They got a top 60 prospect back and some decent pieces for 5 expiring contracts. That's a good haul imo
They got pretty much what I projected. Actually, even slightly better because I didn't think a top 100 prospect would come back. Unless they added a position player to one of these trades, they wasn't getting a 100% penciled in starter for next season. The Mets didn't even get that for Verlander and Scherzer.
They did good but didn’t hit their stated goal. I don’t think teams are going to be knocking down the door for Carlson or TON; this would’ve been a good time to move them.
Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild
Posted: August 1 23, 4:35 pm
by jagtrader
Yes, they did fine.
We’ll wait and see about the off-season. Maybe a pitching version of Sean Murphy will be available and they can pass on that trade.
Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild
They got a top 60 prospect back and some decent pieces for 5 expiring contracts. That's a good haul imo
They got pretty much what I projected. Actually, even slightly better because I didn't think a top 100 prospect would come back. Unless they added a position player to one of these trades, they wasn't getting a 100% penciled in starter for next season. The Mets didn't even get that for Verlander and Scherzer.
They did good but didn’t hit their stated goal. I don’t think teams are going to be knocking down the door for Carlson or TON; this would’ve been a good time to move them.
I'm confused. If you think teams aren't that interested in TON or Carlson, why is this a good time to move them??
Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild
They got a top 60 prospect back and some decent pieces for 5 expiring contracts. That's a good haul imo
They got pretty much what I projected. Actually, even slightly better because I didn't think a top 100 prospect would come back. Unless they added a position player to one of these trades, they wasn't getting a 100% penciled in starter for next season. The Mets didn't even get that for Verlander and Scherzer.
They did good but didn’t hit their stated goal. I don’t think teams are going to be knocking down the door for Carlson or TON; this would’ve been a good time to move them.
Was that their stated goal for the deadline or just going forward into next season? I guess it's hard to know exactly. I know the focus was pitching as they stated but honestly if Mo thought they was getting some bonafide "slot in tomorrow" controllable young starter for a bunch of expiring contracts than he clearly didn't realize what he has. Like I said, the Mets couldn't even get that, and that's with eating money and FAR better pitchers.
Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild
They got a top 60 prospect back and some decent pieces for 5 expiring contracts. That's a good haul imo
They got pretty much what I projected. Actually, even slightly better because I didn't think a top 100 prospect would come back. Unless they added a position player to one of these trades, they wasn't getting a 100% penciled in starter for next season. The Mets didn't even get that for Verlander and Scherzer.
They did good but didn’t hit their stated goal. I don’t think teams are going to be knocking down the door for Carlson or TON; this would’ve been a good time to move them.
I'm confused. If you think teams aren't that interested in TON or Carlson, why is this a good time to move them??
I should’ve clarified. I don’t think they’re going to be lining up in December.
Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild
They got a top 60 prospect back and some decent pieces for 5 expiring contracts. That's a good haul imo
They got pretty much what I projected. Actually, even slightly better because I didn't think a top 100 prospect would come back. Unless they added a position player to one of these trades, they wasn't getting a 100% penciled in starter for next season. The Mets didn't even get that for Verlander and Scherzer.
They did good but didn’t hit their stated goal. I don’t think teams are going to be knocking down the door for Carlson or TON; this would’ve been a good time to move them.
Was that their stated goal for the deadline or just going forward into next season? I guess it's hard to know exactly. I know the focus was pitching as they stated but honestly if Mo thought they was getting some bonafide "slot in tomorrow" controllable young starter for a bunch of expiring contracts than he clearly didn't realize what he has. Like I said, the Mets couldn't even get that, and that's with eating money and FAR better pitchers.
I don’t think he thought that, but it is a very real possibility that Carlson and O’Neill see their trade values dip further. Packaging one with Jack would’ve been likelier to return a starter for next year.
Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild
Posted: August 1 23, 4:42 pm
by jagtrader
O’Neill seemed like the best player to move. Edman a close second. Maybe no one wanted TON. Keeping guys until their value disappears is also the Cardinal Way. I’m sure Edman could bring a nice return.
Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild
They got a top 60 prospect back and some decent pieces for 5 expiring contracts. That's a good haul imo
They got pretty much what I projected. Actually, even slightly better because I didn't think a top 100 prospect would come back. Unless they added a position player to one of these trades, they wasn't getting a 100% penciled in starter for next season. The Mets didn't even get that for Verlander and Scherzer.
They did good but didn’t hit their stated goal. I don’t think teams are going to be knocking down the door for Carlson or TON; this would’ve been a good time to move them.
Was that their stated goal for the deadline or just going forward into next season? I guess it's hard to know exactly. I know the focus was pitching as they stated but honestly if Mo thought they was getting some bonafide "slot in tomorrow" controllable young starter for a bunch of expiring contracts than he clearly didn't realize what he has. Like I said, the Mets couldn't even get that, and that's with eating money and FAR better pitchers.
I don’t think he thought that, but it is a very real possibility that Carlson and O’Neill see their trade values dip further. Packaging one with Jack would’ve been likelier to return a starter for next year.
I agree. In think that was the only realistic chance to get a decent starter. It could be even adding them didn't up the ante as much as they thought.
Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild
... and Montgomery always seemed like he hated it here.
He was pretty damned stoked for Wainwright's star turn.
Re: Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild
Posted: August 1 23, 4:49 pm
by TGantz
Only a playoff contender would want Flaherty. A playoff contender that wants Flaherty would not give up solid pitching because an unpredictable OF was packaged with it. If they're interested in Flaherty, they don't have pitching to give.
Probably a better idea to wait until one of these contenders blows it in post season and starts shipping guys off.