Holliday Season
by chuckb on Nov 8, 2008 10:07 AM EST
in St. Louis Cardinals News
Email
PrintHowever, the more I thought about this, the less I liked it. I’ll admit to wondering exactly what we can expect from Ludwick the next 3 seasons. He is 30 and will be 31 right after the All-Star break next year. He has had 1 solid half-season or so in the big leagues and 1 excellent full-season but he’s not the most disciplined hitter. Could this be an opportunity to sell high on a guy who’s probably a solid player but not nearly the top-10 MVP candidate he was in ’08? To me, there’s the possibility that Ludwick is similar to Craig Paquette, Eli Marrero, or Kent Bottenfield in that they were all players who had 1 really good season w/ the Cards but weren’t nearly as good as that season made them appear to be. Mind you, I’m not saying that Ludwick’s the same player as those guys; I know he’s much better. I’m just wondering if he didn’t just have his career-season, as those guys did in a Cards’ uniform.
A lot has been made of Holliday’s road splits. Many of you have; Derrick Goold has; Bernie has. The home/road splits are real. Goold compares him to Raul Ibanez, Corey Hart, and Jose Guillen, among others away from Coors. Those guys are nice players, but they’re not All-Stars and they’re not MVP candidates and they’re not worth cost-controlled 30+ homer guys. He has played an inordinately large number of games in Petco Park and AT&T Park which skews his road splits some. His career non-Petco/AT&T road splits – 293/350/476 are somewhat higher than his overall road splits – 280/348/455. And he’s just murdered the ball in 46 PAs in Busch III. Take that for what you will (and yes, I’m aware it’s a ridiculously small sample size.)
Still, Ludwick has his share of doubters. Derek Carty, over at THT, expects some "regression" this year based on a fairly high BABIP, and a high HR/FB ratio last year. I should point out that Carty’s numbers have his HR/FB ratio at 22%; THT has them at 21.2% and fangraphs has them at 19.9%. Both THT and fangraphs have him behind Pujols and a few others in that respect. Maybe it’s not so high, after all. In any case, Carty expects him to have numbers closer to what Ankiel produced this year -- .260 BA and 25 HRs – than what he produced last year. FWIW, ZIPS has him next year at 274/347/522 w/ 26 HR. That’s down considerably from ’08.
Let’s compare what the two OFs did last season. To some degree, we’re not comparing apples to apples since Ludwick had a career season and Holliday missed 20 or so games w/ an injury but it’s what we have to work with.
| RC/27 | BRAA | VORP | WPA | Total Value | Dewan’s +/- | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ludwick | 8.18 | 41.02 | 53.6 | 2.53 | 50.8 | -8 |
| Holliday | 9.08 | 45.65 | 60.4 | 4.88 | 54.0 | +11 |
Total value comes from Justin Inaz’s spreadsheet and includes offensive and defensive numbers, as well as a positional adjustment. Some of these numbers are rate stats; some are counting stats but it’s pretty clear here that Holliday was slightly better than Ludwick last year. Yes, he played half his games in a great hitter’s environment and Ludwick played half of his in a fairly tough hitter’s park but, setting that aside, we can probably agree that Holliday was slightly better than Ludwick. He also has a better "track record" than Ludwick, given that he’s done it for several years and Ludwick’s done it, basically, for 1. Holliday has won 2 Silver Sluggers, been selected to the All-Star team twice, finished 2nd in the MVP balloting in ’07, and has 5 homers in 45 postseason ABs. He’s a damned good player. So we should do this deal, right?
I don’t really think so. Mo tells us that one of the reasons to consider something like this is that it will make us younger. Holliday is, after all, 18 whole months younger than Ludwick. This would make our 25 man roster roughly 22 days younger on average. Does this make a material improvement in the youth of our roster? It’s not like we’re replacing Reggie Sanders w/ Colby Rasmus. It’s true that Holliday’s a little better but he’s also considerably more expensive than Ludwick. While Ludwick stands to earn $3M or so in his first year of arbitration, Holliday’s due $13.5 M. Furthermore, Ludwick’s under the team’s control for 3 more years to Holliday’s 1. Now, reports are that any trade for Holliday would have to include a contract extension that would keep him in a Cards’ uni for several additional years. I’m thinking something along the lines of Carlos Lee’s 6 years/$100M contract – nearly $17M per season. So, for the next 3 years, Holliday would earn approximately $10 M PER SEASON than Ludwick.
Now, some may argue – "Who cares? It’s DeWitt’s money! We need to get the best player in the lineup and win a championship!" IMHO, that’s a pretty short-sighted argument. If we keep Ludwick, we could probably add BOTH Arthur Rhodes and Jeremy Affeldt to our pen for less than what it would cost to pay Holliday. Holliday may be a slight improvement over Ludwick but would you rather have Holliday, Randy Flores, and Ron Villone or Ludwick, Rhodes, Affeldt and a little more coin to use on something else valuable? I’m going w/ door #2.
On top of that, I can’t imagine that this is a straight-up trade proposal. Reports have used the phrase "multi-player deal" and so, considering Holliday’s pedigree, I’d have to think that this is Ludwick + for Holliday. Looking at all that I’ve seen, I wouldn’t even give up Ludwick, much less Ludwick +.
It’s no secret that Tony is championing a trade for Holliday. He wants a "proven" bopper to hit behind Pujols. According to Joe Strauss:
In any case, it’s stuff like this that feeds the complaints from many of us that Tony prefers "vets" to "young guys." It’s true that Ludwick’s older than Holliday, but he is much less "proven" than Holliday. It’s not so much as old vs. young, as it is proven vs. unproven. He seems to pushing this trade, despite the financial costs b/c Holliday has that "better track record" than Ludwick does. As I said, I do believe that Holliday’s better than Ludwick, but he’s not worth the additional cost that the trade would entail. Moreover, this trade doesn’t even fill one of our holes. We’ve got a hole in the rotation and an abyss at SS and we’re trading 1 corner OF for another? That doesn’t make sense unless we turn around and trade Ankiel also to fill one of our true holes. Do any of you see us entering spring training w/ Skip as our only returning starting OF? I don’t either.
330 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Rosenthal's latest Columnhttp://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/8770300/Value-of-Holliday,-Atkins-questioned
Posted this morning, has an offer for Holliday including Boggs, Schumaker and Ludwick. This makes sense because you want to trade away as many cost controlled years as possible to put a strangle-hold on your budget.
I am serious... and don't call me Shirley
wow I screwed that up
I am serious... and don't call me Shirley
by Ricky Vaughn on Nov 8, 2008 10:27 AM EST up reply actions
If Mo considers this deal
for more than 1.5 seconds without shouting obscenities at Colorado’s GM and throwing his cell phone against the floor at maximum velocity then Mo needs a crisis intervention now.
We’re here to help, Mo. Calmly tell their GM “No thanks” and end the call. Then give Frank Wren a call in Atlanta and find work out an Escobar deal.
When the GM of Colorado called
Saying I could have Matt Holliday I said “Thanks, but no thanks” about the trade that would go nowhere.
by FlimtotheFlam on Nov 8, 2008 12:04 PM EST up reply actions
Makes it much easier
NO WAY!!!
I have to admit that Ludwick’s future returns are more of a mystery than Holliday’s. Even when factoring in the Coors Field effect (that wide outfield surely boosts an average, runs hits, etc), he’s more of a known commodity with projectable numbers because of the decreased injury risk, if nothing else.
But, even with that, one would have to spend a sleepless night or so to actually pull the trigger on a straight-up Ludwick/Holliday deal.
Tossing in Schu and Boggs? That cannot be taken seriously.
Schu’s no game changer, but it can hardly be denied that he has real actual value to a big league team. Boggs has gas and what is commonly referred to as “up-side.”
Philly just won a championship and I thing Holliday fits well there. Good luck.
The Birds need to start looking elsewhere for trades if The Wild Things source has a scoop. That trade cannot be made.
by Scarecrow7775 on Nov 8, 2008 11:04 AM EST up reply actions
How much less of an injury risk is Ludwick?
He was completely healthy all year last year while Holliday missed time to Hamstring and back injuries. The hammy is probably fine now, but back “stiffness” can cause significant DL time…ask Furcal.
Rosenthal
is one of the most reliable reporters there are. One instance that comes to mind is when bernie, our own beat writer stated Cleveland’s assistant would be the new Gm, Rosenthal made a quick blurb stating the odds weren’t good at all, and turns out he was right. Over the years, in my mind at least, he has gained the most credibility of any sports writer.
I am serious... and don't call me Shirley
by Ricky Vaughn on Nov 8, 2008 11:17 AM EST up reply actions
disagree
he posts about rumors every day, and 99% of them turn out to be false. He just throws so many rumor articles up that some of them are bound to come true. Sort of like the “a billion blind monkeys typing for a billion years will eventually replicate shakespeare” idea.
the enemy's gate is down.
I'm glad
to hear you say that. For some reason I have found rosenthal to be very accurate, but by no means is my experience all inclusive. If you say he’s wrong quite often, than I’ll be happy to believe you.
I am serious... and don't call me Shirley
Too often people don't understand what a legit "rumor" is.
I hear it all the time. People think if a rumored trade doesn’t happen then the “rumor” was wrong or false or made up. But that’s not so. Just because the trade doesn’t go through has nothing to do with the validity of a rumor.
Catherine whispered into my ear, her breath rich with faraway spices, that she desire to make love. She wanted to try shinshi shinshi. Now, I'd been begging her to try shinshi shinshi for months. She'd refused on the grounds that it was unclean. Finally, she was willing to accept her lover's body in places no one had ever trespassed. Specifically, the ear canal.
i read this and....
puked a lil in my mouth, there is no F**KING way this should be considered. Even if ludwick regresses alot, no just no. Not gonna do it, not gonna do it.
"Textbooks are Soviet propaganda" - Rev. Jerry Falwell
What are you guys smoking
Consider this trade for a moment:
It frees up a spot in the of for Rasmus and allows the Cards to add a prime middle of the order hitter while giving up only one player of substance (ludwick). None of the best Cardinal prospects are ven included.
It would be a steal.
For 1 year.
You get Holliday for 1 year. If not, payroll goes up to $120 M next year without actually adding any new players. All you’ve done is keep the same guy you had this year.
Tell me this: In 2010, would you rather pay Matt Holliday $22 M or C.C. Sabathia $22 M? Who would give the team a better chance of winning?
by Hardcore Legend on Nov 8, 2008 11:58 AM EST up reply actions
Well, unless you want a 1 year rental of Holliday
that’s what it’ll be.
by Hardcore Legend on Nov 8, 2008 12:18 PM EST up reply actions
a one year rental on holiday
woudn’t be terrible. if la russa thinks that in addition to colby and ankiel, either mather, barton or duncan can be a full timer, or maybe daryl jones, then it might be a good idea to take a shot at it next year. whether or not holiday is as good on the road as he is at home, he has great talent and poses more of a threat at least in the mind of opposing teams than ludwig. if we have a middle of the order that is el hombre, holiday, glaus and ankiel that we could win it all.
definitely more of a threat than Ludwig
Ludwick….questionable, but I see where you are coming from. The question is whether or not is is worth taking the risk that Ludwick is gonna crash back down to earth. If you know he is, make the trade, if it is just as likely he will have a similar, then it would be a bad move. Ludwick’s 07 season wasn’t exactly crappy. I think that Ludwick’s 09 season has at least as good of chance to be somewhere between 07 season and his 08 one, and I could live with that, especially with the cost, defense, and awesome nickname factored in.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
Then do it.
But since you’re paying “yourself” $22 million are also spending $22 million therefore you’re right back where you began.
Look! I just gave myself $22 million………..I just did it again!
Catherine whispered into my ear, her breath rich with faraway spices, that she desire to make love. She wanted to try shinshi shinshi. Now, I'd been begging her to try shinshi shinshi for months. She'd refused on the grounds that it was unclean. Finally, she was willing to accept her lover's body in places no one had ever trespassed. Specifically, the ear canal.
you're crazy man
i like you……but you’re crazy
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
Let's
look at it this way, Ludwick had a .966 OPS last year. If this trade is made it takes away most of the flexibility to improve the team in other areas. This was a fourth place team, is Holliday’s production over ludwick’s last year going to put the team in the playoffs?
