Cardinals Extend John Mozeliak

USATSI_7748197The Cardinals have announced that they have extended senior vice president and general manager John Mozeliak for two years, through the 2018 season. Last February, the Cardinals had signed Mozeliak to a three-year extension covering the 2014 through 2016 seasons.

Since Mozeliak's hiring following the 2007 season, the Cardinals have won one World Series (2011), appeared in another (2013), and made the playoffs four times, including in the last three seasons. They've had at least 86 wins in every season since hiring Mozeliak. Their farm system and player development program are highly regarded, and they've bolstered their current team with a number of products of Mozeliak's drafts — the Cardinals' 2009 draft, which included Shelby Miller, Joe Kelly, Matt Carpenter, Trevor Rosenthal and Matt Adams, is one of the best in recent history.

Other teams have attempted to emulate the Cardinals' success both at the big-league level and in player development. Most notably, after the 2011 season, the Astros hired Cardinals vice president of scouting and player development Jeff Luhnow to be their GM, citing the farm system he and the Cardinals had built as a key reason why.

Mozeliak's key moves this offseason included signing shortstop Jhonny Peralta to a four-year contract, extending Carpenter for six years, and trading David Freese and Fernando Salas to the Angels for Peter Bourjos and Randal Grichuk.

Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images.


38 Responses to Cardinals Extend John Mozeliak Leave a Reply

  1. Joe Blanco 1 year ago

    In Luhnow we trust!

  2. Cosmo3 1 year ago

    No brainer.

  3. 2009 was a damn solid draft, didn’t realize all those guys were from the same class.

    • burnboll 1 year ago

      I don’t think they went to the same class. Shelby Miller went to Texas am and Matt Adams to slippery rock.

  4. start_wearing_purple 1 year ago

    Good call. Easily a top 3 GM in the game under almost anyone’s book.

  5. LazerTown 1 year ago

    Good move. Unlike a manager, a great GM is worth extending for a long time. I’ll be interested to see if they can continue their success without Luhnow, but I think that it is still worth the gamble. Part of the Card’s success was due to a very weak division, but the way the Cards are looking now, it was well worth it keeping him around.

    • Drew M 1 year ago

      Last year the division was probably the best in the NL.

    • Paulie Roberts 1 year ago

      The way the Cardinals drafted the names like Wacha and Wong, then I bet they will.

    • Teufelshunde4 1 year ago

      Lunhow worked for Mo not the other way around.. Lunhow brought the analytics side to the Cardinals when Jocketty was there… Jocketty wouldnt work with Lunhow, so Jocketty was fired.. Mo united a fractured front office and got the scouting, analytics and player dev people to all work together.
      Anyone who wants to credit Lunhow alone with the Cards current success needs to look at that..

    • Nathan Boley 1 year ago

      I hate when people describe the NL Central as a weak division. Mostly because it’s incredibly dismissive, but also because it’s plain wrong. They had arguably the second best division in baseball last year, weaker only to the AL East. I think they’ll be even better this year with the Brewers drastically improved.

      • burnboll 1 year ago

        I don’t hate it, but I don’t agree with it.

    • burnboll 1 year ago

      Jeff Luhnow =most overrated name in baseball. Along with his buddy Kevin Goldstein.

      Someone should call them out on their punting seasons to get high draft picks.

      I’d like to see one of my fave baseball writers, like Todd Jeff or that Sullivan guy over at fangraphs write an article on a change to the current draft system that punishes teams that tries to stay relevant.

      I’d like to see the nba draft lottery system implemented.

      • Red_Line_9 1 year ago

        I see what you’re saying, but the jury is still out. Even with available money, it doesn’t guarantee the ability to sign free agents. One thing I will add about the mlb draft…it tends to be deeper than the NBA or NFL. The chances of punting in baseball and finding a franchise cornerstone especially one that can make immediate impact aren’t as likely.

      • North 1 year ago

        HUGE TV problems and shaky ownership early in his tenure influenced the cuts.

  6. Dave 1 year ago

    boo!

  7. North 1 year ago

    Then the Cubs said, “But we have Baez!”

    • Red_Line_9 1 year ago

      You have to at least see the Cubs as a competitive threat in seasons to come. In my recollection they have NEVER had a system….and are fully equipped financially to play in free agency.

      • North 1 year ago

        They aren’t fully equipped to spend. If they were, they would. A team doesn’t spend 80 M in the 2012 offseason, then suddenly revert that plan in 2013. The revenue isn’t coming in from assumed sources (i.e., renovation). And as a result, the funds won’t be there until definitives are made.

        • Red_Line_9 1 year ago

          I’d agree, but say the reality lies in the middle. Going the small market rebuild is also a matter of preference and allows for them to bank revenue. The Cubs have spent “dumb” money in FA. I believe at this point it’s more a philosophy of adding players to the core

          • North 1 year ago

            Precedence shows significant payroll drops takes a team longer to return to competitiveness than a team continuing to stabilize a payroll.

            Adding amateur players/developing a system and spending in free agency aren’t mutual exclusive philosophies. The Cubs did this in 2012, but shied away in 2013. A team spending 80 M one offseason only to revert the following offseason shows a change of plan. So Cubs fans, this isn’t the magical, Theo plan. It’s a change of route.

