mozeliak and ricciardi impact trade for 09?
by ball in play on Oct 26, 2008 2:32 AM EDT
Email
Printin the "decision time" post by chuckb, he cites joe strauss as expecting gm mozeliak to trade, rather than sign from free agency this offseason. to trade from a perceived surplus of outfielders and rh relief pitchers. if accurate of mozeliaks intentions, our gm could use the established trade history, of the rolen for glaus trade of 2008.
here's an opportunity for the pitching heavy bluejays to trade arms for outfielders, in an impact way. the trading of closer b.j. ryan would double the funds ricciardi has available this offseason, by clearing a 2yr / 20 mil contract off the books. toronto's bullpen is a monster, imo, that could absorb ryan's loss. could the flexability gained by trading ryan be used for the resigning of burnett? or persue a different FA starting pitcher.
mozeliak has a 31 blown saves issue to address from 2008. ryan would be an impact acquisition larussa desires. but mozeliak concedes perez for ryan, moving a valuable piece from his "grow from within" orgs approach. to balance the trade by position........
.....................................................................b.j. ryan, s. downs and t. snider for ludwick, ankiel and perez..................................................................
ricciardi gains 62 bombs from 2008 in ankiel and ludwick. there's some serious impact to his 2009 club. he trades away a closer and setup man in ryan and s. downs. gains one year of ankiel and three years of ludwick, and 8 mil budget relief in 2008. he could use the 8 mil in 09 to resign ankiel to an extension. ankiel lf, wells cf, rios rf and ludwick dh and 4th outfielder. lind as #5.
mozeliak has a dominant closer and setup man in place the next two years. downs as the lh bullpen arm the roster lacks. he needs t. snider in return for giving up ankiel and ludwicks production. snider at 21, is prospect #11 on the same top 100 prospect list where rasmus is ranked #5. snider, rasmus and mather starting in 2010, is free for 3 yrs and dominant 5 of their 6 yrs, imo.
mozeliak moves his two oldest outfielders and gives tlr these outfielders to choose from in ST of 2009.......duncan, schumaker, mather, barton, rasmus, snider and stavinoha. tlr chooses the first 5 but gets his veteran relief help. give to get tony. barton over snider won't last, but tlr knows he needs a platoon partner for his nephew in LF :)
ludwick and ankiel are cashed in at possibly their highest value remaining in their careers. ankiels FA status after 09, is traded away. ludwicks 3 arb years of 09, 2010 and 2011 are traded away. 2 outfielders and a rh bullpen arm have been used in the trade. if ankiel, ludwick get 5.6 in arb combined and perez at 0.40, mozeliak uses 8 mil of the 20ish mil currently available.
kick it around as much as you like, if it interests you. sure their are many issues this type of trade creates (the dropoff of outfield production in 09?). pros and cons?
60 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If we were to move BOTH
Ank and Luddy this offseason, I would not put both of them in the same deal. These guys are good enough to be the centerpieces of their own trade packages and sending both of them away in the same deal seems like a waste. I’d start with an offer of Ank, Skip, and Perez for the same three Bluejays and see where that gets us. I wouldn’t offer our two best OF’s to begin with; start small and build from there.
That being said, I don’t think this deal gets done because I don’t see STL or TLR ready to part with either of these guys. TLR loves Ank, and we’re gonna try and make him happy in what looks to be his last year here. And we’re not sure if Luddy is going to be able to keep this type hitting up for the remainder of his career, let alone next season. Which is why it makes sense that you said we should sell them at their highest value, but we are not the only team that is wondering if Luddy’s year was a fluke. (I don’t think it was…)
Ryan Howard: one of the most Statistically Outstanding players of all time
Toronto has some nice pieces
We could definitely address our lefty reliever need with ryan and downs, but they also have Jesse Carlson or Brian Tallet, both of whom are lefty relievers who posted sub 3 eras in around 60 ip last season (Carlson, while a 28 year old rookie, is particularly intriguing). The inclusion of Ryan would be a must for this deal but the second reliever could be up for negotiation. And while Snider does seem to be a nice outfield prospect, they have a lefty starter in the minors- brett cecil- who I would be more than happy to accept as the third player in the deal. If the Jays did use a deal like this to shore up their mlb rotation, Cecil might be seen as expendable.