I am serious... and don't call me Shirley
by Ricky Vaughn on Nov 8, 2008 12:10 PM EST up reply actions
we were an 86-76 team, 4 games out of the wild card
with 31 blown saves. And we lost ankiel, barton and mather for the stretch run, lost wainwright for 3 months, and still could have surged into the playoffs if a couple of things had gone right in September (or if we had figured out how to beat the Pittsburgh Pirates earlier in the year).
And MIL and HOU won’t be as good as they were this year, because HOU had insane luck with one run games and MIL is losing half their rotation.
the enemy's gate is down.
This trade does nothing to address the bullpens weakness, nor does it make aquiring a middle infielder seem very plausible. The starting pitching still has plenty of questions surrounding it as well, trading for holliday takes away the best trade chip and limit pay roll flexibility considerably. In the aspect of having a better team next year than this year it isn’t a significant upgrade.
I am serious... and don't call me Shirley
woah
stats one day and context the next..
if prop 8 passed and I was in cali…
er, um. go texas tech!
"The Post-Dispatch Cardinals website continues down a path where you'll notice it's really a few McCarvers leading a pack of Dusty Bakers. I'm so glad they don't represent Cardinal Nation. No wonder newspapers are going down in shambles"
by AdjustedExpectations on Nov 8, 2008 3:29 PM EST up reply actions
apparently something different than you
there are other trades to move outfielders, and skip is more valuable than a simple throw in. and its just not skip, also loosing boggs who has some mlb experince and looks to me to be a possible 4 or 5 guy and that’s a 6 mil plus man if he just eats close to 200 ins a year
"Textbooks are Soviet propaganda" - Rev. Jerry Falwell
there is already a spot for him
ludwick, raz, ank
with schu and whomever on the bench.
www.GriffinandtheGargoyles.com or www.myspace.com/GriffinandtheGargoyles
Dont take me seriously :-D
this whole trade is a TERRIBLE idea
we were blessed to find Ludwick on the scrap heap
when hes been healthy (which now stands at two whole seasons)
he hits
check his minor league stats
and hes cheap
he is the the best protection for albert since healthy edmonds in 2004
i wouldnt do the trade straight up even because of the money involved
i would want cash considerations because of ludwick being cheap for 3 years
i really hope they dont do this, and boggs will have value here
and we could get a useful reliever for schumaker
bad bad idea
Come on 2009!
Imma join the consensus.
I just can’t make sense of this scenario. The amount of money (and players) that it would take to acquire and extend Holliday would leave us with that much less ammunition and resources to fill the gaping hole in the middle infield.
Why not just overpay a little to get our hands on Furcal (or another impact player that fills a hole we already have) and keep Ludwick for the next three years at a relatively bargain price? As my roommate pointed out to me this morning, the worry about injury for Ludwick may be overblown. He’s had very productive numbers for the past three years split between AAA and MLB and has exceeded 500 ABs in two of the three years (+400 AB the other year).
Ludwick’s stats over the last three years:
2006 AAA -——- 510 AB, 28 HR, 80 RBI
2007 AAA/MLB – 409 AB, 22 HR, 88 RBI
2008 MLB -—— 538 AB, 37 HR, 113 RBI
Still, though… that’s a big jump in production we witnessed last year. But even if his numbers regress to the 25 HR range and 85-90 RBI’s, it would still be more valuable per dollar to keep him under control and pursue middle infield help or arms for the bullpen/rotation with the money we won’t be using to lock up Holliday.
This just seems so commonsensical… I don’t understand why the idea’s even being entertained.
the 400 at bat year was due
to him not being a full time player in Saint Louis
we were still wasting valuable at bats on chris duncan
Come on 2009!
ludwig is best when hitting in front of pujols
if we do get holiday i really like hitting him third and pujols fourth, or hitting him second. holiday seems to have more talent than luddy, and hitting in front of albert would almost replicate the coors field affect at least in terms of numbers
OH FOR CRAPS SAKE
for the last time, his name is LUDWICK
L U D W I C K
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
Put the drum set up in this thread, too!!
by Red in Chicago on Nov 9, 2008 12:10 PM EST up reply actions
I cannot imagine
the Rockies getting a better offer than that. They ought to take it before Mo realizes what he’s done.
If this offer gets declined
It will be the day two fools met.
I am serious... and don't call me Shirley
by Ricky Vaughn on Nov 8, 2008 12:56 PM EST up reply actions
just imagine if th tables were turned here
If Holliday was a Card, oe year away from FA, probably seeking a 15-20M per year contract. Would we be willing to trade him for a much cheaper (and probably just as productive) outfielder still 3 years away from FA and also get another cheap OF and a good pitching prospect? I know I would be happy with that kind of package.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
Nice post chuckb
I especially like the point with Tony and the protection in the bullpen…and I agree on the fact that while Holliday is a superior hitter to Ludwick, he isn’t worth the additional cost. Of course, the cost is a non-issue to TLR since he will most likely not be with the team three or four years from now, so he’s probably thinking “What the Hell!?! Why not!?!?”
If we were to get Holliday and sign him to a Carlos Lee type deal wouldn’t that seriously handicapp us for the future and cause problems with re-signing Pujols? I’d love to have Matt but not at that cost to the team down the road.
"I've never felt better to be hit by a big guy like that in my life." - Brad Lidge on Ryan Howard
Managers shouldn't care about cost's..... That's not their job
Managers want the best players on the roster THAT season………
I can’t blame Larussa for wanting the best options. I can blame Larussa for not playing the proper players.
it may not be LaRussa's job but it is Mo's
And he should tell Tony to go back to cleaning kennels for ARF (and I don’t mean this as denigrating his work at ARF) this winter while he builds a pennant winner.
It's not Mo's job either
Mo should not worry about costs, he needs to worry about winning. The GM gets the budget number from the Owner, and is tasked to put thogether the best team he can within the said budget. Mo’s can’t be thinking 3 yrs down the road, bacasue if he doesn’t win now he won’t be here in 3 yrs.
Win now, or lose your job.
I couldn't disagree more
Mo’s job is to put together the best team and minor league farm system he can with the budget he is given (hopefully there is some negotiation with DeWitt there) while keeping one eye on the tactical (i.e short-term) and other on strategic (long-term). If he sells out the farm system (without DeWitt’s backing) in a short-sighted attempt to win with a mediocre team he should be fired . If he can’t build a competitive team with the budget he is working under he should be removed as well.
sure there is a balance
between short term and long term, but the biggest priority is winning at the MLB level.
GM's job description...
…I don’t think there is a standard one. If I had to guess, the powers who be told Mo that they had envious eyes for organizations that had a winning formula that would pay off for multiple years- particularly the Red Sox who seem to be the gold standard these days.
I think the plan for the organization, and I could be very wrong here, is to build a system in which the MLB team can compete on the highest level and have enough in stock (the minors) to keep that going for some time.
That would explain the Cards recent interest spike in Latin America development.
I honestly trust Mo and think he has his eyes fixed on the proper target.
by Scarecrow7775 on Nov 8, 2008 11:51 AM EST up reply actions
I understand TLR's shortsightedness but I still find fault with it
Agree it’s understandable that TLR’s desires are shortsighted given his managerial longevity in STL is short term. But it’s detrimental to the team to have its manager advocating not just behind closed doors but also in the media to make a bad trade for a mythical “impact bat to protect Pujols” that will do serious long term damage to the franchise. Thus, I understand why TLR advocates something that is stupid; however, yes, I do righfully blame him for being selfish and shortsighted.
I don't see a direct quote....
Where Larussa says “lets trade Ryan Ludwick”
I don’t think TLR has really said anything bad? Remember how everyone thought the Larussa/Rolen tift was going to screw the Cards… How did that one turn out?
I am not for the trade either, but to try to blame stuff on TLR is just odd.
Every manager in MLB is shortsighted and selfish… Next time a team offers a manager a 10 year guaranteed contract is the first time you will see a manager who looks to the future and is patient.
In fact...
didn’t TLR say something in defense of Luddy in regards to his name poping up in trade rumors? Maybe my mind is just playing tricks on me.
by Scarecrow7775 on Nov 8, 2008 11:12 AM EST up reply actions
I agree.
In his article, Strauss just restates comments that Tony previously made about an impact bat. Nothing new there.
Even if he didn't say it...
…I will. Let’s trade Ludwick. Just not to the Rockies.
by Scarecrow7775 on Nov 8, 2008 11:18 AM EST up reply actions
no, he didn't say that
but Ludwick or Rasmus are the only trading chip we have that land Holiday. TLR is advocating for the acquisition of Holiday. TLR defines his core players then tells JMo to do what is necessary to acquire Holliday. TLR of course leaves it to the GM to make the final deal but he green lights the trading of Ludwick or Rasmus to make the deal.
The same scenario went down with Mulder. TLR advocated / agitated for the acquisition of Mark Mulder. Did he campaign to trade Danny Haren? No. TLR defined Haren as a non-core player and told Jock to trade whoever was necessary from the non-core players to get Mulder. Jock complied. The Cardinals suffered for years because of this trade. Yes, the Ludwick plus extras for Holliday is a different deal but the same philosophy lies behind it. It’s a method of doing business that does substantial damage to the Cardinals franchise.
actually
in the earlier version of strauss’ “holliday” article it had a quote from TLR saying something along the lines of “if we want to improve our team we have to sacrifice some pieces” when asked about dealing either ank or lud.
i can’t find the article now though because its just the new one.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
shouldn't it also
include having the best bullpen possible? Trading Ludwick for Holliday affects more positions than LF. Tony should be as insistent about those positions as he is about the 4 spot in the order.
again
one comment at trade deadline doesn’t mean insistent. Unless you’re Joe at the P-D.
and check out how our other #4 was doing around that time. 1 PA per game and sitting in left all of the sudden.
Please, unless there’s direct quotes saying otherwise, can we not frame it as Joe wants us to?
"The Post-Dispatch Cardinals website continues down a path where you'll notice it's really a few McCarvers leading a pack of Dusty Bakers. I'm so glad they don't represent Cardinal Nation. No wonder newspapers are going down in shambles"
by AdjustedExpectations on Nov 8, 2008 12:33 PM EST up reply actions
the best options would be
a very good OF and very good MI/pen
not an excellent OF and horrible MI/pen
www.GriffinandtheGargoyles.com or www.myspace.com/GriffinandtheGargoyles
Dont take me seriously :-D
Is Holliday the best option though?
Consider that Holliday is a small performance upgrade over Ludwick (which he may not be, but let’s just say it is…)
This forces TLR to stick with Rasmus and hope that works, which it may or may not.
It deprives him of a pretty good mid-long relief/spot start option in Boggs.
All of this for a marginal at best offensive upgrade and a bigger name to give perceived protection (whatever the hell that is) to a fundamentally unprotectable player.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Nov 8, 2008 4:46 PM EST up reply actions
I am OK with the trade if......
the Rockies include Barnes (the former shortstop/ second baseman)- and another pitching prospect. This is ONLY conditional that Holliday signs on for at least a couple of years additional. I sort of doubt that he will do so easily, so I see this trade prospect going down in flames.
Great post I was hoping someone would do this
A couple of reasons I don’t think we should do this trade:
1) They will want MORE than 3 cost-controlled years of a top 10 MVP player for 1 year, $13.5M(?) of another All Star. I don’t think they should be getting more. Why should we have to give them more when they are getting 3 years of a similar player when giving up only 1 WHILE dumping salary?
2) Holliday’s salary, call it around $17M a year for 6 years, will kill the payroll flexibility. Sure, if we got him, he would quickly become a franchise player. The problem with that is we already have plenty of outfield potenial that fits that mold that doesn’t cost us nearly as much. Are we going to want to pay in excess of $40 million a year for Pujols and Holliday once Pujols’ contract is up? I doubt it. What about the fact that we will have to be paying Wainwright more by then as well? He has shown that he would be worth big money as a FA in his brief time here, so we could expect a large contract. Even with only a $15M a year deal, that would mean over half of our payroll would be going to 3 players.
Two goldfish are in a tank. One of them turns to the other and says, "You man the guns, I'll drive!"
Let me add one more
Even though there is a consensus generally that ludwick will regress next year, will Holliday’s 2009 match Ludiwck’s 2008. If he doesn’t exceed Ludwick’s numbers for last year, than where is the improvement coming from.
If the cardinals trade away our outfield depth, the primary trade chip we have, than improving other areas such as middle infield, will rely solely on the free agent market. Of course, the budget for a free agent signing will be greatly reduced by the new payroll acquired.
