Ludwick Versus Ankiel

by JWO on Nov 8, 2008 12:29 AM EST Comment 35 comments

It is becoming increasingly apparent that GM John Mozeliak is evaluating moving one of the Cardinals outfielders to upgrade our talent at other positions (e.g. 2B, SS, RP). And while several names are currently circulating, its beginning to sound like there may be two unofficial finalists. Specifically, Rick Ankiel and Ryan Ludwick.

With this in mind, I thought I would lay all the key facts on the table and ask the Cardinals faithful who it makes more sense to trade. First, a quick stat comparison:

2008 Batting Statistics
Rick Ankiel - .264 AVG, .337 OBP, .506 SLG, 25 HR, 71 RBI
Ryan Ludwick - .299 AVG, .375 OBP, .591 SLG, 37 HR, 113 RBI

From a batter's perspective, Ludwick clearly leads Ankiel in most offensive categories. Admittedly, Luddy has a few blemishes (he strikes out a bit more than Ank), but the power and overall numbers seem to compensate.

2008 Fielding Statistics
Rick Ankiel - 248 TC, 236 PO, 4 A, 8 E, .880 ZR (while in LF)
Ryan Ludwick - 308 TC, 293 PO, 12 A, 3 E, .878 ZR (while in RF)

I was a bit surprised by some of these numbers, as I've always thought of Rick as the better fielder, but the figures suggest that Ryan compares very favorably (admittedly, he's playing right field - an easier position)

Intangibles
-Ankiel costs $900K and has one year left on his contract
-Ludwick costs $411K and has three years at a cost controlled level
-Ankiel has a longer history with the Cards 6 years vs. Ludwick's 2
-Ludwick has struggled with injuries more than Rick (at least until 2008)
-Ankiel's arm is unquestionably stronger than Ludwick's
-Ankiel has more flexibility in terms of position (LF and CF)

The Verdict
I hate to trade either of them. HOWEVER. If Mozeliak does decide to pull the trigger, Ankiel seems to make better sense. Yes, he does give the Cardinals more flexibility in terms of skillsets, and probably is the safer option of the two to continue producing power. But in the final year of his contract, he will extract heavy costs from the club in the future.

I don't believe the Cards should mortgage the future for one shot next year. Ludwick gives them (hopefully) three good years of very high production. Ankiel's fielding and power are largely replaced by Rasmus and/or Mather.

In the end, it may come down to who has what the Cardinals want. If we find ourselves talking with a team like the Yankees, where money is little object, Ankiel is the more logical alternative. If its a lower budget club like the Rays, Rockies, or Marlins, then Ludwick is the more appropriate fit.

I don't know what Mo will do. But I have to believe that one of these guys will not be wearing the birds on the bat next year. What do you folks think?

0 recs | Comment 35 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

i agree

ankiel should be traded

by vivaelpujols on Nov 8, 2008 1:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

by Elpot on Nov 8, 2008 7:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ankiel doesn't have much trade value, though...

Because he’s going to be a free agent next year, he just doesn’t have a lot of trade value, I think, even to a club like the Yankees. Because most teams won’t give up much for a one year rental unless he’s a superstar (which Ankiel is not).

Felipe Lopez - next year's Joel Pineiro

by DiscoJer on Nov 8, 2008 1:35 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I agree

we could get a ton of bang for our buck with Ludwick, but Ankiel is undervalued, and he’s pretty damn useful when healthy.

I’d so much rather see us deal Skip, though, and have the outfield of Ludwick, Ank, and Rasmus. I know we won’t be getting as much in return, but we are gaining Rasmus, and could probably snag a pretty decent releiver for Skip.

On with the (good) youth movement!

by aet15 on Nov 8, 2008 3:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

cubs maybe?

a team like the cubs who is already a contender and doesn’t need a superstar could be looking for a player like ankiel. they have an inflated payroll and need and a left handed middle of the order outfielder. they would love to have him for one cheep year until one of they outfield prospects like micah hoffpaur or felix pie developes. we might be able to get someone good out of them

by vivaelpujols on Nov 8, 2008 1:39 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I could not

bear to watch ANOTHER Cardinals CFer play for the Cubs. No.

by spants on Nov 8, 2008 3:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i agree

with most of what u said. good point about trading ank to the yanks. a team like the yanks r less concerned with cost controlled players. i would like to trade ankiel, anderson, and something else for hughes. hughes has ace potential. he could at least be a 4 or 5 starter next year(see ya piniero). i also would prefer to trade ank because hes lefthanded and our outfield has a lot of lefties.

side note on the contracts. ank will cost way more than 900k next year. my guess is 5 mil but thats a guess. im sure he will get at least 3 mil. also ludwick will get a big raise too, eventhough first year arb is way different than 3rd year arb.

by joelcards on Nov 8, 2008 1:51 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

If you trade Ank to the Yanks...

Cano needs to come back to us in that deal. Something along the lines of Ankiel, Anderson, Boggs for Hughes/Kennedy and Cano would be solid. That would address two needs and we would not be giving up too much in that trade. And if we could get them to take AK too… that would be a fantastic trade. Seems like something that could possibly happen, but maybe not enough. Who knows until you try.