Agreed with the above comment, and I’ll add that subbing Motte for Perez would be favorable as well, but if it were a package of Ryan, (Downs or Carlson), and Cecil It think it would be worth giving up Ludwick, Ankiel, and Perez. We address closer, bullpen, lefty bullpen and young (lefty) starter close to majors- they address outfield and team power, go with cost controlled closer so as to resign Burnett.
I am sorry but no to Ludwick
No way should we drop a Top Ten Hitter in baseball right now , Ludwick for anyone. Now I think some kind of trade for BJ Ryan would be a good thing. 08 was his first year back form Tommy John so 09 he should hopefully recovery back to his 06 numbers of pure domination.
BJ is expendable for Toronto so they could use the Salary Dump with the Loonie going down and them needing more capitol. I think he is worth risk for the cost of $20 mil over 2 years.
by FlimtotheFlam on Oct 26, 2008 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions
So is the consensus then that Ludwick's year was a fluke?
Because I don’t think people are looking at Ludwick the same way I am.
Are people missing the fact that Luddy had an OPS better than all but 5 people last year? Better than A-Rod (albeit negligibly). Better than woulda-coulda-shoulda-been AL MVP Carlos Quentin. Better than Teixiera, Youk, Holliday, Wright, Utley. Better than basically everyone. He also played plus defense and showed that he can stay healthy. On any team not called the Cardinals, 2008 Ludwick is that team’s Albert, their huge offensive force, the middle of their lineup, the face of their offense.
I know he’s 30, but 30 isn’t THAT old. Hell, of all the guys with a better OPS than Luddy last year, only Albert was younger than Ludwick. Maybe it’s easy to overlook Luddy’s .966 OPS because Pujols makes him look pedestrian (1.140!), but the fact is that he was unarguably an ELITE offensive force this year at $400,000+. He may not be young, but he’s not exactly old and he’s very cheap. We don’t have anyone that could step in that can be expected to provide anything CLOSE to the kind of production Ludwick did last year — not Rasmus, not Mather, not Duncan, not anyone.
Aren’t cheap “impact” players the guys we’re trying to get onto the team this year, not ship away?
Ludwick is cheap, he’s more productive than a lot of people seem to realize, and if he’s not young than at least he’s not old. If you want to think about the kind of trades we should include Ludwick in, think about the kind of haul the Astros would want for Berkman…and then make Berkman $14 million cheaper and two years younger. That’s the kind of value we should expect to get for Ludwick — and if we don’t get it, we shouldn’t trade him. Period.
by mojowo11 on Oct 26, 2008 10:29 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
That's True....
The Cardinals would like to build around young, inexpensive players… but so would every other team in baseball. So, if you could spin him off to another team, get some younger and cheaper players, and take a chance that his value will never be higher… you win. Even if he continues to play at a high level and the guys you get for him pan out, you break even.
+ A Million
Why in the world would we want to put Ludwick in a trade package? Without Pujols, he is THE guy in our lineup. He would be THE guy for just about any team we would trade him to. Therefore, it should take a good package from another team to land Ludwick, not the other way around. I don’t see us moving so much talent in one deal (Ankiel, Ludwick, and Perez). We’d be giving up too much.
Is it fraud when Cubs ownership says "this year is our year?" Can somebody sue for that?
by thegodfather on Oct 27, 2008 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed on giving up too much
A trade package of those three would be something you would offer to try and get Doc from Toronto.
