Baseball writer Derrick Goold fields your questions, comments now in live Cardinals chat
October is in full swing with an epic walk-off for the Phillies in Philadelphia and statement win, complete with GIF-ready jawing, for Mike Shildt's San Diego Padres in Los Angeles.
Former Cardinals' fingerprints are already all over the postseason.
Meanwhile, in St. Louis, the Cardinals are retreating into a "reset," complete with changes to the front office, the coaching staff, spending, and much more.
You've got questions, and probably plenty of complaints and criticism. The Cardinals have time on their hands in the coming weeks to begin shaping, deciding, and enacting their plan.
Sounds like the City of St. Louis is testing its outdoor warning sirens.
That's the signal to start the chat.
As always, a real-time transcript of the chat will appear below the window for easier reading on your phone, laptop, tablet, or wherever it is you catch the chat. Questions can be asked in the window. Questions and comments from subscribers and chatters are not edited for grammar or spelling. They are ignored and deleted for vulgarity.
Away. We. Go.
Mark: DG, I think I noticed in a recent chat that you mentioned the possibility of Contreras learning to play 1B. I can see that as a possibility for both him and Herrera to get both of their bats into the lineup (1B & DH), and maybe even have Pages catch the same day. Do you think that there is a good argument for keeping all three of them on the major league roster and do you think it is being discussed by the Cardinals? Thanks for your top-notch reporting!
DG: Thanks for the kind words. Keeping all three on the MLB roster is definitely being discussed by the Cardinals, and even explored how they do that. If anything, that's where they start their roster - with those three on it. That's because Contreras is signed, Herrera is out of options, and Pages is trusted behind the plate. First base is one outlet for solution. Contreras has 51 innings at first base, so there's not a ton of experience there, but it's also not new to him. It would be "learning" for any of them, and there has been no indication from the Cardinals as of yet that they see any of those three as their first baseman ahead of Alec Burleson, who has been mentioned as a possible 1B for 2025. That leaves a few other alternatives. Count Contreras among the group of veterans that the Cardinals will approach about what they want to do - and if they want to find another place. Gray, Arenado, and Contreras stand out as that group that the front office will have to talk to (if they haven't already) about the direction the Cardinals are headed and how they fit in. Another alternative would be trading Herrera, who will get interest - and potentially lot of it - and that would set up the Cardinals to have Pages for sure and Crooks on the way. These are avenues the Cardinals will explore certainly by/at the GM Meetings.
Bryan C: I do not see anything wrong with what Jack Flaherty said, do you?
DG: I don't understand the art of cursing.
(All kidding aside: I don't blush when people curse in the heat of the moment. Not too keen about insults, but hey - they're adults. They give. They take. And cursing is going to happen in competition.)
Capstone: Unless lots of youngsters make major strides,, it doesn't look like the Cards have the hitting or pitching to be a top six NL team in 2025. Arenado has age related regression. He has a costly and complex contract. Even if they have to eat salary, should they trade him (assuming any team swings that deal) and strengthen the farm season. They are not playoff caliber until 2026 at the earliest.
DG: Trading Arenado would be a move driven to move him to a team that he feels gives him a better chance to win. From there, for the Cardinals, it would be about a) alleviating salary and b) getting something in return, but toggling how to do that without paying more of the salary will be the art of the deal. Arenado has a no-trade clause and a super-complex contract that includes deferred money with interest from the Rockies, deferred money without interest from the Cardinals, and an additional year added on to counterbalance some of the cash value. So, this isn't a deal that "strengthens the farm system." That deal is trading Helsley or Contreras. And, no, the Cardinals are not a Top 6 NL team at the moment.
Joe B: My buddy and I have a long-standing debate about the value of coaches (like say, a hitting coach). He points to the poor stats as a reflection of poor coaching, I think it's a reflection of poor performance. If the Cardinals had a different hitting coach this year, do they have the same offensive woes?
DG: Here is now I view coaching, not that you asked, but I hope it helps.
Coaching is about preparation.
Coaching is not about performance.
If a team is not prepared or a player is not prepared, then consider the coaching, or at least how the message is reaching the players - and if they're closed off to it, or they're not getting it. Same with preparation when it comes to scouting and knowledge of the opponent and preparation for what you might see in a situation, a moment, or from an opponent, hitter or pitcher. All about the preparation. Heck, think about a first/third base coach and the preparation they must to do be ready to read pickoffs. That's coaching. Preparation.
A coach does not step into the box or cross the line or toe the rubber to perform.
So, I'm on your side of this argument. And it's difficult to know if they have a different coach do they have different results. There's no indication that the players were unprepared. That doesn't appear to be the case - and when asked about that the hitters pushed back hard. A new voice can always find a new way to reach players. But new doesn't mean better. It means different, and different results - giving how the Cardinals got to those results does not seem likely.
If there are examples people saw about preparation, I'm all ears and happy to discuss or explore them.