Kyle Loshe... robbed of an All Star appearance, enough said.

by Ibeatanorexia06 on Nov 8, 2008 4:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Not sure

where your fielding numbers are sourced from, but THT shows Ludwick with a .918 RZR in RF and Ankiel with a .898 RZR in LF. Of course, he was injured pretty much the entire time he played LF. CF numbers are much better.

Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...

by giveml on Nov 8, 2008 9:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Off the ESPN Website

I wasn’t sure how to sort out the final numbers there. Ankiel and Ludwick each played multiple positions. So rather than develop an average of their RZR in each position, I just went with the RZR for their primary position where they logged the most time.

Again, its a little difficult to compare them as they play different positions. My overall impression is that Ankiel has more capacity for the spectacular play, while Ludwick is less glamorous and more steady.

by JWO on Nov 8, 2008 10:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ankiel logged the most innings in CF

where his numbers were very respectable at .921 RZR with 190 BIZ, 175 Plays and 38 OOZ, courtesy of The Hardball Times. His (Plays+OOZ)/BIZ was 1.12. His RZR was right between Beltran and Victorino, but is ratio of total plays to BIZ is pretty low. He also had a poorer fielding percentage than every CF in the NL with at least 866 innings, except for Willy Taveras who was about the same.

I think the factors above, plus his poor showings in the corner OFs are why a lot of the metric guys are pretty down on his defense. He has a lot of talent, but he does need to continue to improve in order to be a defensive asset.

Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...

by giveml on Nov 8, 2008 11:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If you go over to Justin's stats, he's already taken both STATS and BIS zone ratings, averaged them, and turned them into runs.

To account for position differences, include the position adjustment. Of course, this is a counting stat, but Ludwick and Ankiel had similar playing time in 2009:

Ankiel: -7 fielding, +1 pos, -6 total
Ludwick: -1 fielding, -6 pos, -7 total

Pretty similar. You guys think Ankiel was hurt by his injury, though.

Sean Smith has done something similar, but used more systems and more seasons worth of data. His 2009 projections:

Ankiel: +1 LF/RF, -8 CF
Ludwick: +1 LF/RF, -8 CF

Scary. No considering of throwing arm, however.

And Holliday: +8 LF/RF, +/- 0 CF (weakish arm, though)

http://home.comcast.net/~briankaat/of2009.htm

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 8, 2008 12:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ankiel was the best fielding CF prior to his injury.

It’s hard to know whether that was fluke or true ability but the injury seemed to take a toll.

by azruavatar on Nov 8, 2008 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

To the naked eye

Ankiel was a fantastic defender before the injury, afterwards he couldn’t do much of anything besides jog around the outfield.

by JI on Nov 12, 2008 7:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Isn't Ludwick due arbitration?

With his numbers it wouldn’t surprise me if it put at $3 mil this year.

Also, Ankiel’s career is anything but injury free.

by Evilfrog on Nov 8, 2008 10:10 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Neither One!

Both of these guys offer incredible value to us today even after arbitration. Ankiel needs to show that he can stay healty in order to bring even more, possibly as a trading chip at the deadline if we don’t want to resign him.

by Numero Uno Birdos on Nov 8, 2008 10:52 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Both of the guys are tradeable IMO

I just hate to trade either of them. It really depends on what you are going to get in return, and who you are trading with, like you mentioned. If we can make a trade by trading Ankiel I’d rather trade him. Then again, if we can make the deal with Schumaker, then I’m all over it.

Two goldfish are in a tank. One of them turns to the other and says, "You man the guns, I'll drive!"

by thegodfather on Nov 8, 2008 11:01 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

We must remember

that when Ankiel got hurt, he was hitting .285, was on pace for 35 hr, 95 rbis, and his offesnive play was DRASTICALLY improving.

Ankiel may very well put up Ludwick numbers this year, and maybe even cut down on the strikeouts!!!

For some reason, I don't enjoy watching Big Mac hit #62, but I fondly remember Ray Lankford blasting the ball out of the park in the same game. He had one sweet swing!!

by miniboscorino on Nov 8, 2008 5:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

ankiel

really reminds a lot of jim edmonds. he has great power but strikes out a lot. he isn’t really fast but has great instincts in centerfield and makes routinely great plays. ankiel has a better arm but not as much plate discipline as edmonds. however he is still young as a hitter and will probably imporve. when healthy ankiel was one of the most valuable players to this team. i would say take a chance on ankiel being a long term option to produce in center and trade away ludwig while his value is high. i just wouldn’t trade him holiday, but for a good middle infielder/closer.

by vivaelpujols on Nov 8, 2008 5:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

i would say take a chance on ankiel being a long term option to produce in center

Don’t we have a kid named Colby Rasmus who is projected to be our CF of the future? And if, according to Moz, he produces in ST will be in StL? I’m all for keeping Ank if it makes us a better team, and I agree on him being comparable to Edmonds. But if he does stay he’ll be playing a corner OF spot because Rasmus is a vastly superior defender.