Ryan Howard: one of the most Statistically Outstanding players of all time
by RunninRedbird on Oct 27, 2008 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions
how much would doc holliday improve us with 31 blown savws again?
by ball in play on Oct 27, 2008 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions
9 complete games last year
If you don’t overwork the bullpen, the not only would they have to cover a smaller number of innings, but their workload makes the entire bullpen better. Not to mention that you’d be replacing Piñeiro with a pitcher that is as good as healthy carp, but more durable, AND you’d be replacing Kelvin Jíminez with Piñeiro.
So more than you’d think.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
well, i know of docs complete games. just know better than to plan for it :)
an effective pen seems a more reliable approach than counting on complete games being thrown.
by ball in play on Oct 27, 2008 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions
it's not just a matter of CG
it’s a matter of innings per start. You get a dominant starter who goes a CG in 1/3 of his starts, and goes seven or eight in the rest of his starts, that’s a lot of innings that don’t need to be thrown by the bullpen. You reduce the bullpen’s workload, and you end up with a much more effective bullpen, and then Tony’s overstrategizing ends up being extremely effective.
Since Wellsie’s too good to put in the bullpen, that’s at least one starter that we’re stuck watching put up 5+ innings most of his starts.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
what do you mean by "fluke"?
He’s not as good as his .966 OPS. If we can get someone to trade for him like he’s a .966 OPS true talent player, then we probably should accept that offer.
This offer stinks for us, though.
the enemy's gate is down.
Sleepy
I wonder if you could expand on your rationale that Ludwick is not as good as his OPS. Do you mean he will not produce at that level again, that his numbers were somehow inflated, or what?
When I look at Ludwick’s stroke I don’t see any significant flaws. If he learns to lay off the slider away then I think he could improve. If TLR would do the right thing and bat him 3rd in front of Albert at cleanup, then I can also see improvement.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
more irony here
in that in May/June of last year, I was afaik the only one arguing that Luddy would become a star, and that he was probably the best OF on the team and one of the best in the league ;) But I didn’t think he was a .970 OPS player- I thought (and think) Chris Duncan is a better hitter, when healthy- and so that is probably clouding my judgement a bit. It’s a very good point that I should have qualified my statement with an “I think”.
In fact, Luddy’s performance this year was very much in line with his peripherals- his expected BABIP was .346, and his real-world babip was .349; his expected BA was .3016, his real-world was .299. He only had one month with an OPS under .900, so he’s not 2007 Aaron Rowand; the only statistical quantity that I can point to is that he had 7 lucky home runs, which, while not DeRosa-ean, is a pretty high number, but I would suspect that is an artifact of the fact hat he hit a lot of home runs, not a sign that he’ll regress. He was also at the top of the league in LD%, second only to andre ethier by .3 percent, so that might regress as well, but I’m not aware of a serious study on year-to-year LD rate variations. Eyeballing previous league leaders, it does seem to be pretty variable, but players don’t seem to regularly fall off a cliff either.
Another error that I made was being too dismissive of the trade- Snider and Downs are both a lot better than I knew.
the enemy's gate is down.
Thanks for the clarification
I was right there with you last spring.
As far as Duncan goes, he has more raw power, but I don’t think he will ever hit for the average Luddy is capable of. He just has too much unnecessary movement in his swing to be a high average hitter. I could sure see Duncan contending for a HR title if he got healthy, but he is a lot more like Ryan Howard than Albert Pujols.
Of course, L’il Dunc would have to pull off your long anticipated Justin Morneauphosis in order to get to play everyday.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
Duncan = Ryan Howard?
I disagree with that comparison — Duncan isn’t as streaky at the plate as Howard is when he’s healthy, doesn’t strike out as much, and gets on base more. The caveat: When both are at their very best, Howard can carry a team for 3 or 4 games when he’s hot, and Chris Duncan can’t, or at least hasn’t shown that he can.
