Mozeliak: "Some Changes" Coming For Cardinals, But Not A Rebuild

[Lesson]

And if hicks is the guy you’d want to sign, you can still do that after trading him for a prospect or 2 this year

Being genuine when I say this, but can you think of instances where that's occurred (a player being traded and then immediately coming back in FA)?

The only ones I can think of Lee are in Philly and Chapman with the Yankees.

I don't think it's very common.

[cardsfantx]

And if hicks is the guy you’d want to sign, you can still do that after trading him for a prospect or 2 this year

Being genuine when I say this, but can you think of instances where that's occurred (a player being traded and then immediately coming back in FA)?

The only ones I can think of Lee are in Philly and Chapman with the Yankees.

I don't think it's very common.

I’m not sure if anyone trading anyone away WANTED the player back the next season. Most teams who are sellers at the deadline are not contenders again the next season.

Do you know if any instances where a team openly wanted the player back but was rebuffed/signed somewhere else after being traded?

If the cards and hicks are really talking about an extension, then I’d have to assume both sides would want a reunion

[Popeye_Card]

And if hicks is the guy you’d want to sign, you can still do that after trading him for a prospect or 2 this year

Being genuine when I say this, but can you think of instances where that's occurred (a player being traded and then immediately coming back in FA)?

The only ones I can think of Lee are in Philly and Chapman with the Yankees.

I don't think it's very common.

It's not common. But there's also no advantage to extending Hicks now vs. signing him in the offseason, other than keeping him for the last 2 months of the season while we fight to stay out of last place.

You maybe put in the work to extend someone you really want to keep. I wouldn't put too much effort to woo Hicks to stay. If someone wants to pay him more, they can have him. I will miss his very fast, very out of control bus.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

You could get 12 years of player control of potential contributors from another organization or you can extend an oft-injured, often ineffective reliever at his highest price.

This sentence makes no sense to me.

Come on guys. We can't just say we can get 2 really good minor leaguers for Hicks, and in the same sentence say how much Hicks actually sucks.

If other teams think Hicks is an oft-injured ineffective reliever, why are they sending us 2 guys who can be really helpful for us?

I think it's because 1) Hicks performance lately has been much better and 2) the acquiring team needs performance NOW and will pay up for it.

The acquiring team knows he's a rental too. They would be betting Hicks' short term results stay the same and he doesn't turn into a pumpkin over the next 3 months.

[Lesson]

I’m not sure if anyone trading anyone away WANTED the player back the next season. Most teams who are sellers at the deadline are not contenders again the next season.

Do you know if any instances where a team openly wanted the player back but was rebuffed/signed somewhere else after being traded?

If the cards and hicks are really talking about an extension, then I’d have to assume both sides would want a reunion

Not sure about your second question, but Lee and Chapman both were traded by teams that they ended up returning to a year later and both were serious contenders.

It's not common. But there's also no advantage to extending Hicks now vs. signing him in the offseason, other than keeping him for the last 2 months of the season while we fight to stay out of last place.

You maybe put in the work to extend someone you really want to keep. I wouldn't put too much effort to woo Hicks to stay. If someone wants to pay him more, they can have him. I will miss his very fast, very out of control bus.

The advantage would be using the window between now and the deadline as an exclusive negotiating window.

Trading him blows that window out and allows others to enter the market and negotiate in the off-season, creating more competition for Hicks' services and likely raising his price.

Now, one could argue the difference in Hicks' contract between extending and trading him and going into FA as marginal, but why take that risk if you already like the player and they're in their prime?

Same goes with Montgomery. I'd explore extending Montgomery at all costs now as the first option. Second option is if he doesn't extend to trade him.

[Popeye_Card]

We also may need to realize that while Hicks has gotten better results over the past couple months, he's already trending back to his pumpkin ways. 1.800 WHIP, 7.6 K/9 in July.

The good news for a team trading for him is that he's apparently only bad at Busch this year. His home/away splits this year are night and day. Pretty stark for his career too - over twice as many walks at home vs. away, in roughly equal innings.

[Popeye_Card]

Trading him blows that window out and allows others to enter the market and negotiate in the off-season, creating more competition for Hicks' services and likely raising his price.

We are talking about the same Jordan Hicks here, right? If someone else wants to sign him for anything more than $3MM AAV for more than 2 years, it isn't a loss if he leaves. I'm tired of pissing away payroll on mediocre and frustrating relievers on multi-year deals.

[Magneto2.0]

So Rays are in serious talks to acquire Lance Lynn

It'll be interesting to see if that deal goes through, what the package they give up is. It'll probably give us an idea of the market for Flaherty and Monty.

[Lesson]

Trading him blows that window out and allows others to enter the market and negotiate in the off-season, creating more competition for Hicks' services and likely raising his price.

We are talking about the same Jordan Hicks here, right? If someone else wants to sign him for anything more than $3MM AAV for more than 2 years, it isn't a loss if he leaves. I'm tired of pissing away payroll on mediocre and frustrating relievers on multi-year deals.

I don't agree with who the Cardinals have targeted on multi-year deals for reliever (Miller, Cecil, VerHagen, Gregerson, Oh to name a few) because of them being 30+ when their contracts were signed.

I'm fine with signing relievers under 30 who may have some control issues but can strike guys out to multi-year deals.

[dmarx114]

You could get 12 years of player control of potential contributors from another organization or you can extend an oft-injured, often ineffective reliever at his highest price.

This sentence makes no sense to me.

Come on guys. We can't just say we can get 2 really good minor leaguers for Hicks, and in the same sentence say how much Hicks actually sucks.

If other teams think Hicks is an oft-injured ineffective reliever, why are they sending us 2 guys who can be really helpful for us?

I think it's because 1) Hicks performance lately has been much better and 2) the acquiring team needs performance NOW and will pay up for it.

The acquiring team knows he's a rental too. They would be betting Hicks' short term results stay the same and he doesn't turn into a pumpkin over the next 3 months.

Maybe