By next off season, assuming Holliday is signed to an extension, then you have to look at the free agency of glaus, ankiel and welleymeyer and find their replacements with limited payroll flexibility.
Did i mention the proposed package includes 13 years of cost controlled players.
I am serious... and don't call me Shirley
by Ricky Vaughn on Nov 8, 2008 10:54 AM EST up reply actions
exactly
“Even though there is a consensus generally that ludwick will regress next year, will Holliday’s 2009 match Ludiwck’s 2008. If he doesn’t exceed Ludwick’s numbers for last year, than where is the improvement coming from.”
exactly, we were a 4th place team last year. Marginal improvement in one area (while ignoring the holes that made us 4th) isnt going to put us in the playoffs.
Granted Perez and Motte should have a year under their belts (well less), and Raz should be up, but i dont see how just bringing back Lohse, and getting a more expensive OF (granted he may be better than Ludwick from here on out, but ludwick was better last year…and that didnt get us in the playoffs) is going to help if we continue to have holes in the OF and MI
www.GriffinandtheGargoyles.com or www.myspace.com/GriffinandtheGargoyles
Dont take me seriously :-D
Great Post
I do tend to agree with what you are saying about Ludwick vs Holliday at $13.5M he just is not an upgrade. But we don’t know what else would be included. Are they giving us anything in return, are they taking any of our contracts in return (AK, Franklin?)
However, I am going to make an assumption that if this trade does indeed go down – multiple things will happen and it does not prohibit the team from getting 2 Loogy’s in the $3M-$4M per year range.
Multiple things like Ludwick, Ankiel/Skip, Kennedy, and Franklin all being moved to clear payroll, and getting a cost controlled SS in return (somehow). It would mean playing some younger guy for bench roles.
These things happen and the payroll is still below $110M. Now I admit I don’t know how it works going forward with extentions for Holliday and Pujols, but we also don’t know if the team will increase payroll in future years.
trading Ludwick, Ankiel, Skip, Kennedy, and Franklin
is not clearing payroll if you are trading for Holliday as he costs more than ALL of them combined. I hope Holliday is taking grounders at short at Boras’ sports academy this winter because that is where the Cardinals primary need is…unless Holliday is learning to pitch as well.
Mo, HALLIDAY is who you want, not Holliday.
missed the point
it does clear up payroll. Yeah yeah yeah Holliday makes $13.5M – and the salaries don’t exaclty match but it doesn’t mean the 25-man roster at a Owner imposed ~$105M-$110M payroll is hampstrung and we can’t add anymore quality players.
if you want to "clear payroll" by dumping three or four guys who make less than Hollday
then trade Pujols. Just think of all the payroll flexibility we would have then!
i say trade pujols
for most phillies infield. howard, utley and rollins. throw in brad lidge as well. we would definitely win 100 game next year.
Can you demonstrate
how trading cheap players that have to be replaced “clears payroll”? Rasmus would be about the same cost as Lud, and I guess we can replace skip and ank within the system, but all of those spots need to be filled and virtually everyone of them would be with someone at a similar cost.
I think spending $10M of the $25M or so that is available on a non-need for a player that won’t make a substantial difference to our offense will certainly create a payroll that is “hampstrung” (sic).
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
arbitration
How much are Ludwick and Ankiel going to make in arbitration this year? we don’t know yet, but it’s assumed it’ll be between $3M and $5M each. Kennedy at $4M, and Franklin at $2.5M. Yes, boys – that IS clearing payroll to be able to add (2) Loogy’s at $3M-$4M range each.
rasmus, mather, barton, perez, motte, kinney, mccllellan, freeze all at league minimmum or pretty close to it is what provides your “payroll flexibility” trading for a cost controlled SS, and factoring a raise for Wellemeyer, even leaves room to bring back Springer.
btw, thanks for pointing out my typo
There is a pretty good chance
that all the pitchers you mentioned were already going to be on the roster along with Franklin, so Franklin still has to be replaced. Not a big Franklin fan, but we don’t have a prospect who currently projects to be as good as Franklin. Who is going to replace Kennedy? Probably not a prospect either unless we get lucky and TLR realizes that having four MIFs on the roster is just dumb.
Do you really think an OF of Holliday, Rasmus, and Barton/Mather will be superior to an OF of Ludwick, Rasmus, Ankiel?
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
I'm not articulating this very well
I was adressing the statment chuckb made:
If we keep Ludwick, we could probably add BOTH Arthur Rhodes and Jeremy Affeldt to our pen for less than what it would cost to pay Holliday. Holliday may be a slight improvement over Ludwick but would you rather have Holliday, Randy Flores, and Ron Villone or Ludwick, Rhodes, Affeldt and a little more coin to use on something else valuable? I’m going w/ door #2.
Trying to make the argument that just by trading Ludwick for Holliday does not prevent the team from adding quality left handed relievers and still staying under the proposed budget. There are other moves to be made.
addressing your question:
Do you really think an OF of Holliday, Rasmus, and Barton/Mather will be superior to an OF of Ludwick, Rasmus, Ankiel?
I am suggesting an OF of Holliday in LF, Rasmus in CF, and EITHER Ankiel OR a Shumaker/platoon in RF. I didn’t suggest to move all 3 of Lud, Ank, and Shu. Just pointing out their are other options to be able to add (2) Loogy’s and improve SS while keeping the payroll in check. Getting Holliday does not prevet that.
Who would replace Kennedy 2B? I don’t know who, it depends on what happens at SS – but it could be Barmes (part of the Rockies trade), Eckstein, Kelly Johnson, Ryan, Greene, Lopez, or who ever — but I think it’ll be the last spot addresed by mgmt.
It sure did.....and pink is my favorite color!
Ah, you live, you learn.
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
Like you, chuckb,
I would like to select Door #2.
I am not keen on giving up three years of Ludwick for one guaranteed year of Holliday, not at the price difference and not at a position where we already have surplus. And Luddy + ,maybe, Skip and Boggs? No thanks unless we are getting multiple players in return. Here’s another point: Holliday’s agent is Boras and he is loathe to allowing his players to sign extensions without first testing the FA waters. So there is no certainty that we will get more than one year from Matt H.
Whatever the merits
of the proposed trade (and I consider it a much tougher call than most of you do), please don’t use the possible acquisition of Arthur Rhodes as a good reason not to make the trade. I didn’t like Rhodes much at 30, and I certainly don’t like him at 39. Whatever the stats may say, I’ve seen him blow enough crucial leads for the Mariners and the Phillies to know I don’t want him pitching in clutch situations for the Cardinals.
chuckb said -
“If we keep Ludwick, we could probably add BOTH Arthur Rhodes and Jeremy Affeldt to our pen for less than what it would cost to pay Holliday.” I took it to mean that if we keep Luddy, we could afford to improve our bullpen by adding not just one but, possibly, two lefty relievers. I didn’t think he meant it HAD to be Rhodes and Affeldt but that he was just naming two possibilities. You can read into it what you like, but that is the way I saw his comment about door #2.
me too
just an example in “money used elsewhere” theme
"The Post-Dispatch Cardinals website continues down a path where you'll notice it's really a few McCarvers leading a pack of Dusty Bakers. I'm so glad they don't represent Cardinal Nation. No wonder newspapers are going down in shambles"
by AdjustedExpectations on Nov 8, 2008 12:30 PM EST up reply actions
OK, so now what?
Obviously, Ludwick, Schu, Boggs for Holliday is a non-starter. Can’t be done.
So what should be done. I still like the idea of trading Ludwick, but Colorado clearly, at least in my mind, isn’t going to be the partner.
Tampa Bay? Atlanta? Some other team from off the radar?
It's really impossible
to say. Johnson and Escobar have been thrown around, Tampa is shopping Jackson or Sonnastine, Minnesota is trying to unload Delmon Young, Florida will unload some players, or there is always the option of just keeping him.
I am serious... and don't call me Shirley
by Ricky Vaughn on Nov 8, 2008 11:26 AM EST up reply actions
difficult it is...
…but we can agree that this team has to move an outfielder or two. Outfielders we got, MI’s and BP Lefty’s we need.
I guess time will tell. To me, Luddy is the best piece we have. But then again, that all depends on the other half of the trade.
by Scarecrow7775 on Nov 8, 2008 11:33 AM EST up reply actions
Oh I agree
there is an outfield surplus. Ludwick’s value will probably never be higher, however there are other chips from the outfield. Jay, Jones, Barton, Mather, Edwards, Schumaker, Ankiel all would have varying degrees of value and are part of the outfield surplus. Ludwick of course looks like the best sell high candidate out of that group. Let’s just look at who might be interested in a player like ludwick.
Yankees, Tampa bay, Florida, Atlanta, Minnesota, Arizona, Toronto, Cleveland, Cubbies, Dodgers and Oakland.
I could be wrong a bout a few of these, but frankly, he’s the type of player a lot of teams would like to have.
I am serious... and don't call me Shirley
by Ricky Vaughn on Nov 8, 2008 11:50 AM EST up reply actions
but some of those teams have more pressing needs, luddy will be moved well before they get around to it.
"The Post-Dispatch Cardinals website continues down a path where you'll notice it's really a few McCarvers leading a pack of Dusty Bakers. I'm so glad they don't represent Cardinal Nation. No wonder newspapers are going down in shambles"
by AdjustedExpectations on Nov 8, 2008 11:51 AM EST up reply actions
sometimes the best move
is not doing anything. There is no reason to move Ludwick now unless we get close to equal value in return. We have him for three more years.
I can see that point, my reply was in context with the one i was replying to, not taking the assumption.
"The Post-Dispatch Cardinals website continues down a path where you'll notice it's really a few McCarvers leading a pack of Dusty Bakers. I'm so glad they don't represent Cardinal Nation. No wonder newspapers are going down in shambles"
by AdjustedExpectations on Nov 8, 2008 12:13 PM EST up reply actions
we have more pressing needs than OF as well
and yet here we are trying to trade for one. apparently priorities can change quickly in the world of the gm.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
I don’t think priorities have changed, i think that the think the value pump is running full bore. Unless there’s some serious secondary players along with Matt.
"The Post-Dispatch Cardinals website continues down a path where you'll notice it's really a few McCarvers leading a pack of Dusty Bakers. I'm so glad they don't represent Cardinal Nation. No wonder newspapers are going down in shambles"
by AdjustedExpectations on Nov 8, 2008 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
I'm in on Holliday.
After seeing all the views on the deal I’m ready for Holliday in a St. Louis Uni.
I’ve decided he is a more complete player than Luds. He brings a good rep and he is a seasoned 4 hitter that we need.
Send em Luds and Frees(to replace Atkins once he gets traded) and we get Holliday and a non descript minor league lefty with bullpen experience.
Done. Move on.
*Rasmus is to CF as Longoria is to 3B*
yeah but...
we got a source saying the birds gotta throw in Schu and Boggs. Isn’t that too much?
by Scarecrow7775 on Nov 8, 2008 11:22 AM EST up reply actions
thats the whole point
we are not getting anything else….the rockies are acting like they are trading one of the 5 best players in baseball, and they want the moon for him and him alone
You don't know what we might
be getting back. Let’s all cool the speculation. Half of what we read probably isn’t eve true.
"Stats are for losers," Muschamp said after last week's victory. "I like winning games."
like your thinking, but I'd try to revise that a little
Luds, Craig, Kennedy, +Pitching prospet for Holliday, Barmes
personally i’d like to see Freese on the MLB roster as the 1B/3B backup, and the Rockies have to take back some money right?
Barmes is awful
he’s a right-handed Aaron Miles. He is not the short-term nor the long-term solution at SS. There’s no way I give up Ludwick + 2 legitimate prospects for Holliday and Barmes. It’s a steal for the Rockies, even if they take Kennedy in return.
that's fair
I wouldn’t make Barmes the starting SS either, I don’t think I said that anywhere. I do agree with your assesment of that trade – it isn’t very good.
still it’s fun to read the folks on here discussing the options – good or bad.
Tony Larussa
Should shut the f@#% up! If Mo lets Tony talk him into this very very very bad idea then we will be looking at many bad years to come. I say this because only an imbecile would make that move and we don’t want an imbecile driving the bus. Espeacially considering the possible affect it would have on making sure Albert is here past 2011. Not to mention Tony has got 1 yr then what? I’m betting he retires because he’s older than dirt and apparently going senile.