I also don’t see Duncan hitting 45+ homers a year, which Howard has done every full season in his career, and would have done it his rookie year had he gotten 600 AB’s.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
giveml is referencing my historic duncan worship
and for reference, in duncan’s first 650 PA’s in the majors, roughly equivelant to a full season, he hit 43 home runs and had a .289/.368/.574 (.942 OPS) line. Very ryan howard-like, especially if you take howard out of citizens bandbox and recognize that CD wasn’t getting the IBB’s that Howard gets.
the enemy's gate is down.
it's sad to think of what a great trading chip duncan could have been
(and dare i say, might possibly sort of somehow still end up being?)
Just having a little fun
Besides he can be a lot more like Ryan Howard than Albert Pujols without being a whole lot like either one.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
ty for acknowledging snider / downs upside
snider as a /.900 career avg ops, would not surprise me, 15 yrs later :)
for 120 IP, downs could be wainwright as a SP, but i’d hate to push him past that w/80 IP last yr.
by ball in play on Oct 29, 2008 7:46 AM EDT up reply actions
"He's not at good as his .966 OPS"
I don’t think you can really state this without the qualification “I think” unless you have some sort of reasoning. I, too, would love to hear you expand on why you seem so sure.
And it's, what, impossible that Luddy could be one of them?
Unlikely, I admit. If I had to put money on it, I’d guess his OPS next year is lower, probably a lot closer to .900. But I’m not sure that “not many people are really amazing hitters” is a good reason for why Ludwick isn’t a really amazing hitter.
He's unlikely to hit 26% of his balls in play for line drives again
He’s 30 years old and now he’s going to suddenly be one of the top 5 hitters in baseball? He’s a good player (potentially very good) but predicting him to be a perennial top 5 hitter seems like a cardinal-colored opinion. Usually when there’s a very small subset of people capable of doing something at any one time, I assume that very few other random people are going to be able to do that same thing — hence, not many people are really amazing hitters seems like a decent reason to believe that most people, and by extension Ludwick, aren’t amazing hitters.
Agree with everything you said
I just want to emphasize that unlikely doesn’t mean impossible. I don’t think a lot of guys would want to bet a ton of money that Lud will post a .966 OPS this year. But I wouldn’t be surprised if he did. After all, he did post a slightly higher OPS in the second half than in the first half, so there doesn’t seem to be any indication that the league is figuring him out.
I just want to dream about what might happen if TLR actually wrote his name in the three hole ahead of Albert. Lud did post a .339/407/.701/1.108 hitting in front of Albert in 146 PAs. Would probably do Albert a ton of good, too.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
Fair enough
But I think there are factors at work here that make his situation, at the very least, unique. Yes, he’s 30 years old, but he doesn’t have a track record of inferiority. It would be one thing if he had 3000 league-average big league ABs and suddenly he had a breakout year…then I’d be right there with the “regression to the mean” crowd. But the fact that Ludwick struggled mightily with injuries and this was only his first full season inspires a certain degree of confidence. For all we know, Ludwick might (emphasis on might) be still improving. His situation is unusual.
I’m not projecting him to be a top-5 hitter, I’m simply saying that he was a top-10 hitter this year and, given the situation, I don’t think it’s out of the question that he’ll be in the same neighborhood next year.
My point is this: Ludwick costs basically nothing at the moment. He was a better hitter than most seem to realize this year, for whatever reason. So even if he does regress to some extent, and I think he probably will, he’s still an incredible player for the money. A 70 point OPS drop puts him at about a .900 OPS with plus defense for pocket change. How many guys like that are out there?
Yes, few “random” people are going to be able to do that thing, in this case, being an elite hitter. And certainly this would have applied to Ludwick this time last year, but now I’m not sure that’s a good choice of words. Ludwick is no longer “random” in that sense — he’s been doing that thing now for a full year. One year isn’t enough to show he can do it consistently, true. But one year also isn’t nothing — he’s not “random” anymore.
very good points all, thanks for replying.
if we step back from this trade for a moment, and consider mozeliak’s long term budget limitations, we could let our players future contracts help address the points brought up in your replies. who to keep long term? who to trade?
here’s the possible scenario if mozeliak tries to retain these three (wellemeyer, ankiel and ludwick) through 2011, without a significant increase to the yearly budget to absorb their contracts.
wellemeyer and ankiel are both FA’s after 09. pujols and ludwick are both FA eligible after 2011. those four used 18.311mil of the 2008 budget.