Donald N: Derrick; Does your reporting reflect a possibility that Cardinals would really trade Sonny Gray and Ryan Helsey? Tony LaRussa used to say that in building a team from scratch, he would first want a closer because of the damage a ninth inning loss does to a team's psyche. I appreciate your hard work! Donald
DG: There is that possibility, yes. These are two different types of deals. The Cardinals have said, on the record, they'll talk to Sonny Gray about their direction and his fit, and whether that is something that he wants. Mozeliak told me that conversation has to be a "two-way street" and respectful of the fact that the Cardinals sold Gray on being a perennial contender when they signed him. If Gray, who has a no-trade clause, wants to stick and stay, then he stays; if not, then the Cardinals look to shed some of that cash and who Gray will accept a deal to. He's got the power. As far as Helsley - that would be a sell-high move for the Cardinals just ahead of him hitting the arbitration jackpot. He's in a good spot for a big raise in his final year before free agency.
The Cardinals will explore the market for both players in those opening weeks of the offseason, and the offers will dictate if a possibility becomes a real option.
cardsfanintheozarks: Hi Derrick, always enjoy the chats. If you had to rank the likeliness of the following Cardinals being traded from most to least likely how would you rank: Helsley, Gray, Contreras, Arenado? Thanks!
DG: I wish I could do that. I don't know at this point, because it involves other teams, some of which are focused, as you can imagine, on the postseason. Plus, you're talking about multiple players with no-trade clauses, and they've got a few weeks to consider what they want to do with those. As you can imagine, we're still in the opening weeks here of October, and players unplugged after the season ended. Or, they huddled with their family and they'll take time to make that call. Without that information, I'll have a hard time doing anything other than just flat out guessing.
I prefer not to flat out guess.
It's better to provide you an answer when there is more information available - first to the time and from other teams, and then what reporting can reveal and also confirm.
I hope folks don't come to the chat for the latest guess.
Jim: Hi Derrick - do you know if Hence is OK? I haven't seen an update since he got pulled from his last start
DG: My colleagues had a few updates in the newspaper and online following his removal. He was checked over, given the usual exams, and the Cardinals found something that caused them additional alarm. He had soreness, some fatigue, and was prescribed rest. This will be circled back on once he gets a bit into the offseason, but the updates following his departure was that he felt better a day or so later, and there wasn't a root cause that led to additional concern.
Jim: Also interested if there is any talk of Graceffo moving to the pen
DG: Sure. That's standard as a young pitcher arrives, is ready for the majors, and the rotation is full. The Cardinals are open to the idea that Graceffo's first extended look in the majors would be in relief.
Mark: If, in 2024, the veteran corner infielders had 30/100/.280 seasons...and, say, Dakota Hudson channeled his inner (peak) Adam Wainwright for an entire year, how different would this chat be?!
DG: Hard to know. The chats, like social media, through the years, tend to bend toward anger. So, there would be something.
Bryan C: Poll question. Of the 4 NL playoff teams who are the Cardinal fans hoping makes it to the World Series?
DG: Isn't the answer the Padres?
DCG: DG, You foresaw all this, noting back in ST chats that the makeup of the roster would allow the FO to change direction quickly if the season didn't work out. I don't think I absorbed that fully back you noted it. Now that the change is here, I don't really understand the Cardinals' approach to 2024. Supposing that Walker and Gorman still struggled, but Arenado and Goldy had hit just enough to turn some of those low-run losses into wins and the Cardinals snuck into the playoffs, what would be different about the state of the franchise? The same problems would exist (low performing prospects, understaffed minor leagues, an aging pitching staff with only one top end pitcher). So, what was 2024 really about? What would have made the FO not see the need for the changes they are going to implement?
DG: Thanks for the recall and pointing that out. This is a great question.
What was 2024 about? Well, it wasn't a bridge year - a bridge to a rebuild, if you will. And it wasn't a stopgap year. Was it a Hail Mary year? There's probably an argument that was the case toward the end of Goldschmidt's deal and into the heart of Helsley's peak. The Cardinals signed two veterans to one-year deals banking on good, reliable, predictable performance from both. They could have gotten injuries from both, so there was a risk there, right? They were counting on trend-level production from their pillars, and that seems fair. They were counting on breakout, rising performances from prospects, and they got it from Winn, Burleson, and not from Walker and Gorman. And they bet big on Kittredge and Middleton providing setup for Helsley. They got the surprise in Ryan Fernandez to cover for Middleton, and every team that contends gets a surprise from somewhere.
The word that I've tried to use to describe 2024 for the Cardinals is this: They addressed their biggest weaknesses from 2023, and they had a complete and utterly unexpected collapse of what should have been a strength - the lineup. The roster was built for the Cardinals to roll Yahtzee and see how far it went. And they did not. That is what 2024 was about. Building a team that had the potential to go right in a lot of ways, that was going to have a good lineup and a good bullpen and try to roll Yahtzee. And if it did then the revenue would grow, the tickets sold would increase, and so on and so on.
One issue.
That expected lineup's production ghosted, leaving the Cardinals to try and roll Yahtzee with four dice.
What was 2024 about? It was about buying time and remaining competitive as a new model moved in as support before it took over as the guide. It didn't work.
Several years ago, I wrote an essay for Baseball Prospectus about the Cardinals being in the worst possible position: On the fence. It was a theme I explored later and often for the Post-Dispatch. They weren't all-in on a contender, not like their rivals, and they weren't pulling the plug like the tankers. They were on the fence. And that's the worst spot to be in the modern game.
-
Lead baseball writer