Go play with your dogs Tony and quit trying to sabotage this team that I believe has the potential to be very good over the next 3 years (at least) as currently constructed. I mean that. Never can I remember a time when I felt more excited about whats going on in our farm system. And I’m very hi on Luddy. He was described at one time as a “can’t miss” prospect. Now that he’ s healthy that seems more true than ever.
by Walking Underwear on Nov 8, 2008 11:21 AM EST reply actions
Let's not TLR hate
Point well taken about this team moving forward… but as fans lets not forget the lean years between ‘87-’95 nor the ’06 club which somehow MANAGED to win the WS even though they were, at best, the 7th best team in the playoffs that year.
I’ll never be angry that TLR is our manager. Let’s face it- we’ve been and continue to be lucky he’s our guy on the field. I think he’s earned at least that much.
by Scarecrow7775 on Nov 8, 2008 11:30 AM EST up reply actions
I think there is a difference
between being mad about ill-advised public statements by the manager and “hating”. All the TLR “lovers” put him on way too high a pedestal and give him way too much credit. He is a competent manager, but his real genius has been getting jobs in good organizations with ownerships willing to spend money to field a quality product.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
I see that...
…but people said and say the same things about Casey Stengel, Phil Jackson, that guy for the Patriots.
OK, so let’s not put him on a pedestal. Let’s just say that he’s one of the winningest managers in baseball history, has won championships in both leagues, out team has been in contention for most of his stay (except for the McGwire years)…
I’ve seen lots of organizations willing to spend money toward a high quality championship caliber team and do nothin’ positive in W’s and L’s. How have the Yanks been doing? The Mets? The Cubs spending spree pay off yet? The Angels? The Rangers during the A-Rod years?
If you want to make the same argument about Joe Torre, I’ll listen…for TLR, pass- the guy can handle a club. We won’t do better.
by Scarecrow7775 on Nov 8, 2008 11:44 AM EST up reply actions
let's not carried away
Tony is a Hall of Fame manager to be sure. But other managers have won pennants and championships before and for the Cardinals as well. There could be a few of managerial candidates out there who could do a better job than him if they got the chance (maybe Oquendo?). This team won’t go automatically in the tank if someone else is at the helm. I just wish Tony would just issue a few more “no comment” lines from time to time.
you said it all
hall of fame manager to be sure- they don’t grow on trees.
Actually, I’m a big fan of Oquendo taking the lead once TLR has had enough
by Scarecrow7775 on Nov 8, 2008 12:03 PM EST up reply actions
Probably a subject for another
thread, but whence comes this certainty (from Cardinals fans everywhere) that Oquendo would be a good manager?
by MdRedbirdFreak on Nov 8, 2008 3:20 PM EST up reply actions
I don't know where it came from but,
Where does anyone’s confidence in a manager with no prior mlb managing experience come from?
by bearcatcardfan on Nov 8, 2008 11:58 PM EST up reply actions
we are not sure that he will be
but you have to start somewhere, no?
Joe has been around the game for what seems like forever, he played under two of the best managers in history (biased I am), he has been around winning teams and has been a part of that. From what is reported, the players have a good deal of respect for him. I don’t know if any of that has anything to do with being a good manager, but who does? Good managers just don’t pop out of thin air, they are made by experience.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
Just because a team spends money
doesn’t mean they will be good. That is what I meant by a good organization. TLR has been blessed with far more talent than Joe Torre had as a Cardinal manager. For that he deserves pretty much zero credit. Every other Cardinal manager who has managed the club as long as TLR has won at least one world championship. In fact, prior to the ’96 season he had more seasons at the helm of the Cardinals than any other manager who had never won a world championship.
You mentioned the Angels – I don’t have the figures in front of me right now, but I am pretty sure they have won more games than the Cardinals over the past several seasons and an equal number of World Champioinships. Mike Scosia, like TLR, deserves some credit, but to say he could have done it without ownership commitment and good GM moves is naive.
The Cubs have kicked our last two years, coincidentally the only two years they have significantly outspent the Cardinals in TLR’s tenure.
The Yankees have won how many world championships since TLR started managing the Cardinals – four? And they were in two more.
The Mets and the Rangers just plain suck and it hasn’t been the fault of their managers.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
i follow
what both of you have said. For the record I’m nornally a TLR advocate. Not many better in game strategists imo. But, its reported he wants Holliday for his ‘presence’? Yeah, His presence would be great next year for the cards. But what about after 2 full seasons away from coors? 3? …6?…at ~18mil? I like most of you (and we know its happened to others) think Holliday will never be the same offensive producer if not playing 81 games at coors every year. Tony only cares about next season. I really dont think he has the long term picture in mind right now and long term with luddy, we get probably terrific production with a ton more flexability going forward.
by Walking Underwear on Nov 8, 2008 12:02 PM EST up reply actions
TLR did say anything this time
Tony’s impact bat quote was from last summer not last night and wasn’t even in the context of this trade. Give him grief when he is due but this time he wasn’t even involved.
he had his input
after the gm meeting the FO met with tony and showed him several possible lineups they could go for. strauss even indicated that one of those lineups had an outfield of ank, raz, and holliday. and now the first rumors we hear are about getting holliday?
no, i think TLR had plenty of input. apparently whatever that lineup was TLR thought he could win with it. lets hope there will be secondary moves.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
I think this could be a good deal similar to getting Rolen.
Rolen stepped up offensively when he got here I think Holliday will suprise.
Intially it may look like a bad deal but I think it is one of those deals that halfway through the 09 season could look brilliant.
I trust Mo and Tony.To the Tony bashers all I got to say is show me a better coach playing now with more wins and a world series pennant in both leagues…
*Rasmus is to CF as Longoria is to 3B*
We are giving up our insurance policy
in the rotation. Boggs isn’t a bad pitcher. He has good velocity and movement on his fastball. He really needs a third pitch to be a solid #3 starter.
We would be getting 1 year of Matt Holliday (Scott Boras) and then he’d be gone. If he did stay, he’d break the bank in St. Louis and we’d be hard pressed to resign Pujols in 3 years. We’ve got sunk cost in Carpenter. We need to be getting cheaper/greater value not finding big lumbering sluggers for way too much money/talent expense.
by Hardcore Legend on Nov 8, 2008 11:56 AM EST up reply actions
El Hombre
Above all else, Pujols cannot go! As long as we have him, a winning team is, at the very least, in sight.
If it’s true that Holliday would hamper the effort to resign Al…it doesn’t even need to be said.
by Scarecrow7775 on Nov 8, 2008 11:59 AM EST up reply actions
so does skip
if willy freaking taveras has value skip does as well.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
the idea...
…that Holliday will do one of those StL career awakening jobs (ala Cedeno, Benes, Edmonds [remember the bad press he was getting out the door of LA], and so many others) has been burning in the back of my mind. It’s one of the reasons I have a hard time totally dismissing a Holliday deal.
by Scarecrow7775 on Nov 8, 2008 11:56 AM EST up reply actions
ok but...
there are examples given here in yesterdays thread i believe of solid offensive players from Col leaving Col and simply not being as good as they were in the liter air. not many examples if any of it being the other way around. And if I remember correctly, his #’s arent that great in most national league central parks except Busch of course.
by Walking Underwear on Nov 8, 2008 12:11 PM EST up reply actions
As pointed out above (up thread)
Tony hasn’t said ANYTHING publicly about this trade idea. Why tell him to shut the -- up when he hasn’t made a statement yet.
It seems
implied from the article at the cards website this morning. You are correct there is no direct quote yet so I apologize to Tony if he is against this idea as I am. But if he were against it, would Mo be thinking about it? Maybe but to me this seems like a no brainer. the Money is way to much for what his numbers look like away from coors. And moving forward if he’s signed to a long term deal anywhere to the kind of contract he wants, that team better be damn sure he’s the real deal.
by Walking Underwear on Nov 8, 2008 12:21 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks to all of you
for debunking this ridiculous trade idea. I’m sure we’re correct that this is being pushed by TLR and it shows us the tenuous position our team is in. By resigning Tony last year we experienced an unexpectedly enjoyable season but it did mean that we didn’t totally commit to rebuilding from within. Now Tony has more leverage to push his win now agenda and we may end up with a trade as damaging as the Mulder trade. I fear we would end up with a .280, 18 HR hitting outfielder with a five year huge buck contract and a middle infield of Aaron Miles and whoever we can pick off the scrap heap. Hopefully Mo will come to his senses.
How does Tony have
“more leverage” as we go into the last year of his contract? To me, it looks like Moz is the one gaining leverage over a lame-duck manager.
by MdRedbirdFreak on Nov 8, 2008 3:24 PM EST up reply actions
Seems to me
that this being the last year of a two year contract gives Tony more leverage. Mo, and probably the rest of us, would actually like Tony managing the team on the field. We’d just like more control over who he’s managing. I would think that the front office is hoping they can resign Tony and would feel pressured to accede to his wishes.
I think you point is correct
but “leverage” is probably the wrong word. It makes him more desperate, more short-term focused. Of course, I have to include my customary disclaimer here that I think TLR is around through 2012 at least.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
Nope.
Tony signed a two year deal last year. ‘09 is the last year of his contract. It’s also the reason, a lot of people believe, that Duncan took only the one year deal + an option.
Victory is sweet, even deep in the cheap seats.
by the red baron on Nov 8, 2008 11:49 PM EST up reply actions
Oh, wait.
Never mind. I misread your post. You’re saying you think he will be around ’til ’12 or so. I understand now. Sorry ’bout that.
Victory is sweet, even deep in the cheap seats.
by the red baron on Nov 8, 2008 11:50 PM EST up reply actions
I never understood
how they didn’t have mirrored contracts. You know they’re a packaged deal, yet somehow they had contracts that didn’t line up.
Catherine whispered into my ear, her breath rich with faraway spices, that she desire to make love. She wanted to try shinshi shinshi. Now, I'd been begging her to try shinshi shinshi for months. She'd refused on the grounds that it was unclean. Finally, she was willing to accept her lover's body in places no one had ever trespassed. Specifically, the ear canal.
TLR comments
I believe you and Strauss are tying comments TLR made last summer to a rumored trade. This is stretching a bit. Strauss takes an idea, pulls a TLR quote from early last season and makes a story that TLR “says” this trade is good.
I too would like to find out TLR’s opinion about this trade and the bullpen mess but all we have is rumors tied to six month old quotes. Too give this rumor TLR"s backing is a wuite the stretch for Strauss.
Tony spent all of September
‘sending a message’ to the front office. I don’t think much more needs to be said. He put Adam Kennedy in RF, Aaron Miles in LF.
He’s made his point. Give him his impact bat or he’ll stomp his feet and hold his breath.
by Hardcore Legend on Nov 8, 2008 12:09 PM EST up reply actions
because he wouldn't call up Rasmus
and Ankiel, Duncan and Joey Bombs were injured. Tony’s “impact bat” is just dumb. As if Ludwick, Ankiel and Glaus are not “impact bats” but Holliday “is”. Escobar would qualify as an impact bat at SS IMHO.
he may have input, but he doesn’t pick who to call up, for one.
secondly, not one mention anywhere says that he never said that Holliday was more impact bat worthy than Ludwick.
No one knows what Ank will do this year, he did have sports hernia surgery as he exited the season last year.
"The Post-Dispatch Cardinals website continues down a path where you'll notice it's really a few McCarvers leading a pack of Dusty Bakers. I'm so glad they don't represent Cardinal Nation. No wonder newspapers are going down in shambles"
by AdjustedExpectations on Nov 8, 2008 12:27 PM EST up reply actions
-never + ever
"The Post-Dispatch Cardinals website continues down a path where you'll notice it's really a few McCarvers leading a pack of Dusty Bakers. I'm so glad they don't represent Cardinal Nation. No wonder newspapers are going down in shambles"
by AdjustedExpectations on Nov 8, 2008 12:28 PM EST up reply actions
Duncan, Ankiel and Mather on DL
dilutes the message a bit when the Front Office can point to three injured players. I am just saying that Strauss giving this trade idea TLR’s support is not adding up in my mind. In a vacuum (like ignoring LT costs) TLR would probably say sure. Luckily decisions like this aren’t made by ignoring all relevant facts. Otherwise, TLR’s temper tantrum would have resulted in some action at the trade deadline last year.
Oh Come On
I’m all for beating on Tony when he’s earned it. (Bullpen usage anyone, second string lineup days, etc), but seriously. Come on.
