing of Holland.
The thinking now is that they will have a handful of options for those final few innings and they can sort them by matchups. Miller/Hicks are going to be the "destination" relievers -- they're trying to get the games to them. Hudson could also be a part of this. Brebbia has been effective, and should get a look. When you scan that list of names, it makes sense to go well, goodness, how different would that look with a Robertson in place. Seems like that would bring the group together. That's why the Cardinals haven't closed off that possibility (or a Robertson-like ), but Shildt has spent this winter talking to the relievers about a more "fluid" approach to roles in the bullpen so that he can be aggressive with matchups and he said he's gotten a buy-in from the group. Should be interesting.
QUESTION: Was Andrew Miller always the pick over Zach Britton (above), or did the Cardinals get spooked by a bigger role/contract ask from Britton's camp?
GOOLD: From what I understand they were chasing both and seeing which came in at the preferred contract offer. I think what we're seeing with Britton is more interest from Phillies and Yankees and the bidding is rising. I was told to get Britton the Cardinals would have to "come strong," and I wasn't sure if that was dollars or years or role or all of it. There are big-spenders in the mix for him, and the Phillies have been described to me as "aggressive" for Britton.
Seems like the Cardinals saw their better match with Miller in recent weeks and also saw a value play that they could make with a high return, if healthy.
QUESTION: Jordan Hicks' fastball and sinker are great pitches, but batters still seem to make contact. Shouldn't a closer be a guy who has swing-and-miss stuff. With all the groundballs that he induces, shouldn't he be a starter if he develops a third pitch?
GOOLD: His slider -- that second pitch -- is going to be a swing-and-miss pitch. It's not all that unusual for a high-velocity guy to get a lot of foul balls. Look at some of the fastest pitches in MLB over the past four, five years. They're rarely swinging strikes. They are foul balls or they are balls. Hitters can time them -- they just don't make solid contact on them. That has value.
I get where you're coming from re: starter. But in today's game the ability to have a flamethrower from the bullpen who can handle that role for years to come has immense value. Look at the volatility of bullpens. You'd be doing away with that with one role. You would be making a certainty. It's not a coincidence that some of the best Cardinals teams in recent years had Motte and Rosenthal emerge for late innings from within. Hicks is that reliever.
QUESTION: Just don't get the Reds-Dodgers trade. I get that the Reds unloaded Bailey's contract and saved money, but all three players they received are in their walk year.
GOOLD: Sort of like the Cardinals, eh? Ain't 2019 going to fun. Lots of urgency in the NL Central to win now with these rosters -- or show now, or contend now, or reassert themselves now. Change is coming. The teams that lose out this year are going to have to revamp for 2020 and they have the rosters built for changeover.
Follow-up: As of Dec. 24 (plenty of offseason to go), how do you envision the Cards stacking up in the division?
GOOLD: Second right now. If the rotation pitches to its peak (or even reasonable expectations) then the Cardinals could be the best team in the division. Pitching still wins during the regular season.
QUESTION: Could you share a position and pitching prospect that you’re excited for this season?
GOOLD: I don't have one. But Cardinals fans should be eager to see Ramon Urias (he hits) and Genesis Cabrera (he's a lefty with sizzle). They could contribute in some way this season. On the horizon, there's a young hitter from Cuba who could join Gorman as the team's top two position player prospects in the next 12 months and both could be top-50 talents a year from now, easy. His name? Malcom Nunez. Stay tuned.
Follow-up: Does Nolan Gorman make a big jump this year?
GOOLD: He will have a chance to finish the year in Class AA -- getting there before he turns 20. That will be especially true if Springfield is in the postseason and that's where he can get some playoff appearances.
QUESTION: Do you see a risk in the fan base not appreciating Goldschmidt next year, regardless of his performance, because most will still be whining because his name isn't Bryce Harper? I feel like the excitement over him was short lived and moved too quickly to 'OK, now Harper too'. Goldschmidt is the superior player and I hope he gets his due in the Lou.
GOOLD: None that I can tell. Free agents and such have been reluctant to embrace St. Louis for more tangible reasons -- the success of the team, where they think the team is headed in the standings, the manager, what the team is offering, the lack of a beach or a Madison Avenue or spring training in Arizona, and in some cases the reputation/perception of the city. The online angst of the fans on Twitter has not come up at all in the conversations I've had with agents and players.
Now, the reaction to Fowler at times on social media probably should be something players consider -- and I know of at least two players (and I'm sure there are more) who have reached out to Fowler to express disgust for some of the things he's had thrown at him or said about his family. So, I guess players take note of that.
QUESTION: For all this Harper talk, wouldn't the Cards be a much better team if they had kept Pham?
GOOLD: If Tommy Pham played to his ability, sure. He'd be in center, and look at them go.
I am struck by how fast they moved away from Pham and will have another starting center fielder for a fourth year in a row.
STL Sports
A nightly look at the day\'s top sports stories, and a first look at the topics St. Louis fans will be talking about tomorrow.
Jeff. Gordon.
Jeff Gordon is an online sports columnist for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Get email notifications on {{subject}} daily!
{{description}}
Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items.
