As the 2026 season closes, one of the more common questions among the fanbase revolves around whether the Cardinals are positioned to be playoff-competitive in 2027. The question has different forms, often using the “window” or “timeline” analogy (or is that an allegory?) embedded within. Is the Cardinals next competitive window 2028-2029, earlier or later? Questions along those lines. Naturally, fans would like to see the “earlier” answer, as in 2027.
The relative success of the 2026 season has many
wondering if that timeline or window can or should be moved up. By the standings, the current team is pretty close to making the playoffs and playing meaningful, playoff atmosphere type games. Much closer than pre-season expectations among prognosticators, most of whom had .500 as the absolute topside, if everything goes right, expectation. I think it was Pecota that had the floor for this team being in 60’s in the win column. They were wrong by the turn of the August calendar.
Yet, it is not hard to see that another tweak or two could’ve resulted in a playoff birth (such as a decent bullpen). But the adopted strategy didn’t really allow for those tactics and here we are. Whereas a year ago this time, the roster seemed in disarray and there were questions aplenty. Would the vets be moved? Could the pitching be improved? Could a young core emerge? The problems clearly outnumbered the solutions. Seemingly, within a year, enough questions have been answered that fans can point to a handful of areas of needed improvement that could vault the team into realistic contention for a wild card. But, is now (or this off-season) the time to work more on the short-term improvements needed for this season? Or should the team stay the course, let the prospects emerge and let that timeline emerge with them?
Basic reminders on terms
Plan, strategy, objective and tactics are typical planning terms that can often bleed into one another. Here is how I use them:
Strategy – is an overall chosen aim (not limited to one, though). It needs to persist and tends to consider factors that do not (usually) change quickly. A key is – it is a result of management choice and it is their way of finding success. Once chosen, it guides planning activities.
Objectives – is a statement that describes the intended outcome and tends to be measurable. One of the current FO “objectives” is to return this team to regular playoff contention.
Tactics – Chosen actions. Very temporal, it is often the next step toward executing the strategy and achieving the outcome(s).
Plan – the composite of strategies, objectives and tactics. A good plan has strong alignment among those three elements.
What is the current plan (ie. strategies, objectives, tactics)?
At some point (hard to say exactly when), the Cardinals shifted back to a strategy of heavier reliance on draft-and-development from an earlier approach of investing more heavily in established stars (ala. Goldy, Arenado, Contreras, et.al.). Strategic shifts are hard on the organization because habits, spending, personnel, etc. all reflect the outcome of plans driven by the prior strategy(ies) and those things are not easily changed in short time frames.
When they shifted back to draft-and-develop as their primary strategy, then came the realization that different tactics were needed and it became time to re-invest more heavily in technology, coaches and other personnel (trainers, nutritionists, strategists, etc.). These tectonic shifts often lead to changes in personnel, which we’ve seen occur at all levels of the organization since late 2024. More established personnel often, but not always, have difficulty in embracing new strategic choices and as such, have trouble adopting and owning changes in tactics that come with that, and find themselves on the outside, looking in.
Other adopted strategies have been a newfound willingness to jettison high dollar contracts and turn them into young, cost controlled talent. The tactics were trading away contracts (with cash attached) in order fulfill a basic objective of rebuilding the MiLB talent pipeline. Observers should note how few of the recent acquisitions have ended up on the 40-man roster. We’ve seen enough player acquisition in the last 18 months that it seems clear that embedded in the tactical actions of acquiring young talent (drafts, trade deadlines activities, the trades last off-season) was the objective of making sure that most (almost all) would have a full six-years of control at some future time (not 2027).
A part of the Cardinals strategy was/is to try and remain competitive at some level through this transition period. Doing so requires finding ways to acquire leverageable talent in the near-term without compromising the longer-term outcomes (ie. blocking a prospect). Tricky, this. Signing Dustin May was a tactic supporting this line of thinking. He represented a chance to immediately bolster the starting rotation for a short time (it worked) while producing another trade opportunity for more future value (that appears to have worked, too). Baseball, in its cruel way, dispense these excellent outcomes by visiting long-term injury on the previously blocked prospect (Dobbins) soon after he replaced May in the rotation, after May was traded. Now, they have neither.
Is the future upon us?
It seems that some of the current strategies and tactics (and objectives) will have to change. And with it, the definition of success needs to evolve. It is great that the Cardinals appear to have met their objective of rebuilding their pipeline, as seen in glowing ratings of their overall farm system by 3rd party evaluators. Two years ago, the objective was to re-establish the pipeline and they’ve done well. High draft picks help. Extra draft picks by acquiring Comp A/B picks was useful. Future value, in the form of prospects, enhanced the pipeline and it appears some interesting approaches netted a very strong 2026 draft class as perhaps the cherry on top.
As some point, the objective will need to shift away just adding at the bottom and move towards other measurable outcomes of the major league team like playoff wins and appearances. Different objectives will require different tactics, too (and likely a different payroll structure).
The most obvious objective that will need to change is the team will need to move away from the objective of attempting to remain currently competitive at the lower WC level while rebuilding (as opposed to the option of just tanking). They will need to have rebuilt, not be rebuilding (yes, I get that on-going renewal is an essential part of the long-term strategy). They will need to be seeking a higher level of sustainable competitiveness than the current spoken objective of hoping they play meaningful games in September. But when?