Around the trade deadline he was asked what he wanted, he wasn’t throwing a tissy, he wasn’t screaming at Mo, he was asked by a reporter. He said he wanted an impact bat. Which Joe alludes to every time someone comes up.
But if you’re going to bash based on the impact bat, keep it in context.
Bonds was bemoaning on the sidelines all trade deadline that he’s ready and willing to play.
Our bullpen was completely on fumes (at the trade deadline!).
We had a lot! of short margin games and a few small inning starts with the starters. We even had starter injury issues.
We were still in it (and to be fair, a lot have said should we have done something, we could have challenged the Wildcard, I’m not going to argue that).
He never once said anything about how Ludwick wasn’t an impact bat.
Ank ended up on the perpetual DL just after the trade deadline. Something was clearly wrong with him. Which meant that Tony lost his ‘damage in #2’ person.
For all you guys know, Tony sat in that simulation meeting and argued for Ludwick.
Talk about way off base.
"The Post-Dispatch Cardinals website continues down a path where you'll notice it's really a few McCarvers leading a pack of Dusty Bakers. I'm so glad they don't represent Cardinal Nation. No wonder newspapers are going down in shambles"
by AdjustedExpectations on Nov 8, 2008 12:20 PM EST reply actions
agree somewhat
but to be fair I think Strauss in his “impact bat” article hinted that Tony thought the existing pieces of the batting order (even when healthy) were not enough protection for Albert. No one is talented as El Hombre so no one is going to offer equal protection including Holliday or a past his prime Barry Bonds (although he would have been a good mid-season pickup).
Also, wasn’t Tony pushing to acquire Mulder as a “impact arm” and not really listening to Dave Duncan as to why we should keep Dan Haren? This just sounds like a strikingly similar to that situation to me.
More than likely Tony thought that
in order to get an impact bat, they’d have to give up Rasmus. Not one of his current players.
Mo’s actually quite brilliant here, taking away one of Tony’s ‘McGwire Boys’ in Skippy and the 2nd best hitter in the lineup out of Ludwick. See how far Tony is really wanting to take this.
Although, Tony would get another of his ‘McGwire Boys’ in Holliday.
by Hardcore Legend on Nov 8, 2008 12:43 PM EST up reply actions
I wonder if this is Mo doing
what he did at the deadline: Illustrating, in concrete terms, the EXACT COST of placating Tony. It’s one thing to talk about getting Fuentes for half a season. It’s another to say you have to give up, say Schumaker and Perez for him. It’s one thing to say you want Will Ohman for half a season. It’s another to say you have to give up Motte for him.
So it’s one thing to say you want Holliday. It’s quite another to say you’re going to give up Ludwick, Schumaker and Boggs for him. I think Mo might be saying, “Okay, Mr. Big Pants. Here’s your deal: the second-best hitter on the team, our leadoff man and our No. 6 pitcher. What do you say, Mr. Big Pants? No flexibility. No MI help. A retread on the LH side of the pen. Sound good, Mr. Big Pants?”
At least I hope Mo’s that clever.
by Red in Chicago on Nov 8, 2008 1:56 PM EST up reply actions
you might be right
It might be Mo’s way of gaining leverage w/ the fanbase and the front office vis-a-vis Tony. Maybe it was someone in Mo’s office, or Mo himself, who leaked that trade rumor to Rosenthal. Interesting point.
Do you not agree
that the comments by Strauss, referenced above, imply that Tony would prefer Holliday to Ludwick? Now, maybe Strauss is wrong here but I don’t agree that I have taken Strauss’ words out of context. Strauss said that “However, (in reference to Ludwick’s great season), LaRuss has long defined protection as "perception” as much as numbers." The way I read that, and I believe I’m reading it correctly, is that Tony believes that Holliday would add some additional protection for Pujols b/c of Holliday’s reputation that Ludwick does not, and will not provide. If that’s the case, considering the fact that Tony’s demand for additional protection is inarguable, using Strauss’ words, it’s not difficult to see that Tony favors Holliday to Ludwick.
It’s not that Ludwick doesn’t provide protection, but the clear implication is that Tony believes that Holliday offers more, given his reputation. My point was that, even if Tony is right, and it’s debatable, the incremental boost that Holliday would provide to the offense (and defense — he is better than Ludwick defensively) is not worth the additional cost, given what it would ultimately cost us at other positions.
i don't think tony has specifically talked about this trade scenario
i think strauss is using comments that larussa has made previously and drawing conclusions about how he thinks that TLR would feel about this deal
but we all know what assuming can make you
A couple of things
That wasn’t directed at your original post, just too many “here’s Tony trying to fuck is over and kill the farm for a name” rhetoric, which has no basis at all, unless you assume on top of Strauss’ assumptions. So I wasn’t saying you’re taking the article out of context.
Second and most importantly,
I am willing to bet that the whole basis for the perception argument that Joe likes to champion started largely when Tony was pushing for Bonds. It has, some merit. Given the same numbers Player A vs Bonds, perception will win. I have never seen any quote of any type attributed from Tony regarding Luddy.
I contend it is arguable because there’s nothing saying how he views Ludwick in a protection or value scenario. Strauss is melding several scenarios together and framing it back to Tony controlling the team from a manager’s spot. It’s absurd.
Regarding the actual trade itself, I agree with you and have stated it several times over the past two days on this topic. Holliday +/- extension for Ludwick +/- others is absurd no matter how it’s put together.
I am willing to take a fair and pragmatic look if there’s other pieces coming from the Rockies. Which I hope is happening if this is being seriously considered. Keep in mind, we’ve been talking to the FO of the Rockies several times inc last year (Fuentes) and Mo does have some relations there. So I could see a reasonable situation where it’s an asset/glut for needs swap on both sides.
But I have no evidence to that fact, for all we know it could be building up momentum and value on both sides so they can take their respective players to other tables. The braves are having issues on the Peavy front, so we could be back there talking MI.
"The Post-Dispatch Cardinals website continues down a path where you'll notice it's really a few McCarvers leading a pack of Dusty Bakers. I'm so glad they don't represent Cardinal Nation. No wonder newspapers are going down in shambles"
by AdjustedExpectations on Nov 8, 2008 1:23 PM EST up reply actions
This is a another
Strauss-type thing.
1. He knew Tony wanted an “impact bat” last year at the deadline.
2. They talked to Colorado about Fuentes and Holliday.
3. Tony still wants an “impact bat.”
4. Tony hasn’t said anything specifically about Ludwick for Holliday.
5. Therefore Tony is for the deal.
It’s kind of stupid. Strauss doesn’t do these rumor stories very well.
by Red in Chicago on Nov 8, 2008 1:49 PM EST up reply actions
+1
Even if Holliday is 20% better than Ludwick there is no way I trade him straight up for Holliday given the differences in salary and free agent status. The trade Rosenthal suggests does nothing to make the Cardinals a better team. It does the reverse.
I think we should see what tampa bay wants for sonnastine
i know he’s nothing special, but he’s young, cost-controlled and better than piniero
the rays need a rightfielder…is ankiel too much for sonnastine? is he not enough?
just seems like since one team has a surplus of starters and is need of a OF and the other team has a surplus of OF and is need of a starter….a deal should be struck
i just read the rosenthal article
he seems to think that it was the cardinals that proposed ludwick, shucmaker, and boggs for holliday
i really hope mo knows something that we don’t
What!!!!!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! and so on with the teeth gnashing. Man! I hope that isn’t the case.
Like I said above, I think that trio for Holliday just doesn’t add up for the birds.
Forgetting the actual players- given the current situation- giving up two outfielders for one makes sense, but throwing in a young arm? With this team we have? Come on now. This gets even worse once we put faces and stats to those two outfielders we’d be getting.
by Scarecrow7775 on Nov 8, 2008 8:48 PM EST up reply actions
in light of the recent Rosenthal info, the trade would include skip and boggs. that is way, way too much for holliday. I hope this trade talk is a distraction to hide a different move while building holliday’s trade value for the rockies. i’m hoping fuentes or tulowitski. probably just dreaming though.
victim of the sixties
by victim of the sixties on Nov 8, 2008 1:02 PM EST reply actions
well just take Corpas then
;-)
www.GriffinandtheGargoyles.com or www.myspace.com/GriffinandtheGargoyles
Dont take me seriously :-D
If we got Holliday on a three-year deal
that type of trade might make sense. On a one-year rental it’s TOTAL MADNESS.
by Red in Chicago on Nov 8, 2008 1:51 PM EST up reply actions
3 years is out of the question
boras is on record saying the he wants 6 years.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
didn't he turn down 4?
"The Post-Dispatch Cardinals website continues down a path where you'll notice it's really a few McCarvers leading a pack of Dusty Bakers. I'm so glad they don't represent Cardinal Nation. No wonder newspapers are going down in shambles"
by AdjustedExpectations on Nov 8, 2008 3:10 PM EST up reply actions
yep
colorado offered 4/60 and holliday said “thanks, but no thanks, it will take more than 4.”
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
It's not the exact number of years
It’s that you have to have a multi-year deal SIGNED before you acquire Holliday. An All-Star with Boras as his agent is as good as gone for anything less than full market value. Why not just wait until next year if we want to enter the Matt HollIday Sweepstakes and bid against the Red Sox, Yankees, Dodgers, White Sox, Angels, etc. I mean, isn’t that what we would be doing? Why on earth is it so important that we have this extra pop in the outfield for one season? Middle infield, anyone? Hello….? Anyone home…….?!!!
by Red in Chicago on Nov 8, 2008 3:21 PM EST up reply actions
that's the question i ask too red
our needs are definitely elsewhere.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
Eastern Sports Network (ESPN)
Just had a blurb on the Cards and Rockies, saying Cards are favorite to land Holliday, with Ludwick being the centerpiece. I know, not new. But this part was, “THE DEAL MAY NOT HAPPEN UNTIL SPRING TRAINING”
1. How did they surmise that?
2. Would Mo really wait all winter when he just recently stated he prefers to make an impact deal within the next couple of weeks?
"Baseball is like Church, many attend, few understand" - Wes Westrum
Best explanation for waiting for spring
is Cardinals want to make sure Ankiel and/or Duncan are healthy. If so, maybe they could get substituted for Luddy.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
must be bigger deal than we though
Agree with giveml, that waiting till spring training means a player in the proposed was injured at the end of last year—Duncan, Ankiel, Mather are the suspects. If we can somehow get Holliday without giving up Ludwick or Rasmus, then I shall tip my cap to JMo! But I’m highly doubtful that is possible. Ankiel is of far less value than Ludwick. Mather is a guy that I think could become a monster playing in Coors Field … but he’s still a prospect rather than a proven commodity.
The better question...
…would the Rox wait until the spring to unload Holliday. I kind of doubt it, for some reason that I can’t define.
by Scarecrow7775 on Nov 8, 2008 8:50 PM EST up reply actions
Rox won't wait
… of course they would prefer to wait but if a potentially better deal is on the table from the Cards IF a key player is healthy, perhaps they would wait. But Holliday is a dwindling assets so I see you’re point.
Well since everyone in the STL area is against this trade, let me argue as a non-native but equally passionate Redbird fan
First of all there are the benefits of having Holliday in the lineup. He’s a high OBP guy. He may no remain in the 400+ area but 380 or so is not unreasonable. Ludwick’s OBP was driven by his BA, which you would figure would drop and in turn move his OBP back to the 350 range. Theres also the fact that Ludwick strikes out a ton. Holliday is a higer average guy with power and a high OBP, which would be a perfect complement to Albert as a cleanup guy. It moves Glaus back to the 5 hole and Ankiel 6th. With 2 high OBP guys in Skip and Rasmus ahead of Albert, I would say it doesnt just improve the lineup, it transforms the lineup.
I live in Houston so I watch a lot of Astros games and in one of the above posts someone mentioned Carlos Lee when talking about a possible extension for Holliday. I think Lee would also be an apt description for the protection he would offer Albert. I cant count the number of times Ive yelled at the TV because the opposing pitcher was pitching around Pujols and the following hitters struck out or we failed to put a crooked number on the board. People dont pitch around Berkman because Lee can mash. Imagine a world in witch Albert had 75 more opportunites to hit against a pitcher who felt compelled to throw him strikes ?!?!? It also effects the running game, which admittedly is not a primary concern of the present roster but one that MO has said he would like to address. Theres no reason to steal if Skip or the 2 hitter gets on first bc of the IBB to Albert. Well the Astros never have that problem – see Michael Bourn. It creates RBI opportunites for Berkman bc no one wants to throw to Lee with runners on 1st and 2nd. It’s just a completely different dynamic. It maximizes the talents of the best player on our team, no the best player in the game. That alone is reason to consider this imo.