2008……total 18.311 mil
pujols 16.0 mil, wellemeyer 1.0, ankiel 0.9, ludwick 0.411…….that’s about to change this offseason, and reallly change by the time ludwick and pujols reach FA status before 2012.
2009……total 25 mil (6.689 mil increase)
pujols 16.0 mil, wellemeyer 3.0 (3rd yr arb), ankiel 3.0 (3rd yr arb), ludwick 3.0 (1st yr arb). the 3 arbs are estimates, and slightly higher than lboros estimates in his roster matrix. but as he stated, the comparables are hard to find, it’s a limited group to compare from. as a benchmark, the avg MLB opening day salary from 08 was 3.1 mil per player (espn.com). i don’t find these arbs unreasonable, and would prefer to allow a little more. stl could very well spend 9 mil this offseason resigning all three, imo.
2010…….total 38 mil (another 13 mil increase over the 2009 budget)
wellemeyer and ankiel are free agents. if both match their 08 seasons in 09, both are 4yr / 8 mil per extension worthy.
wellemeyer 8 mil, ankiel 8 mil. (backloading their possible contracts only complicates pujols and ludwicks 2012 FA status, so i will use contract avg).
ludwicks 2nd yr arb doubles, 6 mil.
pujols 16 mil.
2011……total 44 mil (another 6 mil increase over 2010)
wellemeyer 8 mil
ankiel 8 mil
ludwick 3 yr arb doubles, 12 mil. (best case scenario on ludwicks arb. if he continues to be a .900 OPS player with near all-star status he should draw 12 mil his third year arb, after 2 all -star seasons). we hope it happens, so i will allow for it.
pujols 16 mil club option renewed.
with pujols at 16 mil per thru 2011, wellemeyer, ankiel and ludwick could increase the payroll 25.689 mil over the next 3 yrs, just by retaining them with extensions to welly/ankiel and ludwick through the arb process. ludwick and pujols are now both FA’s for 2012. decision time……….do we now have to pick between pujols and ludwick, due to budget restraints? should we have extended both wellemeyer and ankiel or just one? where did the 25.689 mil to retain all three come from? yes, the budget reality stinks, i agree.
glaus, kennedy, franklin and miles could come off the books after 09. they use 20.25 mil in 09. welly/ankiel use 16 mil per to resign and a 2B acquisition at 4 mil, reuses those budget $. still picking between ludwick and pujols eventually?
i have to resign wellemeyer instead of ankiel. mather / rasmus fill ankiels role better than what i see AAA filling wellemeyers. have earmarked the 09 budget freed up to extend welly at 8 per (could get 10 per as lohse did), 4 mil at 2B and pay ludwicks arb again 6 mil, a salary wash. fortunatly we have freese / wallace, to avoid making a 3B FA acquisition a neccessity.
LESS IMPACT…………..b.j. ryan for ankiel…………trying to conform to all replies, in one new trade proposal.
mojowo11and flimtotheflam—i agree, keep ludwick and avoid the black hole from 07 that was the cleanup spot. ludwicks too good and too affordable to be shipping out already.
bustacard—ryan and (carlson or cecil) for ankiel and thompson?
mynameistyler—snider pulled back, amongst others.
runnin redbird—tried to outline why we can’t stay within budget the next 3 yrs, above, and still retain those 4 players long term. realize it was a poor attempt, hope you were able to follow along.
i have conceded to keeping wellemeyer, ludwick and pujols. knowing we can’t eventually afford rick, i move him now due to perceived outfield depth in 09, and try to fix the closer role. rather than take compensation picks for ankiel after 09, i am suggesting spending budget dollars on b.j. ryan and trying to “impact” the 09 season with a closer who was much better than our 08 group.
