Authors note: True to form, even as I’m drafting this article Cardinals are re-shuffling it with Zimm to MLB (and then to limbo), Aita to AA, Cijntje to AAA. I’m leaving the table unchanged, because I’m not sure how these movements map out. Who drops out of the AAA rotation? Who steps into High-A rotation? All this presages some additional moves TBD.

A couple of notes:

• I didn’t try to engineer the ordinal ranks too much, especially in the 4-6 positions of the rotations. You might disagree with my placement a bit and you might be right, but I don’t see it as crucial to this mental stroll I will euphemistically call analysis.

• The top ranked (1-2) guys at each level is a mix of my perception of them as a prospect (in terms of FV) and my sense of who would be next to be promoted if a need/opportunity arose.

• The #6 guys are not regular starters in all cases, but more guys that get pushed into starter roles as weather or promotions complicate things. I think High-A is really the only team on a true 6-man rotation and even that is inconsistent.

• I don’t know who Palm Beach has as their #5 starter. There have been so many rehab guys run through PB (currently Robberse) that I just put a placeholder there. Don’t be shocked if Clarke is the next name you see here after Robberse and Ixan Henderson after that.

• In general, pitchers would be expected to snake up the development chart. Today’s #1 starter at Low-A could move up and would become tomorrow’s #5 starter at High-A, and so on. In real life, it doesn’t happen in quite this linear fashion (and some people fall away instead of moving up), but I imagine it that way just to have some structure as I look at potential movement in the system. However, one can never tell when an Odle or a Molina will leapfrog the line, until it happens.

Some observations about the depth

In ways, this list appears to have 20-25 guys who could legitimately be viewed as prospects. Meaning that on their current trajectory, MLB is a realistic outcome for most of them. Injuries and performance will undoubtedly complicate this picture, but as of right now, this group might be as deep as back in 2012-2013.

Without quibbling over any one pitcher (is Thompson a legit prospect?), think about it as a group. The Cardinals have excellent depth. As you look at the chart, you realize they don’t really have any gaping holes. In fact, as some of the injured pitchers roll back into action, they are going to displace someone with real talent on this list. Displace doesn’t necessarily mean off the roster, but it will steer some guys to reliever roles (or into trades that re-balance the system).

If they were to sell off Stanek or Nootbaar or May, and seek a pitcher in return, what would they be looking for? Fundamentally, the ask would have to be a pitcher that is better than what is on this list. That is the floor. And it appears that floor has been raised, perhaps quite a bit.

Another depth observation … this list doesn’t even include a few guys that I suspect they’d like to get into starter roles like Dutkanych IV and Findlay. Sometimes, there is just no room at the inn.

Strategically, they really aren’t in rebuild mode anymore. Now it is more about improving on what they have incrementally. It is easier to do this when you have holes in the system where a true prospect represents a significant upgrade. Now, not so easy. For example, if a team offered a High-A or AA pitcher as part of a package for May, who would you willingly displace out of the Springfield or Peoria rotation? Start thinking that through and it might make for some more interesting trades than a straight “sell”.

Let’s talk “reliever opportunity”

You probably notice I didn’t list or rank any MiLB relievers. In my view, there are very few relievers in the system that project to stand on an MLB mound. Gastelum for sure. Hence probably, although his star dims. Maybe Mason Burns before he was injured. That is pretty much it.

It is noticeable the vast gulf of talent (or performance) there is between the starters and the relievers up and down the system. It is enough that it can be tempting to just ignore the relievers. This probably explains why in many circles, people prefer the term “reliever risk” or “failed starter”. In the Cardinals’ case, the abundance of starters is likely to seed their pool of relievers, more from a numbers standpoint that a failure to launch. For some, relief may be a faster path to MLB, which could be good for both player and organization. Given how few MLB rotation spots there are, the bullpen might be their only path to MLB, at least in the Cardinals’ organization. Since these guys are bound to the organization for years, the needs of the MLB staff are important. I’d bet if asked, most of these guys would rather be a reliever on the MLB team than a starter in the minors. Just a guess…

In the modern game, relievers are most valuable if they have lots of whiff in their repertoire, but they do not need a deep pitch mix like a starter does and teams don’t sweat higher walk rates with this style of reliever. Spin is still useful, but no one worries about third time through the order kind of stuff with relievers. A lot are one inning and done, but there is a rising group of MIRP that are basically once through the line-up. 2+ innings (hopefully, a full 3 IP).

Strategically, the Cardinals are probably looking to further the transition from pitch-to-contact (P2C) to spin-and-whiff (SnW) oriented pitchers that are more well suited for these high leverage reliever roles. I don’t think this means abandoning pitch-to-contact, but P2C is more starter oriented and perhaps bulk or MIRP types than high leverage. So, the way I see it…if you are going to get your high leverage relievers out of the starter pool, you need more SnW types in the starter pool. My guess is, we may see this aspect of organizational improvement play out more in the draft than the trade deadline.