As for the extension/money issues – I have to believe that people like MO arrive at a position like GM of an MLB team by thinking systematically and in terms of causality. Maybe MO has a backup plan regarding the FA’s of 2010 and if Holliday doesnt stay he has an idea of where he is going to spend the available money. Maybe he thinks that Wallace is destined for LF anyway and you’re going to have to open up 2 spots in the OF soon, not just the 1 for Colby. Maybe he thinks Daryl Jones and Colby are his 1 and 2 hole guys ahead of Albert for the next 5 years after 09. Some or none of these things may work/happen, but my point is im sure hes thinking ahead and doing it better than I am and that he does have options. Admittedly, you never know if potential FA’s will hit the market but he may end up locking Holliday up with Pujols for 5 years.
As for the player cost of the deal, I also think that is too much. The Rockies want to move Holliday’s contract. Well that sounds to me like leverage. I would think MO could use that to either limit the players he sends or get something more back – cash or players. Skip, Boggs and Ludwick seems like too much and limits the ablility to trade for LHR help or MIF upgrades.
All in all I would love to see Holliday in STL and batting behind Albert. I think the proposed deal is a bit much, but I also think MO for all his criticism of inactivity made 2 shrewd and underrated moves last year – the Glaus deal and the non-deal for Fuentes.
+1
Speaking of the running game, Holliday stole 28 bases last year while being thrown out twice…
Plus, Matt Holliday looks like a guy that masturbates with steel wool.
Tough.
Boomer.
I don't get the Lee analogy
as Berkman walked 99 times last year, pretty much in line with his past three seasons. Probably the only active player who could legitimately protect Pujols is Manny Ramirez.
I cannot imagine an MLB manager saying to himself, “Geez, I better pitch to Pujols here because Matt Holliday is on-deck.”
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
My point is not Pujols or Holliday.
My point is Pujols with a runner on or Holliday with 2 runners on. It puts a runner in scoring position automatically – a single scores a run and an XBH scores 2 while opening up the possibilty of a really big inning. I agree that no one outside of Ted Williams or Musial himself woud be seen as real protection and that having runners on ahead of Pujols increases the number of meaningful pitches he might see. But he’s also going to see more meaningful pitches with a hitter like Holliday behind him, especially when Holliday himself gets on base at a high rate. It leads to a bases loaded possibility and a really big inning. It’s like a Billy Beane lineup on steroids – really bad simile, but you know what i mean.
that's an argument for high OBP guy
in front of albert. if there is almost always a man on first in front of pujols it will be hard to walk him regardless of whether its holliday or ludwick. however, if no one is on in front of pujols its a much easier decision to walk him regardless of who was behind him (manny excluded).
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
if only there was a free agent lefty OF with a crazy OBP #'s just sitting at home wating for someont to call
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
You read my mind!
She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.
hmm
Holliday
Pujols
Bonds
"There are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary. And there are 108 stitches in a baseball. When I learned that, I gave Jesus a chance."
by Bahamaredbird on Nov 8, 2008 11:33 PM EST up reply actions
That's impact.
Catherine whispered into my ear, her breath rich with faraway spices, that she desire to make love. She wanted to try shinshi shinshi. Now, I'd been begging her to try shinshi shinshi for months. She'd refused on the grounds that it was unclean. Finally, she was willing to accept her lover's body in places no one had ever trespassed. Specifically, the ear canal.
what about
Colby/Ank/Furcal
LUD/Bombs/Dunk
Pujols
Bonds/Ank/LUD
Glaus
Yadda
Furcal/Colby/Ank/Bombs/Dunk
Wagonmaker
Renteria
i realize i have 7 OF’s for 3 spots. no one has ever accused me of being a smart poster have they?
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
Sure
btw, I wasn’t endorsing the above 2-3-4 lineup, I was just making a stupid comment.
Catherine whispered into my ear, her breath rich with faraway spices, that she desire to make love. She wanted to try shinshi shinshi. Now, I'd been begging her to try shinshi shinshi for months. She'd refused on the grounds that it was unclean. Finally, she was willing to accept her lover's body in places no one had ever trespassed. Specifically, the ear canal.
that's also a CFers nightmare
but I also realize that wasn’t the point….hmm indeed
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
If Holliday is acquired
he should bat in front of Pujols, not behind him.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
that's an interesting thought
are you saying batting holliday #2 or #3. #2 would interesting, i don’t think #3 is gonna happen.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
Historically
he’s a classic cleanup hitter, batting in the four hole. But yeah, with his OBP, you definitely want him in front, not behind.
by Red in Chicago on Nov 8, 2008 9:17 PM EST up reply actions
I am quite sure batting Pujols 4th
will never happen as long as TLR is here, but I still think it is the best option so I’m just gonna keep saying it. Maybe someday that question will actually get posed to TLR and we will get hear whatever lame response he can come up with.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
people still will not pitch to Pujols
Holliday offers incrementally better production behind Pujols than Ludwick does at an additional cost of nearly $10 M per season.
For the same money, Holliday’s better but Ludwick + 2 lefties in the pen or Ludwick + Randy Johnson is better than just Holliday — for this year or for the next 2 thereafter.
If we throw in Skip and Boggs…I just can’t fathom that Mo really made that offer. I’ll believe that the Rockies asked for those 3. I just cannot believe that Rosenthal’s correct in saying that we offered that.
Lots of targets for an extra $10 MM
How about Trevor Hoffman? He wouldn’t even cost that for one year.
Plus, the whole protection thing is overrated. Why is it so bad to give Albert a free base one out of every four at-bats?
by Red in Chicago on Nov 8, 2008 3:25 PM EST up reply actions
rather have randy johnson than hoff personally.
odd as it is, i have a feeling that RJ will be really undervalued in this FA market.
"The Post-Dispatch Cardinals website continues down a path where you'll notice it's really a few McCarvers leading a pack of Dusty Bakers. I'm so glad they don't represent Cardinal Nation. No wonder newspapers are going down in shambles"
by AdjustedExpectations on Nov 8, 2008 3:30 PM EST up reply actions
I don't like Hoffman anymore
I still like RJ though
by FlimtotheFlam on Nov 8, 2008 6:55 PM EST up reply actions
"Luddy's OBP is driven by batting average"
2008 Ludwick OBP – BA = .076
2008 Holliday OBP – BA = .081
Not a whole lot of difference there. In fact, remove the extra 3 IBB’s given to holliday and it becomes .076 to .077.
the enemy's gate is down.
colorado inflates batting average almost 10%
Busch 3 suppresses it almost 4%.
the enemy's gate is down.
why is it certain to drop?
likely? Maybe, but not certain. Hell, Ludwick’s 08 season might just be the start of something better. Sometimes players get even better after their first full season.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
well said chuck
now someone send this to TLR so we can end this silliness. when you factor in the cash it’s going to take to keep Matt, plus getting some good pen help, another good starter, who Boggs might be, a real MI, and not even taking into account trying to pay Albert half of his real value in 3 seasons, giving up Skippy, Boggs & LUD for only Matt is a very bad deal for the Cards.
now, and especially in the future.
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
Dreadful deal
They’re essentially the same player, though Luddy has more pop and Holliday is INCREDIBLY expensive. Put Ludwick in Coors and he’ll crank 45 dingers. If I’m the Rox GM, I’m creaming my jeans right now over this deal and trying everything to make it work. Take Luddy yearly in contract negos in case he gets injured like everyone who is pro-Holliday seems to think and use that extra $20m per year to grab MI help and BP help. Why? It fills NEEDS. You know, where we’re actually weak?
Miles in '08
Snooping around on Rockies official site
This Chris Nelson looks like he could be a pretty good SS prospect. Struggled this season with injury, but hitting .352/.422/..574 in the AFL. Spent the season between high A and AA, so he’s probably at least a year away. Anyone have more knowledge on Nelson?
"Baseball is like Church, many attend, few understand" - Wes Westrum
Just looked him up as well
I like these numbers: Link
Team League AVG G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG OPS
MOD CAL .289 133 529 97 153 42 7 19 99 266 55 92 27 5 .358 .503 .861
Don’t like 31 errors in 130 games at SS, but he’s still young and could improve drastically under Oquendo. But, it sounds like he is their Rasmus so it would probably take quite a bit to pry him away from the Rox. Maybe they would be more willing to trade away Tulo if this guy pans out, but we’d probably have to wait a year or so before we could begin to ask about that.
"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 1:48 PM EST up reply actions
scouts don’t expect him to stick at short. I’ve seen him play quite a few times, he’s pretty much the definition of raw and inconsistant, doing his best Jekyll and Hyde acts throughout the season. He;ll be a nice player if he pans out, but he’s certainly not someone that could be counted on right now.
I am serious... and don't call me Shirley
indeed
we have way too many of these type of guys throughout the system in the MI. If we’re going to get “potential” it should be arms, with a bias towards LHP
"The Post-Dispatch Cardinals website continues down a path where you'll notice it's really a few McCarvers leading a pack of Dusty Bakers. I'm so glad they don't represent Cardinal Nation. No wonder newspapers are going down in shambles"
by AdjustedExpectations on Nov 8, 2008 1:56 PM EST up reply actions
yeah but if he's a throwin
… might as well ask. Having two Jekyll / Hyde SS in the system (Greene being the other) increases the odds that one of them grows into a permanent Hyde.
he's not
a piece that would make me change my mind about this deal. tulowitzsky , Morales, DE la Rosa, maybe even Stewart might sway me.
I am serious... and don't call me Shirley
Good to know
I hadn’t heard of him until now, and only went off the info I found at the Rockie’s website (surely there couldn’t be a positive bias to his potential there)
If he is that inconsistent defensively, no thanks. I’ll keep dreaming of Brandon Wood…
"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 2:09 PM EST up reply actions
fwiw
the guys at purple row think that Luddy, Skip and Boggs is totally inadequate for a one year rental
www.GriffinandtheGargoyles.com or www.myspace.com/GriffinandtheGargoyles
Dont take me seriously :-D
that is definitely a case
of placig too much value on your own players
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
the general consensus over there
If that is the best offer out there then I’d keep Holliday and take the draft picks. One year of Holliday’s production plus two first rounders outways Ludwick and a middling fourth outfielder that makes Seth smith redundant and a pitcher that isn’t that highly regarded. If Dan is really looking for an immediate impact, just keep Holliday and take the picks. Surely someone can top this weak effort.
"I'm as nauseous as I've ever been. I have a terrible headache. My head is pounding. I feel like throwing up and I'm having trouble swallowing. And the beauty of it is, you want to feel like this every day." - Tony LaRussa
Or its just a fit issue.
They need pitching.
The deal is stupid for the Cardinals, and doesn’t fill a need for the Rockies (cough that pathetic pitching *cough*)
This.
These guys are insane
Boggs was one of the top starting pitching prospect in the PCL last year.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/league-top-20-prospects/2008/266948.html
You can scratch Jaime Garcia from that list due to Tommy John surgery. I’m not even sure Max Scherzer qualifies as a minor league prospect anymore given he pitches in 16 games for Diamondbacks in 2008. Do these people understand the term “cost controlled”?
as i've said before
this is a deal to put us over the hump. say we made it to the playoffs last and lost because our offense wasn’t consistent or they were always walking pujols or something. and say that we were returning almost all the starters from that team. thats when you do this deal. not at this point when we have several holes to fill and not a lot of payroll room.
although, maybe we are missing something from the FO. maybe dewitt has told them he would up payroll. i mean, looking at the two trade targets we have been linked to, both of them are going to make 15 mil+ a year. mo most think we have some payroll room.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
The hump is in the bullpen
though there’s a pronounced speed-bump in the middle infield, right between second and third.
by Red in Chicago on Nov 8, 2008 3:26 PM EST up reply actions
we're still in a chase for
MI + Pitching from Atlanta
everywhere you read, Atlanta is getting real tired of dealing with the Padres and someone else may end up on the Peavy sweepstakes.
We’re the next port of call it seems.