mozeliak acquires a closer at 10 mil in 09 and 2010.
ankiel 3 mil in 09 (arb) and 7 mil (on a 7, 8 9 extension) would have used 10 mil over 09 and 2010.
the org takes on 7 mil in 09 difference, and 3 mil in 2010, by comparing the 2 players involved (w/ankiel extended).
the izzy option accepted of 8 mil before 2008, leads me to believe ryan at a 10 mil avg is within the orgs ballpark $’s for a closer.
ricciardi acquires a 120 ops+ outfielder / dh and has made an upgrade for 09, to his offensive production. the 7 mil he reclaims on ryan may help resign burnett. it’s the type of deal i expect from him this offseason.
pros and cons?
If we're gonna take on Ryan's salary
then I’d have to say no. You may as well keep Ankiel and spend that amount of money on Fuentes, then you can either sign Ankiel to an extension or let him walk. Letting him walk would also make up for the draft picks lost by signing Fuentes.
Personally, I think spending any sort of “big” money on or trading for a closer is a waste. I think that they should go for a bat instead. One reason is that I’d expect a batter to stay healthy more often than a pitcher. Plus when you have guys like Motte and Perez who are basically free and at most a couple of wins worse than any established closer, you’re gonna get a better return on improving, say, the middle infield.
Is it fraud when Cubs ownership says "this year is our year?" Can somebody sue for that?
by thegodfather on Oct 27, 2008 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions
perhaps you struggled to stay awake for our 8th and 9th innings?
some of those late west coast starts really tested me :) just kiddin around with ya.
i hope we fix the 31 blown saves first. really like to have a legit postseason shot in 09.
fix it, it’s broken.
by ball in play on Oct 27, 2008 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions
No kidding, the closing this year was abysmal
HOWEVER, you have to remember that we trotted out out a broken Isringhausen and Ryan Franklin most of the year. I’d say there’s no way a Perez-Motte tandem could be nearly 31 blown saves bad. That’s why I think you’d get more value out of another hitter (or SP…) instead of a closer.
Is it fraud when Cubs ownership says "this year is our year?" Can somebody sue for that?
by thegodfather on Oct 27, 2008 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions
and then there's that larussa guy.......
do we just say, here’s your only options and we hope you don’t have another ankiel meltdown?
you know that’s why he’s gunshy of youthful pitchers.
by ball in play on Oct 27, 2008 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions
some additional information
we were 12-19 in games in which we blew saves. Also, 3 were blown in the 7th inning, 13 in the 8th and “just” 15 in the ninth or in save situations in extras.
I’m not sure if this information is useful or not to anyone (probably not) but since i went to the trouble of looking it up, i thought i’d share it. I certainly didn’t think we had won that many games after a BS!
the enemy's gate is down.
useful to the thread topic, ty
is there a ML avg for 08, of blown saves, you could get at easily?
by ball in play on Oct 27, 2008 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions
well
baseball-reference doesn’t have blown saves, and what I did above took 20 minutes of parsing individual players game logs, so I can’t/won’t do it for all the teams, but espn does have # of blown saves and # of saves and “Save percentage” available.
The problem is that you can blow a save in the 7th inning and if you don’t blow a save in the 7th inning, it doesn’t count as a “save”, so you can’t just sort by save percentage and consider it useful for evaluating how much impact bringing in a good closer would have.
Though I’m thinking it might be possible to back out how many blown saves were in hold situations using their data…
the enemy's gate is down.
I understand what you're saying
And no problems following along. I wouldn’t expect us to keep all of these guys over the next 3 years, and if it screws with our budget for the future I cetainly wouldn’t want to. I would definitley be willing to trade Ank for BJ straight up. We address our closer’s role for the next two years and take some pressure off of Perez and Motte, until they are ready after that. Then we let Rasmus take over for Ankiel and begin his development at the ML level. Toronto gets some salary relief and they can address their offensive issues, and like you said, try and re-sign Burnett.