A key question is … is now the time to begin that shift? Or is the organization is in need of another year (or so) of the current set of strategies, objective and tactics? Of being more mindful of the elusive future and accepting the growing pains and frustrations of the present path? And in recognition that development of prospects is non-linear and injury and failure can interrupt the finest dreams of the finest prospects.
How will we know?
Right now, the impactful player acquisitions have pretty all been at the minor league level. Most major league level talent acquisitions have been on the edges (Ferguson, Soriano, Pereira, etc.) that came a minimal cost and/or limited time in StL (May, Stanek).
When the Cardinals have shifted their strategy toward more sustained major league success, we will see them acquiring players that will immediately impact the major league roster via the trade and free agent markets. In each case, the costs will be steeper, too. It’s one thing to look smart trading a Granillo for a Soriano. It’s a whole ‘nuther thing to look smart while trading a prized prospect or two, or dealing a strong performer in their prime off the major league roster (Herrera?), or signing a major FA contract for major dollars (the dollars are committed. The players (and their performance) come with risks.
How might it look?
When a team drafts and develops, they inevitably end up with over-abundance in some areas and deficiencies in others. The Cardinals have too many catchers, and lots of pitchers. On the other hand, reliable relievers seem in short supply and there isn’t much infield depth, although the previously barren outfield cadre has deepened considerably.
When a team has these imbalances, some tricky transactions often result, sometimes asymmetrically, so they can be hard to recognize. For example, it wouldn’t be beyond comprehension if the Cardinals traded Ivan Herrera for a solid pitcher (say a #2, maybe from a pitching deep team like Seattle or Philadelphia) and then turned around and traded a pitcher like Leahy or Pallante and a second-tier prospect to fix their third base or centerfield gap. When I say these could happen asymmetrically, I mean these kinds of trades could happen in either order and could occur some time apart. The time gap between might lead people to be confused as to what they are doing. When the second transaction occurs and a young prospect (Rainel Rodriguez, anyone?) ascends in Ivan’s role, all the sudden the pitching and offense can both look deeper, in the aggregate, but it might take a bit of time to uncover all that.
When?
We won’t know until we start seeing the transactions. A lot of teams like to make a lot of noise the cycle before they start really doing stuff, but that can be more fodder for restive fans than real movement. These teams are easy to spot – the rumor mills have them seemingly “in on” multiple high-profile deals but always come away the bridesmaid.
My rough estimation is that the team wants to get through one more draft and IFA signing cycle before they shift. It’s not unlikely they also want to get past the CBA mess this off-season portends. If so, we may see the first signs of a strategic shift next trade deadline and then more aggression in the winter between the 2027 and 2028 seasons.
If the shift is sooner, it will look like getting more solid solutions for third base, centerfield and the bullpen (and maybe even the topside of the rotation). Not changes on the edges, but solid acquisitions expected to contribute right away. Acquisitions that will cost either money (via FA) or prospects (via trade). Such acquisitions will prize the certainty of established players along with the need to develop, and someone may get blocked.
What clues tell us this?
When you look at it, the 2027 rotation looks pretty set (assuming health) to start 2027. Pallante, Leahy, McGreevy, Mathews. One spot remains in flux, although Liberatore is the incumbent until someone better (and ready) comes along. Look a little deeper and it’s not hard to imagine a AAA rotation of Doyle-Fajardo-Cijntje-Molina-Roby and a AA rotation that includes Franklin-Eagan-Odle-Crossland-Clarke. While this looks very promising, I don’t think anyone seriously expects any of these guys to be MLB ready on Opening Day and they will likely need multiples of these guys to ascend to really kick the rebuild into high gear. If you start putting timelines on them, you can begin to see why 2027 looks more like a transition year than a full-on competitive approach.
You can look at the position player side and see similar. Early next year appears set up to incorporate guys like Josh Baez and Bernal into MLB roles. The next round of studs that will impact the team’s competitiveness? Rodriguez, Peete, Jesus Baez, maybe Cho on the position side. All could be AAA bound next year, but none seriously expected to impact MLB until later in 2027, earliest. Sound familiar?
Outlook
While many think the team should get busy filling obvious holes (3b, CF, the bullpen, TOR starter), the reality is the strategic shift to fixing the MLB roster via FA and trades is still a bit away. For fans who’ve pined for a good team for four years, it can appear to be forever. But this time next year, we should start seeing the signs of the shift.
I said earlier than 2027 could seem like a transition year. Many will throw up their hands and say “again?”. This year might be different. Instead of the roster being clogged with a bunch of guys who’ve struggled to get untracked for years but still needing runway, we should start to see more “up or out” transactions. Mid-range prospects who are closer to ready (Hjerpe, Fitts, Mautz, Gastelum, Rincon, Davis, Ledbetter, etc.) will get shots and longer-term guys who have had their shot may move on. One could reasonably assume that the mid-tier guys will have a pretty short “runway” to get themselves established before the higher profile guys start matriculating. I think of this as the inverse of “runway”. There are planes in the landing pattern coming in. They aren’t here yet, but they are coming. Ex. Davis will get a look this spring. By this time next year, Peete may have passed him. Crooks may get another shot early next year, but Rodriguez is coming. Saggese may have another opportunity, but probably only as long as it takes for Jesus Baez to master AAA. Fitts may get first dibs early next year, but any AAA starter could pass him by mid-year. Hjerpe and/or Mautz seem likely to end up in the pen early next year, but Clarke and Molina may skate right past them.
Fan impatience will lead some to say just bring the primo guys up and get started. That would be a strategic shift, too, but one that this management team is unlikely to adopt. After all, there are no short cuts.