"The Post-Dispatch Cardinals website continues down a path where you'll notice it's really a few McCarvers leading a pack of Dusty Bakers. I'm so glad they don't represent Cardinal Nation. No wonder newspapers are going down in shambles"
by AdjustedExpectations on Nov 8, 2008 3:32 PM EST up reply actions
Catch 22
We make some a trade with the Braves. Peavy goes to the Cubs.
by FlimtotheFlam on Nov 8, 2008 6:58 PM EST up reply actions
however
wasn’t the consensous on VEB that Peavy is going to break down and be a huge injury risk for the 5 yrs of his contract?
i came away from that thread with two opinions
I went into it thinking “rasmus for peavy is a no brainer, trade him”, but the combination of peavy’s poor away-from-petco numbers and his potential for injury made it seem like peavy was too risky. That salary is not very much under market value 2 or 3 years from now, either.
I’d love to see a study of how peavy would perform in each ballpark.
the enemy's gate is down.
Ditto
my initial reaction was – well if we could do it without rasmus it would be great.
came away from it with – man that guy’s arm is going to fall off at any moment.
You talkin' to me?
‘Cause quick-n-dirty snapshots are about all I’m capable of.
Peavy at Wrigley: 22 IP, 3.68 ERA, 9.4 K/9, 2.86 BB/9, 1.50 WHIP, .82 HR/9
Peavy at Turner: 12.1 IP, 4.38 ERA, 10.95 K/9, 2.65 BB/9, 1.07 WHIP, 2.92 HR/9
Peavy at Chavez: 65 IP, 3.46 ERA, 6.65 K/9, 2.63 BB/9, 1.11 WHIP, 1.11 HR/9
Pretty much in-line with his overall road numbers of 3.80 ERA, 8.32 K/9, 3.27 BB/9, 1.30 WHIP, 1.25 HR/9. When looking at those LA numbers note that Chavez was the second best pitchers’ park in all of MLB behind Petco.
He has been vulnerable to the HR on the road as he gave up 13 in only 75.67 IP this year. I wonder if that is some kind of Petco hangover or something and might improve if he didn’t pitch 50% or more of his innings in SD?
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
yeah, those sample sizes are tiny
I was thinking something along the lines of this, for each park he’s been discussed as being traded to. IE what I tried to do for Holliday and Ludwig below, except for a pitcher, not a hitter..
the enemy's gate is down.
Doesn't mean I want to see him playing for Cubs
They can take a Financial hit a lot easier than we can
by FlimtotheFlam on Nov 8, 2008 8:56 PM EST up reply actions
I'm wondering how MLB owners
are thinking about free agency right now, given that this economy very well might be a long way from finding its bottom. I’ll bet a lot of them are figuring on fans sitting on their $$ (at home) instead of at the ballparks in 2009. It should be interesting to see how the FA market shakes out; I don’t think Scott Boras is going to achieve his goals this year.
if that is the case
they are thinking right in my case.
The way things look, I may cut down to just one ballgame next year. Of course if the gas prices keep plummeting, I might change my mind. Hell, the last couple of years the price of the drive down and back was as much or more than the ticket prices.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
That is why it was so sad
To see Saint Louis county not extend funding for Metrolink. I remember when Saint Charles voted against Metrolink coming out to Saint Charles and I still regret it. It would be so awesome to take Metrolink downtown.
by FlimtotheFlam on Nov 8, 2008 7:00 PM EST up reply actions
will the voters please think of us fans?
and you know, themselves too?
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
DO THE DEAL.
I’ll take my lumps – if Mo knows the following:
1. He gets approval from DeWitt to increase payroll to $120M.
2. He knows how to get left handed relief by trade or within that payroll.
3. He has a pretty good idea of where a short stop is coming from.
4. He is 99.9% sure he can sign Holliday to an extension.
Read the Rockies blog response – they say it doesn’t touch Holliday’s worth. Think about this – we take a minor league free agent, add a career 4th outfielder and a soon to be middle relief/setup guy and turn that into MATT HOLLIDAY! This is classic Walt Jocketty trading from a position of risky strength and landing a complete stud!
Holliday is Colorado’s version of our Albert Pujols. If they can do this given the above bullet points, DO THE DEAL!
We aren’t thinking of this correctly. If Holliday outperforms Ludwick in 2009 AND Rasmus outperforms Skip in 2009 this deal makes sense. Do we really think that TLR will play Rasmus if he has either Skip or Ludwick available? Also, remember that DeWitt, early in 2007, said he has payroll flexibility. Do we think last year hurt the ability to make money for the Cardinals? Also, can we factor in the long term revenue that Holliday will bring in jerseys and complete studliness (I’ll admit – I’ve fallen under the Holliday spell – I’ve got a TLR sized man crush!).
My fear is that this deal goes down and TLR plays MATHER over Rasmus. God help us if he puts a healthy DUNCAN in center!
Mo throws in Skip because he wants to force TLR to play Rasmus. He uses Boggs because Boggs still doesn’t have a 3rd pitch…and won’t stick as a starter. If the cards scouting doesn’t know this by AAA…
We do still need another starting option…and I think Mo will sign one very very late or he knows who he wants at what amount and will sign only at that amount.
DO THE DEAL!
jp
If DeWitt's going to bump the payroll
then why can’t we sign Sabathia or Furcal and keep Ludwick, Skip, and Boggs? It still doesn’t make the deal worth doing. We’re still giving up more than we’re getting, even if we sign Holliday to an extension.
great point
logical thinking for sure.
if this goes down, it’ll be interesting to see what the real trade is. As rumored, it’s not a good deal, but I suspect what has been rumored is not the full picture.
I mentioned this before
Any deal to Holliday will have to be topped by Pujols very soon. That should be a huge reason to not sign Holliday.
by FlimtotheFlam on Nov 8, 2008 7:01 PM EST up reply actions
who would we rather see making $20mil a season wearing the BOB? Matt or Albert?
because i fear if this deal goes down, that’s a big question MO is going to have to ask.
like chuck said, if DeWitt’s just going to start throwing cash around, throw it at CC, Furcal or KRod & keep the guys who are cheap & will still do a lot to help the team win.
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
honestly
if we had the extra cash i would be happy to spend it on holliday.
k-rod is a little too risky for my taste. furcal again is risky. cc would probably be the best bet but i would be afraid that the brewers ran him into the ground at the end of last season. i know you weren’t just talking about those players. i was just mentioning them because you did.
lowe is about the only free agent i would want to sign that is out of our price range right now. i could live with furcal although if he goes down im pretty sure our starting ss will be miles rather than ryan.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
i know, but we don't really have that much
extra cash. we gotta pay Albert in 3 short seasons. every penny that gets spent now has to produce & must be productive because in 3 seasons, there will be less of it to go around. MO must spend wisely or we’ll be the astros before you know it.
why is KRod risky in your eyes? he wore down at the end of last season, but that was his coaches fault for trying to get him an unbreakable record instead of focusing on what was best for the teams post season success. CC isn’t that big of risk is he? i’ve watched him since day one out here in cleveland & the guy is just a beast. Rafey is a big risk too, but he seams to have put his health problems behind him. sure there’s still a big risk, but i think it’s probably a little over blown.
if they bring in Lowe, they really should have kept Soup imho. aren’t they pretty much the same pitcher?
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
My quick .02
I would add that KRod is risky beyond just being run into the ground because of his mechanics. He has a very high risk delivery; look at his elbow position relative to his shoulders, etc. Tons of innings while very young + risky mechanics= no thanks.
Victory is sweet, even deep in the cheap seats.
by the red baron on Nov 9, 2008 12:11 AM EST up reply actions
K-Rod
Risk or no risk, giving big money to closers is a bad investment.
Give the closer job to Chris Perez, and pick up a decent “veteran” lefty reliever (not named Fuentes), then fill the rest of the slots cheaply (its actually very easy to do).
This.
k-rod
to me he looked like meat during the playoffs. granted it could have been wearing down as you say but i remember reading that this year was one of his worst statistically despite the saves. i’m just going be memory on that though.
and yeah, cc is basically just a gut feeling. pitching that much that quickly and the end of a long season just seems like the things injuries are made of.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
Except that Ryan Ludwick is a vastly superior player
and this proposed trade would torpedo any chances we have at seeing the postseason.
by JI on Nov 8, 2008 7:42 PM EST up reply actions
vastly superior?
i wouldn’t go there. i think the general consensus is that holliday is the better player but lud is more valuable in that he costs less and he lets us make other moves.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
Adjust for parks, account for defense
Ludwick is way better
by JI on Nov 8, 2008 8:43 PM EST up reply actions
did you read the chuckb's post?
the chart in the middle of the post tells the story.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
we didn't really talk about that
but ludwick played primarily in RF, with time in CF, where “average” defensive performance level is higher. Holliday spent the entire season in LF, where the “average” defensive performance level is lower. I’m not sure it’s fair to say that holliday was 2 wins better than luddy based on defensive performance over players at their position when they didn’t play the same position.
the enemy's gate is down.
the thing people forget about LUD is he can play GG D at all 3 OF positions
whereas Holliday is a LF & a LF only.
correct me if i’m wrong, but from my point of view, this is what this trade comes down to. with LUD the Cards have a ton of flexibility. i.e, payroll, every day line ups, GG D at all OF spots, All Star performance at rock bottom prices. am i leaving anything out?
and with Holliday, they do not have any of those things. he plays LF, only hit’s 4th, costs an arm & a leg, puts up All Star #’s, but, like i said costs an arm & a leg. and finally, he gives Albert the “protection” TRL so desperately craves.
so the question is, why take option B is option A is the all around better choice for your club?
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
no, luddy was below average
at all 3 positions this year, though he didn’t spend much time in LF. But he was passable in all 3, and offers payroll flexibility and offensive upside, whereas there is almost no chance that holliday improves when he comes to STL.
the enemy's gate is down.
and i guess GG defense is debatable
luddy would be a better CF than Nate McLouth, for sure.
the enemy's gate is down.
i was just typing that out about Nate Sleepy
heh, your quick typing beat me to it.
are you sure he’s not above average at all the positions? dude looked really good all season long to me wherever he played.
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
-3 in LF, -1 in CF and -3 in RF
by dewan’s +/-. I agree, he looked like the best LF/RF to me by eye. He didn’t spend that much time in CFC but there were a couple of really bad moments that I can recall.
the enemy's gate is down.
eh, -4 in LF.
those are bases, not runs, btw.
He was +9 in LF, 0 in CF and +1 in RF in 2007, so that is most likely a sample size issue.
the enemy's gate is down.
gotcha
maybe i’m too involved in college football, or my short term memory is shot to hell, but i seam to remember Ank having a lot more problems in the OF than LUD did this past off season. many feel Ank should have won one had he played more games, hence why i threw out the GG thingy.
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
I was thinking the same thing
do all the defensive stats show him to be below average? I just can’t believe that. I suppose it is time to go figure that out on my own.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
I am still bothered by the certainty
that people use when talking about Ludwick’s “below average” defense. I know some of the metrics show that, but look at the RZR data below and tell me who the below average player is:
.918 RZR, (Plays +OOZ)/BIZ = 1.12, plus .992 fielding pct., 10 assists
.905 RZR, (Plays +OOZ)/BIZ = 1.13, plus .988 fielding pct., 9 assists
Well, which one is below average? That’s right, the one on the top who plays the more difficult position, Mr. Ludwick.
I still don’t get it.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
vastly superior?
You have got to be kidding me.
Using 3 year splits (which are pretty helpful, I find, in predicting future performance) Holliday’s line on Triple Crown stats is .329/32/113. Ludwick’s ONLY good season was .299/37/113. That’s it. That’s all he has on his resume.
If we expand those stats…Holliday’s 3 year avg compared to Ludwick’s one season…we have this: (Holliday listed first)
Runs 115/104
OBP .402/.375
SLG .579/.591
OPS .981/.966
Doubles 44/40
Triples 4/3
SB 16/4
CS 4/4
Ks 113/146
Holliday is simply a much better hitter than Ludwick…even if you don’t include the previous 29 years of Ludwick’s life.
At Coors, yeah.