I just wasn’t a fan of the deal where we send away Ludwick, who was a top ten hitter in all of baseball last year (with Ankiel and Perez), for a closer, LOOGY, and another OF prospect. If we were to make a deal with those three guys involved I would want at the very least a solid #2 SP in return, along with Ryan, and Downs (because I don’t see them giving up Snider like that, he’s their Raz). But like I said, much bigger fan of BJ for Ank straight up.
Ryan Howard: one of the most Statistically Outstanding players of all time
by RunninRedbird on Oct 27, 2008 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions
If Ludwick was to be traded,
I’d want to see a Holliday or young SP come back, not a closer like Ryan. 2 years and 20 Mil isn’t that far off of 3 years and 33/35 mil for Brian Fuentes, and we’d keep Ludwick who’s controlled for another three years. Yeah, if he has a great year next season like he did this year, than he’d be in line for a very good raise, but then again, you probably get the same production if you had Holliday, so I don’t see the point. If we didn’t have a Perez, Motte or even McClellan to close out games, then maybe targeting a closer would be good, but I’m not giving up a controlled corner OF bat with Ludwick’s upside for a closer who’s coming off injury at 10M a year and who isn’t as good as 8-10 other closers in the game. I’d rather go with a guy from the farm or FA.
by timmycardinals on Oct 27, 2008 11:17 AM EDT reply actions
isn't Ludwick better than Holliday?
and exponentially cheaper?
go rays
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Oct 28, 2008 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Just for chuckles
Ludwick’s career numbers in Coors field in all of eight games are: .500/.500/1.100/1.600. Maybe he is exponentially better, too. ;~)
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
and fuentes could just be signed, no trade necessary.
as stated in my original post, mozeliak would rather trade to address his surplusses and shortages, rather than sign a FA. not sure fuentes fits the gm’s approach as well as ryan could. at least his early approach this offseason. also can’t see us in a bidding war for a fuentes type with the mets budget and others. so we are definitly disagreeing on the possible different approaches the gm will use this offseason. which is fine :)
btw, ryan is coming off a very fine season in 08, not coming off injury. in 2009 he’s two years removed from injury and could go from 60 to 80 IP.
32 of 36 saves in 08 for ryan? over 59 IP? working off memory, but believe that’s close. point being, he was much better as a 9th inning guy than anyone of 08 group. or anyone we brought up to make a debut. factor in larussa and him wanting to avoid 9th inning names you mentioned (perez, motte, k-mac), your approach also out of line with on field managment. if that narrows it down to ryan or fuentes………everything indiates mozeliak trades from a surplus. ty for replying. your opinion is appreciated.
I think that a LONG talk
needs to occur with Rick Ankiel and Scott Boras this winter. It needs to be discussed…
1) how much it will take to sign Rick to an extension now.
2) how much it will take to sign Rick to an extension after the season if…
a) Rick has an injury plagued season or Rick has a bad season.
b) Rick has an All-Star season.
c) Rick has an average season.
If the Cardinals think that the deal could be right, then you keep him. If not, you shop him.
I think that you also keep Ludwick next year and see what has become of him and if he can stay healthy. Ditto on Motte and Perez.
If a team comes to you with a deal that blows your socks off or is reasonable, you deal.
I believe that the biggest gains the team can make this year will be through FA (with some players who will not necessarily cost you the big dollars.)
punto and d. reyes
fall in the “not necessarily cost you big dollars” category of FA, imo.
When has trading for a reliever ever worked out for a single team?
It happens a lot, but I really can’t think of a clear example where this was done and it ended happily. I can think of many, many times where it ended in tears, though.