          • Red_Line_9 1 year ago

            Maybe. But the Cubs are also a rare breed as far as sports organizations are concerned. They have an elite national and global marketing presence. Smart free agency is always a good idea. Epstein learned that the hard way in Boston. Why spend money to finish a little below .500

          • North 1 year ago

            Because finishing a little above .500 qualifies, with the extra WC spot, for a competitive season. And with win variance, predicting a +82 win season in the beginning of the year can easily end up being above 90 wins. The most important asset a team has is a MLB season. Teams, especially the Cubs, should try to avoid punting them, which the Cubs didn’t do going into last year.

          • Red_Line_9 1 year ago

            True, but the Cubs are a rare team that is little effected revenue wise by a bad season. Outside of maybe a lag in April attendance.. the game goes on at Wrigley

          • Red_Line_9 1 year ago

            They were in play publicly for Tanaka this off season. That would certainly have qualified as a major free agent expenditure.

          • North 1 year ago

            So then, what is it? Should the Cubs spend or withhold money from free agents now, in 2014? Even with the 20 M offer they gave him, which would’ve put their 2014 payroll at 113 M (98 M for players on the Cubs when Soriano’s contract is subtracted). 113 M still isn’t cutting it. They are a big market team, but cannot afford to go above this threshold. They are trying to win with the limited funds. If the Cubs signed Tanaka, it would’ve put their win curve to 76 wins probably. If they were to add in a few more players, they could’ve got it up to the 80s. That would’ve created a playoff run. But, unfortunately, the Cubs can’t afford that.

            It’s an oxymoron, losing for 3-4 years to avoid losing for 3-4 years.

            The Cubs DON’T, ideally, want to do this.

          • Red_Line_9 1 year ago

            Getting a playoff caliber Cub team would be a stretch in the Central. The division produced 3 playoff teams last season. I think its a stretch to claim 80 wins as a playoff stretch. I’m not sure anything short of a World Series run would change the economics much. The Cubs of all teams can take a 3 year competitive hit without losing their market. They will also be negotiating a.new TV deal. I for sure could not imagine the Yankees or Red Sox undergoing this concept… but those are different teams

          • Red_Line_9 1 year ago

            I think there also might need to be consideration made for potential roster additions that never came to fruition. It’s possible that they have been shunned by FAs due to their building concept. What they do need to avoid is making a James Shields type move where they have a player contracted about one year short of their competition window
            But, honestly, there’s no reason the Cubs need to have a window in the same fashion as a small market team.

          • Red_Line_9 1 year ago

            I think their time is coming for playing in free agency. There’s no need to potentially block their talent until they prove themselves unworthy. I do imagine we’ll see them moving for pitching. What I’ve noticed this season is an atrocious bullpen. That would seem to be the simplest and most cost effective way to make up ground in the win column.

        • Red_Line_9 1 year ago

          The free agent spending is a matter of timing. I believe the front office has been happy to collect high draft picks. We’ll see if they make a play for David Price in the off season.

          • North 1 year ago

            A team doesn’t spend, again, 80 M to collect a high draft pick.

          • Red_Line_9 1 year ago

            A team 2 seasons removed. That also might indicate their financial clout. Epstein was hired to build a winning organization… it’s not crazy to shift focus to building and extending from within. That’s the current model. To say they don’t have money because they don’t spend it stupidly for a change doesn’t indicate poverty. Unless you have some inside info you’d like to share

          • Red_Line_9 1 year ago

            Sports Illustrated states the Cubs payroll as $74.5M for 2014. That’s very low. I’d tend to believe that is more indicative of anticipated future signings and extensions than limited funding capacity.

          • North 1 year ago

            Cots has it at 92.6 M. The FO is smart enough to know the revenue implications of losing for many years, in addition to the risk of delayed competitiveness. With Rickett’s purchase structure of the team and lack of funds to spend on the MLB squad, this is truly the Cubs threshold (i.e. 115Mish). It won’t be like that, probably, until 2019-2020 when the TV deal ends and renovations are done, hopefully.

            They do a hell of a job marketing the farm, which is what they should be doing given the circumstances. But this isn’t the optimal way to run a franchise; they know that.

          • Red_Line_9 1 year ago

            A team with a productive system should be able to win at $115M. That’s smart money and intelligent FA signings. While I don’t see Cubs maximizing revenue, they do have a very high stable revenue with Wrigley and a global presence stabilizing revenue. With the Cubs winning is slightly less in the equation. People that aren’t even true fans buy their merchandise. A renovation would certainly boost income.. but truly only a world series run would max revenue from the fan base. The Dodgers were in a much more precarious financial situation and are now the top payroll. The Cubs swim in the same tank with the Red Sox and Dodgers.

          • North 1 year ago

            The Cubs have limited advertising space. The renovation creates that and more. It’s necessary. Ricketts has been blatant about that.

            The Cubs are going to try to win at 115 M because they have to. The argument, remember, isn’t whether or not that is possible. It’s whether or not this is the best way to run a franchise. Research shows it’s slower.

          • Red_Line_9 1 year ago

            The optimal way to run a franchise is to make the playoffs every season and do it in such a way that payroll is allocated to the players that are contributing the most. The worst model is the one the Angels have used recently. Pay players large sums for past performance.

Leave a Reply