Snell and Nola are both FA and can be had for just money
Won’t happen…but should
Would rather just keep Montgomery over signing Nola.
Aside from Ohtani and Snell, there's not really any potential FA starter that is screaming to me that the Cardinals are much better than what they have with Montgomery.
I'd prioritize signing Montgomery and Flaherty. If one or both say no, then focus on signing two guys like Urias, Rodriguez, Gray, and Giolito and bring in some one cheaper to eat innings and as depth like Gibson.
Monty, absolutely
Flaherty, ummm no…why?
Out of half of a season a few years ago, he’s just a guy
Out of half of a season a few years ago, he’s just a guy
Reason for Flaherty would be that the next caliber of pitchers in the FA class (Wacha, Lugo, Montas, etc.) also have warts, so why not sign a similar caliber guy that you're familiar with at a lower cost to free up $ for possibly 1-2 more starters for depth?
I think "cheap extensions", over "trade them, and hope they resign" is how I interpret this. Because in the event that they resign, it will be after other teams have driven the price a few million dollars north of what we potentially could've gotten them for on a team friendly extension.
++
The only upside to talking extensions and holding until last minute is the hope the deadline pressure gets them to accept a deal for slightly below market etc.
Otherwise, there is nothing stopping them from making actual moves now and then just re-signing whomever they want to a market deal in the winter anyway (including the players they trade).
According to Denton there was some traction on this front with Flaherty as opposed to Monty who has been dead set on testing the market since the regular season began and will get top value and nothing else.
But why? Flaherty can be traded now and re-signed in the winter for the same deal (unless you're going back to my original comment about trying to save a little money).
In a hypothetical world I told you the difference between extending Flaherty before the TDL vs trading him and signing him in the off-season was $5-10 million a year for 4 years, with that difference being re-invested into the team for a #4-5 SP in the off-season, would you do that or still want to pay Flaherty more to acquire prospects?
$40M is a far different deal.
Prospects pretty much have a dollar value like players in all sports.
But why? Flaherty can be traded now and re-signed in the winter for the same deal (unless you're going back to my original comment about trying to save a little money).
Yeah, that's why. It won't be the same deal that he'll get on the open market and they'll have 1/3 slots filled going into the offseason.
I don't love the idea or even like Flaherty but if he gives them a deal at the last minute because he's emotional about leaving the nest or whatever I guess you explore it.
I just don't see any reason Flaherty is accepting anything less than market value now. Unless he feels his arm is going to go any minute, this is a player who (correctly) fought against the assignment of baseball salaries for pre-arb guys, a guy who is very pro-union and taking a discount would hurt the union. He can be a little emotional looking back at a significant time of his life, how he grew as a person, the players and situations he experienced in STL, and still not push for full market value in a deal. He's waited his entire career to have the salary hammer - and hes like a handful of healthy starts from getting there. I have no belief that he is taking anything less than full market.
Prospects pretty much have a dollar value like players in all sports.
As cold and inhumane as that sounds.
I get the point you're making with regard to years of team control and the monetary value of having a player in the majority or entirety of their arbitration years. However, based on the Cardinals insisting they want to contend in 2024, I'm not sure what the issue is with extending either Flaherty or Montgomery for lower contracts vs signing them in the offseason for more $ and trading them for prospects.
I don't think there's a right or wrong approach here, to be honest, between extending and not trading or not extending and trading. The only wrong move would be to not extend either, keep them both for all of 2023, and let them leave in FA.
But why? Flaherty can be traded now and re-signed in the winter for the same deal (unless you're going back to my original comment about trying to save a little money).
Yeah, that's why. It won't be the same deal that he'll get on the open market and they'll have 1/3 slots filled going into the offseason.
I don't love the idea or even like Flaherty but if he gives them a deal at the last minute because he's emotional about leaving the nest or whatever I guess you explore it.
I just don't see any reason Flaherty is accepting anything less than market value now. Unless he feels his arm is going to go any minute, this is a player who (correctly) fought against the assignment of baseball salaries for pre-arb guys, a guy who is very pro-union and taking a discount would hurt the union. He can be a little emotional looking back at a significant time of his life, how he grew as a person, the players and situations he experienced in STL, and still not push for full market value in a deal. He's waited his entire career to have the salary hammer - and hes like a handful of healthy starts from getting there. I have no belief that he is taking anything less than full market.
I don't see it either, I would bet money that talks don't go anywhere if there even are talks and he winds up getting traded.
That being said, there is no market yet. There won't be for several months and a lot can happen between now and then. He's put together 20 starts with a 97 ERA+. Not sure there's a big bag at the end of this either way and if the Cardinals guaranteed him money right now, today, that might be tempting considering the last four years of his career.