If we’re going to throw resources at something, I’d just as soon go out and get a quality starter, who would improve the bullpen by putting Piñeiro there, instead of the AAAA guys, and by reducing the number of innings that they have to throw. The underappreciated facet of why the ’pen threw so many innings last year was that we had more than a few starters that would only go 5 2/3 a start.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
i'd reply to that post, if you care choose to write it
closer and lhrp / setup for 2 outfielder by trade, is the thread topic.
by ball in play on Oct 27, 2008 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions
But my response is that trading for a reliever is a poor decision that won't work out
and isn’t as effective as trading for a starter anyway.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
who was the last reliever we traded for ?
Ray King? He wasn’t exactly the centerpiece of that trade .
Jorge Sosa? That wasn’t really gonna help the team much.
Steve Kline? We got Hermanson too, a starter.
Dave Veres? Got a pitcher named Kile too.
I actually think the last reliever that we went out and traded mainly for said reliever was Lee Smith, way back in 1990. Am I wrong here? (and why aren’t all these trade proposals in the catch all thread?)
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
oooooh, a thread designated for trade proposals?
be still my heart!
where exactly can i find this “catch all thread”?
i’m a rookie at this site and looking to gain from your experience.
by ball in play on Oct 27, 2008 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions
newbies are fun*
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
newbies help "stir the pot"
a different dummies twist, to break up the norm :)
by ball in play on Oct 29, 2008 8:21 AM EDT up reply actions
not trying to be an asshole
I just like the idea of trade proposals in the hot stove fanpost, it just keeps the fanpost section less cluttered
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
duely noted
hot stove fanpost, ty.
no offence taken. they’re just opinions being shared.
by ball in play on Oct 29, 2008 7:51 AM EDT up reply actions
Cardinals acquired Bruce Sutter in 1980
That worked out pretty well. :)
by Red in Chicago on Oct 28, 2008 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions
and you could be right :)
when we signed lohse, mozeliak mentioned he was going to also sign or trade for a 5th starter type. so he’s not done.
the original proposal also includes downs, who can start as a swingman, setup or close. all at a very high level.
B.J. Ryan
B.J. Ryan has the worst timing and mechanics I’ve ever seen. Even worse than Mark Prior.
- Analysis of BJ Ryan’s Pitching Mechanics
Brian Fuentes would be a MUCH better pick.
I was looking for the BJ Ryan timing post
Don’t you hate trading away someone that is really talented just to have the star you traded get injured?
Also, why would we ever trade to fill out our bullpen? Don’t we always want to fill the pen by the minors? I can’t find the VEB post on this…I know its here.
And finally, shouldn’t we generally try to stay away from trading position players for pitchers? On top of that, shouldn’t we stay away from trading position players for RELIEF PITCHERS?
jp
I would say that there is one time that it's justified
You have a juggernaut with a weak bullpen and it’s the trade deadline, and you want to add a solid setup guy. This, too can backfire (See: Gagne, Eric), but at that point, going for that championship can arguably be more important that mid-level prospects.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
NO DEAL HERE
Don’t think there is anyway that Ludwick and Ankiel will both be moved. I could see one of them getting moved in a Holiday type move, but it is not likely. I also agree that you don’t trade for an expensive player when you could simply sign a FA. The only way a Ryan trade makes sense is for the Jays to eat salary and that probably won’t happen.
A lot of people think that Rasmus will be starting in CF or will be traded, but don’t be surprised to find Rasmus in AAA and Ankiel, Schumaker, and Ludwick as the starting outfield. All three had good years and are poised to be better next year. This team needs a stud middle infielder and pen depth from the left side; some combination of FA signings and/or trades are doable to fill those needs.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- New York Yankees fragrance strikes nostrils this month
- Braves ditch insensitive patch on new throwbacks
- Tim Lincecum slims down with swim routine, loses appetite for McDonald’s
- Create-a-Caption: Kevin Youkilis shows up to the Super Bowl, gets ComicCon instead
- Baltimore flips Jeremy Guthrie to Colorado for Jason Hammel and Matt Lindstrom
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
