Responding to Cardinals fans and media's backlash to my Rafael Devers take

On Monday, I made a post on the site titled "Giants' big swing for Rafael Devers is the exact move the Cardinals should have done", and honestly, it generated far more conversation than I anticipated.

For those of you who read my work from time to time, I hope you're very aware that I am not in the "clickbait" game. I do not write things to intentionally mislead or misinform readers, or solely because it will get a lot of clicks. I promise you that Devers' story did not get enough clicks to put my reputation on the line for, and frankly, I just do not see value in that kind of content.

I do love talking about the St. Louis Cardinals with fans, media, and anyone else who is interested in following Major League Baseball and this organization. I very much enjoy having conversations and debates regarding the team, and I welcome alternative opinions and have no fear of being challenged on my own.

While I still stand by the premise of my story on Rafael Devers (which I encourage you to actually read if you haven't already before telling me why I was wrong), I do think I could have done a better job of anticipating some of the questions, critiques, or potential oversights my initial piece has invited.

Because of that, I wanted to take some time to respond to some of the common responses or critiques I have seen of my stance in hopes of better clarifying my stance on what is a complicated position I have decided to take. I actually understand the sentiments that many have made that, on the surface, this did not make sense for the Cardinals. But I personally wanted to challenge some assumptions and obstacles and call the Cardinals to consider something that anyone who knows how the team operates knows they do not like doing.

Off the bat, I do think some of my statements could have been better worded. Calling him the "perfect" trade target was a stretch even in my own estimation, and the "exact move" would better have been said as the "exact kind of move", referring to targeting a big bat on a long-term deal available in a trade.

I also want to make it clear that I know I am in the minority with this take (at least on Twitter/X and the opinion of local media), but I do believe there have been some points made in response to my thoughts that do not fairly capture what I believed about this.

So, allow me to respond to some of those concerns others have had about my take on the Cardinals pursuing Rafael Devers in a trade

1. "This is something the Cardinals were never going to do, so discussing this is both unfair and pointless."

You're absolutely right, the Cardinals were never going to do this. But I think that's part of the problem I wanted to lay out.

I'm not encouraging them to become an organization that spends $300 million or more on payroll and start spending like the Los Angeles Dodgers or New York Mets. Yes, acquiring Devers and his deal would have stretched the Cardinals out of their comfort zone, but I do not believe that to be in ways that are unfair to ask of them.

I think this overall point seeps into much of the feedback I have received, so I will continue to address that within each of the common responses I have seen.

2. "The Cardinals are not in a position to make this kind of move right now. It does not make sense with their current goals as an organization or for their timeline for contention."

Honestly, this is probably the piece of feedback I most agree with, and if you feel strongly about this, I totally understand and respect it. I'd just like to offer my perspective on why I believe they should have been willing to make an exception for Devers.

Players like Devers, in his situation, do not become available often. Truly, when was the last time a player who was performing as well as Devers, who is just 28 years old and long-term deal he signed before hitting free agency, became available in a trade? It is a unique case that does not come around often.

The last example I can think of that parallels well to Devers is Giancarlo Stanton. The Cardinals were in a different position organizationally when they agreed to a deal with the Miami Marlins for Stanton, but they were willing to take on that kind of money and saw an opportunity to acquire a game changing bat who they would not be able to sign in free agency.

While the trade hasn't been as good as the New York Yankees would have hoped for, Stanton's main issue has been injuries, not regression in performance. Stanton remained an elite bat his first four years with New York, and had he not battled injuries at the level he has thus far, he probably would have aged better in recent years.

Anyways, Stanton is not the point, other than the fact that it is hard to think of another slugger in his late-20s on a long-term deal who was made available in a trade, and the organization wasn't looking to eat money on the deal in order to get back a better return.

Yes, acquiring Devers would have made things very complicated for the Cardinals, especially if they did not move Nolan Arenado in that trade. And yes, they wanted to cut payroll and give runway to young players right now and focus on revamping player development. My question is why can't you continue to do those things while acquiring a bat like Devers, that you know full well that you don't have the caliber of within your organization?

Until Major League Baseball introduces a salary cap, the Cardinals are never going to outbid the Dodgers, Mets, and other large-market teams for a player in free agency of Devers' caliber. Had he hit free agency, I actually think it is likely he would have signed for a bit more than he did with Boston, so I think it is fair to say the Giants did not acquire a bad contract.