"I've never felt better to be hit by a big guy like that in my life." - Brad Lidge on Ryan Howard

by RunninRedbird on Nov 8, 2008 6:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i agree with you

ankiel should end up being a corner outfeilder, i was just saying that he was comparable to edmonds and we shouldn’t be so quick to give away a talent like that even if it would be expensive. i think that he play right field for us in 07 when we still had edmonds and he did well. he definitely has the arm to play right. i was just saying that akiel will be better that ludwig in the future and ludwig will bring us much more in a trade.

by vivaelpujols on Nov 8, 2008 8:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I'm still hoping...

…that we can move one of them to Atlanta for Yunel Escobar. I’d prefer it to be Ankiel, to the point where I’d be comfortable including Schumaker to sweeten the deal. That still leaves an outfield of Mather, Rasmus and Ludwick.

Then…I’d start the Wallace years at 3B by moving Glaus to the Angels for Howie Kendrick. The Halos are flush with middle infielders and could even move Chone Figgins back to 2nd if need be.

Middle infield solved, with a lineup of:

Rasmus
Escobar
Pujols
Ludwick
Wallace
Mather
Kendrick
Molina

And…that frees up at least $10M more to go after Sabathia.

Sabathia
Wainwright
Lohse
Wellemeyer
Carpenter/Pineiro

by sabertooth5185 on Nov 10, 2008 10:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yunel is probably slightly more valuable than Ankield for one season...

and is under team control for an additional four years. It would (ok, should) take more than Ankiel and Schumaker to get that deal done. Given his contract status, Schumaker might even be a more valuable commodity than Ankiel right now.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 10, 2008 5:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ank isn't getting traded

unless some other team makes some kind of ridiculous deal, which is doubtful. if Ludwick gets traded, it better be a good one.

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Nov 10, 2008 1:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ankiel

I prefer dealing him. If you can deal him for a MI that loses cost controlled status soon then it is a wash. We have the dollars available to re-sign that type of player, and it helps us resist the urge to re-sign Ankiel.

3 cost controlled years of Ludwick, or even Ludwick Lite, is the kind of bargain that doesn’t fall in your lap all that often. Take advantage of it by holding on to it.

by Merry CRasmus on Nov 10, 2008 3:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Injuries

Ankiel is the guy, from an organizational standpoint looking at all the depth in the outfield, that it makes the most sense to trade. He’s one year away from FA and we the best prospect in the entire Cardinals organization happens to play CF. But I think Ank’s value is depressed by his bad #s last year as TLR played him for few months while he was hurt. I understand what Tony did it (although I don’t agree with the move); however, an unintended consequence is that I think Ankiel’s value this offseason is depressed. He should rebound in 2009 raising his value. But then he becomes a mere rental at the All Star Break. Same thing with C. Duncan. He needs to play in 2009 to reestablish his value before attempting any sort of trade.

Gonna be a very crowded outfield in 2009. If neither Ank nor Ludwick goes this winter, then it Skip surely gets traded. Every year there are teams looking for CFers who can either hit for power or get on base. Gotta think Skip has some sort of market value.

by jjray on Nov 11, 2008 10:48 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ank's value

is down because he’s a free agent after 2009. What team is going to give up good, cost-controlled talent for one year of Ankiel?

I agree that continuing to play him through that injury was stupid.

by spants on Nov 11, 2008 11:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

True

… but if Ank had put up the same #s (both defensively and offensively) in the 2nd half of 2008 as the first, there would have been interest. Now, he could only be considered part of a package. Who knows, Ank could have faded in the 2nd half with or without the injury. Ricky was tearing it up in July before the injury. Only 2009 will give us a clue.

by jjray on Nov 11, 2008 11:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If the injury

explains his lack of production the second half, and I think it does, then he should still be attractive. Why would this be enough to scare teams off? In fact, it might make him more attractive to other teams: lower numbers = lower dollars.

The very nature of Ankiel’s status as a cost-controlled player, in that he won’t be for much longer, is what makes him less attractive and harder to deal on his own. If a trade is to happen, I guarantee it would be a multi-player trade. His ability is not the issue. It’s his status.

by spants on Nov 11, 2008 11:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

The A’s gave up several pieces for Holliday. That’s a corner outfielder who is a one-year rental.

Ankiel is no Holliday, but he does have similar levels of power and is about as talented a fielder.

by JWO on Nov 11, 2008 4:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Two words:

Draft picks. That’s a non-issue with Ankiel.

by spants on Nov 11, 2008 5:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't understand

how are the draft picks a non-issue with Ankiel?

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Nov 11, 2008 7:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He

won’t be a type-A free agent and Holliday will. There is a difference in quality (and maybe quantity) of draft position in this regard, no?

by spants on Nov 11, 2008 9:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Now that is something I should have picked up on

I thank you for clearing that up for me.

I have often wondered what Ank’s status was going to be. Since I barely understand how they decided the FA status, I will ask another question (or two):