Could it become a bad contract? Of course, any deal that big for that long could. But again, it's hard to find a player available in a trade of his caliber, and the team isn't looking to offload his money because it is a bad contract.

What is more common is teams trading players of Devers caliber before they hit free agency or get an extension, but those players tend to cost equal or most capital to what the Giants gave up as well as the fact that you only have them under contract for a few years, and then they'll likely walk and sign with a bigger market team.

I love what I have heard from Buster Posey since the deal went down. The Giants were proactive and aggressive in seeing if this could work. Yes, they are in more of a "win-now" mode than the Cardinals are, but they've also been swinging big for players for years and striking out each time, even when they weren't a contender on paper. Posey recognized this was a legit shot to get a guy they struggle to bring to San Francisco, and he took an aggressive swing to make him a Giant.

I really hope the Bloom-led front office is going to be able to churn out a player of Devers' caliber over the coming years, but I'd much rather have the bird in the hand than hope one comes out of the bush for them.

At least until any reporting indicates otherwise, the Cardinals never sniffed around on this or even saw what was possible. What if Boston were open to a package that made sense for St. Louis? We'll never know.

Yes, San Francisco paid a decent package to acquire Devers, but it did not cost them an arm and a leg either. The Cardinals would not have had to part with a player like JJ Wetherholt to get this done. The Giants dealt Kyle Harrison, a former top pitching prospect that has struggled a bit to start his career, Jordan Hicks, whose deal does not make him an attractive trade asset, James Tibbs III, who some consider to be a boarderline top 100 prospcet but not some incredile young player, and a throw in prospect in Jose Bello.

I've seen some people say it would be ridiculous for the Cardinals to consider parting with a guy like Wetherholt and Quinn Mathews to get this deal done, and I agree. If Boston asked for that, St. Louis better hang up the phone. But I highly doubt that would have been the asking price, considering what Boston ended up getting for Devers.

In an ideal world, the Cardinals are able to acquire an elite bat later on in their organizational reset, but my point is the club should have been open to an aggressive move now, since this kind of opportunity is a unique one that does not come around every year.

3. "The Cardinals should not be looking to trade for a player with the kind of attitude problems that Rafael Devers has shown."

Fair take, and if you feel that way, I don't blame you. But when you're talking about a player who is 12th in fWAR and 22nd in wRC+ since 2019, who until this season has never been a guy people questioned the work ethic or character of, I think he may be worth that gamble.

According to Devers, he is fully willing to play whatever position the Giants are going to ask of him. Should he have done that in Boston? I say yes. But clearly something happened between him and the front office, and that relationship became untenable. That's led Bloom's successor in Boston, Craig Breslow, to openly admit he needs to reevaluate how he interacts with his players and learn from the mistakes he's made in this situation.

I do not find it to be a small thing that Bloom is the man who signed Devers to his massive extension and who made him feel comfortable committing to Boston long-term. Devers easily could have tested free agency and maybe gotten even more money, but Bloom was able to get him to sign the dotted line, and Red Sox manager Alex Cora even publicly stated "Bloom isn't here anymore" when this saga heated up and it became clear that there were issues between Devers and the front office.

Even though I would have wanted Devers to handle the situation differently in Boston, it's pretty clear that the communication breakdown was substantial, and the front office and ownership did a lot to make the situation worse than it needed to be. A divorce between the sides was inevitable, but that doesn't mean Devers is someone other organizations should not want.

At the end of the day, finding a player of Devers' caliber should be worth throwing a wrench in your plans or philosophy for a given year. I get it would have been a complicated thing to explore, but man, I just wish the Cardinals were the kind of team who was willing to get creative and leave no stone unturned when it came to trying to make this work. Had they put forth that kind of effort and fallen short, I wouldn't have had a strong reaction to that.

Maybe they'll be ready to do that here in a few years, and if so, and they land that big fish, I'll be the first to applaud them. I just worry that with how the organization is viewing things right now, acquiring a big fish that they did not develop themselves is going to require a very, very unique situation like the one Devers was in, and I'm not sure we are going to see one come up like this again any time soon. At least one that won't cost them a $400 million or more deal, a ton of top prospects, or a strong package for a player with little control.

That's my soapbox. It really doesn't need to be a topic anymore, so I won't be writing about Devers specifically anytime soon. Maybe I am just a bit early in voicing my concerns about them big fish hunting, but I'll stand by my original premise that I believe Devers was a much better fit for the Cardinals than most have given the idea credit for.