Spread those numbers for the road and they tell a totally different story. Larry Walker was the batting champ three years during his time in Colorado. And he isn’t even close to the HOF. The Coors Effect is massive. Compare that with Ludwick batting in the practically underwater-with-humidity-next-to-the-Mississippi Busch Stadium, where the air is thicker than dew on your windshield in April.
by Red in Chicago on Nov 9, 2008 1:57 AM EST up reply actions
more coors effect scaremongering
if you take Luddy’s 2008 and multiply each type of hit- 1B, 2B, 3B, HR, and BB by the park factor ratio, IE
Hit_Type_Number*(1+Coors_factor)/2 / (1+Busch3_factor)/2 = Adjusted_Hit_type_number,
And then calculate BA, OBP and SLG from those adjustments, luddy’s 2008 line adjusted to Coors looks like:
.319/.389/.661 (1.050 OPS, 44.4 HR)
Doing the exercise in reverse for Holliday results in:
.301/.396/.488 (.883 OPS, 20.8 HR) at busch3.
If this is the wrong way to use park factors, and someone who knows how to do the math wants to do a better job, I’d love to see it (I know at the very least multi-year PF’s should be used, but I’m lazy) but this is pretty scary. That last guy looks a lot less like an MV3 candidate than the one who plays for colorado, while the guy we are trading away looks like a fun player to have on your team.
BTW, Skippy is .321/.383/.442 (.824 OPS, 9.6 HR) in colorado. That is pretty valuable. And of course, albert is a mere .380/.481/.726 (1.208 OPS) with 44.4 HRs.
the enemy's gate is down.
Humidity makes balls fly further.
Catherine whispered into my ear, her breath rich with faraway spices, that she desire to make love. She wanted to try shinshi shinshi. Now, I'd been begging her to try shinshi shinshi for months. She'd refused on the grounds that it was unclean. Finally, she was willing to accept her lover's body in places no one had ever trespassed. Specifically, the ear canal.
negative
“a ball hit 400 ft at 100% relative humidity will be hit 438 ft at 0% relative humidity and 419 ft at 50% relative humidity.” -The Physics of Baseball
the enemy's gate is down.
nice article
but it doesn’t address my statement.
That article talks about the COR of a baseball (or more specifically baseballs kept in a humidor). It says nothing about the air that the ball is traveling through.
Catherine whispered into my ear, her breath rich with faraway spices, that she desire to make love. She wanted to try shinshi shinshi. Now, I'd been begging her to try shinshi shinshi for months. She'd refused on the grounds that it was unclean. Finally, she was willing to accept her lover's body in places no one had ever trespassed. Specifically, the ear canal.
you're right
my bad, i was misreading the last paragraph. Makes sense, I guess, since drag is a function of density and humidity (counter-intuitively) causes air to be less dense.
the enemy's gate is down.
nothing personal
but your argument has more holes in it than it than a New Orleans levee after Katrina.
1. Ludwick was a minor league free agent battling injuries. Now the former top prospect is healthy and a MVP candidate (BTW, Josh Hamilton was a rule 5 draftee—are you going to tell me he sucks because of that?) who hasn’t padded his numbers hitting in Colorado air. He also is controlled by the team for THREE years.
2. Skip Schumaker has worked hard and has improved to the point he can post nearly a .770 OPS while playing center field. That doesn’t make him an MVP candidate, a Hall of Famer or even an All-Star or as good as Matt Holliday. However that kind of production is worth something and not every team has the luxury of starting someone like that in left or center field. He is under control of the team for FOUR years.
3. The fact that on the Rockies blog people they feel they are not getting enough in return for ONE YEAR of Holliday is irrelevant. He may be their best player but to call him their “Pujols” is laughable. He has hit over 30 home runs in a season exactly twice (once more than Ludwick who has hit more homers in a season than Matt Holliday). Holliday jerseys will be bought by maybe members of his family and only you if he is lucky. Did I mention his agent is Scott Boras who always takes his clients to free agency so as to wring the last penny from a team? Did I mention that Holliday costs 3 to 4 times much as Ludwick and Schumaker for this year?
4. You do realize that the Cardinals have gapping holes in their infield and need pitching help? Acquiring a more expensive Holliday takes away money from really improving the team as to a marginal improvement he would bring. Trading away Boggs who could be a serviceable starting pitcher only hurts the pitching staff. I suppose Adam Wainwright is “only” a middle reliever because his first major league appearances were out of the bullpen too? (I am not saying he will be as good as WW)
5. We need to trade outfielders so Tony can’t play them out of positions? WTF?
by nmstar on Nov 8, 2008 10:27 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
"Did I mention his agent is Scott Boras who always takes his clients to free agency so as to wring the last penny from a team?"
That was exactly what everyone said about Kyle Lohse.
Btw, I agree with practically everything you said in your post, although I do believe Holliday jerseys would be extremely popular in St. Louis. All of those people who had Rolen jerseys would have a new favorite.
Catherine whispered into my ear, her breath rich with faraway spices, that she desire to make love. She wanted to try shinshi shinshi. Now, I'd been begging her to try shinshi shinshi for months. She'd refused on the grounds that it was unclean. Finally, she was willing to accept her lover's body in places no one had ever trespassed. Specifically, the ear canal.
Yeah, but there's a huge difference between Matt Holliday and Kyle Lohse.
One is an elite player(Holliday) and will easily get a 100MM contract on the free agent market.
The other had to accept a 1 year deal in March because nobody would sign him last offseason, and had what was quintessentially a career year this year. He’s running a big risk testing the market, because the Cardinals’ offer could come off the table if they signed a better pitcher, and could easily end up having to settle for less. He and Boras know he had a career year.
This.
So, "always" now means "sometimes"
Interesting. i thought “always” meant “always”.
Catherine whispered into my ear, her breath rich with faraway spices, that she desire to make love. She wanted to try shinshi shinshi. Now, I'd been begging her to try shinshi shinshi for months. She'd refused on the grounds that it was unclean. Finally, she was willing to accept her lover's body in places no one had ever trespassed. Specifically, the ear canal.
Maybe there's an explination for that
Boras caught a bull market rate at the beginning of a bear market, while selig is telling owners to curb their spending in preparation for rough times ahead, Boras Got Mo to pay prices from last off season. Does anybody really think lohse would have gotten this deal on the open market?
I am serious... and don't call me Shirley
Agreed so hard.
It’s almost 5 AM here, so take with salt. :-)
Ludwick doesn’t have to post numbers even CLOSE to what he posted this year, and him + Skip would still be worth more than Holliday (assuming that Skip repeated his 2008).
And, just because Boggs sucked this year doesn’t mean jack. In that case, Clay Buchholz, Gio Gonzalez, Phil Hughes, and Andrew Miller are done. Done. Finished. And, these guys are/were top 100 prospects coming into this year.
And, what happens if Colby needs more time in AAA? He is a top 10 prospect, but he isn’t infallible by any means. Being committed to Colby’s development means being willing to send him down to AAA if he needs it.
This.
Agreed so hard.
It’s almost 5 AM here, so take with salt. :-)
Ludwick doesn’t have to post numbers even CLOSE to what he posted this year, and him + Skip would still be worth more than Holliday (assuming that Skip repeated his 2008).
And, just because Boggs sucked this year doesn’t mean jack. In that case, Clay Buchholz, Gio Gonzalez, Phil Hughes, and Andrew Miller are done. Done. Finished. And, these guys are/were top 100 prospects coming into this year.
And, what happens if Colby needs more time in AAA? He is a top 10 prospect, but he isn’t infallible by any means. Being committed to Colby’s development means being willing to send him down to AAA if he needs it.
This.
Question
Can we look at this deal as compared to other major trades?
Just an example: Will this deal have as much value for the price as the Cubs trading for Harden?
Also, who is on the radar to solve our SS woes? Perhaps Mo already has his eyes set on someone. Aren’t we really only paying about 6 million to Holliday this year as well because Luddy was going to cost 5 mil?
Another thing, who leads off without Schu?
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!!
Rasmus leads off
But I don’t think Mo has a shortstop lined up. This is just a trade period. We don’t match up well with teams that have shortstops available, unless we’re talking Khalil Greene or someone like that. Don’t ascribe some master plan to Mo. He’s just heading down a road the manager wanted to go down. He’s been in the job a year and Tony is a Hall of Fame manager. Tony’s driving. Mo’s just screaming at him to watch out for the old ladies in the crosswalk, the pedestrians and the ice on the highway.
by Red in Chicago on Nov 8, 2008 5:07 PM EST up reply actions
i still trust Mo
so far none of his moves have concerned me that much. if this trade goes down i would hope there are other things in the works that make it ok. if not my confidence will be severely shaken.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
Absolutely.
I mean, I think Mo is certainly capable of doing what he thinks is best for the team without Tony’s buy-in or guidance. But Jocketty and LaRussa worked hand-in-glove, so I’m sure that’s a model that resonates with Mo. But, as I said above, I think this is Mo illustrating concisely for DeWitt, Luhnow and LaRussa EXACTLY what this vaunted “protection” will cost.
by Red in Chicago on Nov 8, 2008 10:33 PM EST up reply actions
I never said
getting a SS through a trade. There is the possibility of getting Cabrerra or Edgar again is there not? That would mean through the course of this trade we would clear up outfield jargon, set a new leadoff man, and define the real role that management wants the MI to play in this team, whether that be as a leadoffman, 2 man, or 7 man. However, I know we still need a 2B.
Also, before someone beats me to the punch, yes we still do need the lefties, and please oh please another SP.
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 5:12 PM EST up reply actions
in the harden trade
The cubs received a cost-controlled ace with a significant injury history, whom the Cubs only have to pay roughly $9.5M for a year and a half, and a decent pre-arb starting pitcher whom they used as a reliever.
They gave up a guy who is roughly equivalent to Skip Schumaker, a starting pitcher who isn’t as good as Gaudin but could be better, a 23yo catcher hitting .217 in A ball, and a blocked 2B prospect with a questionable glove and at-best league average bat who immediately became a blocked 2B prospect in Oakland.
If we could get holliday for what the cubs paid for Harden, it would be a no-brainer. Assume gallagher and gaudin were a push, and keeping org depth in mind, the package could look like Skip or Mather, Nick Derba or Steve Hill, and David Freese or Allen Craig.
the enemy's gate is down.
from what I remember what the consensus was on here
Beane just really liked Gallagher. Say what you want about Gallagher, but we just didn’t have the young pitcher that matched up as well with the A’s that the Cubs did have in Gallagher.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
He also had been after Matt Murton for a couple of years.
So, to answer rigosnell, we didn’t have Sean Gallagher and Matt Murton to trade them or really anything else he wanted (like a ML ready MIF).
Catherine whispered into my ear, her breath rich with faraway spices, that she desire to make love. She wanted to try shinshi shinshi. Now, I'd been begging her to try shinshi shinshi for months. She'd refused on the grounds that it was unclean. Finally, she was willing to accept her lover's body in places no one had ever trespassed. Specifically, the ear canal.
Just say no
chuckb and others have already laid out most of the trade offs.
Luddy will make a name for himself if he keeps it up. So the perception of an impact bat could already come from within. I sympathize with Tony’s desire to put pressure on the other team, especially early on in games. But sorry, Tony, I vote no for this deal. Mo – why you changing your priorities list all the sudden? Stick w/ MIF, bullpen, pitching.
born Dodger blue, now dyed Cardinals red
i was wondering that too
i thought it was
1. SS & 2B
2. LHP
3. SP
4. Impact bat
for 25-30 million. so, if this trade goes down you can scratch off #4 but you money drops to 12-17 million. i really hope all this talk is pointing to dewitt adding to payroll…
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
the only thing i can think
is that they really want holliday and they think by the time 1,2, & 3 are taken care of he will be gone. kind of like last year when he signed izturis really earlier and this year when he signed lohse really early.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
My take...
I feel that Matt Holliday is a really good player. However, as has been said earlier, this is a foolish trade. Looking at this in terms of VORP, it comes out like this:
Holliday: 60.4
Ludwick: 53.6
Schumaker: 20.6
I would say that the smart money is that Ludwick would drop a little bit, and that Schumaker’s line is probably about the best you could hope for. So let’s say that Ludwick clicks in at 45 or so and Schumaker comes out at about 20 again. Their total in that situation is still higher than Holliday’s.
Besides that, Boggs is a legitimate prospect. The worst I see is he turns into a Chad Qualls-type late reliever (maybe not as good, but that same general role).
You lose all of this for a marginal (at absolute best) upgrade that is way more expensive. As has been said earlier in different ways…this is foolish.
I’m not sure if TLR is really calling the shots as some would say…I’m not privy to the information that would give a solid answer on that one. But if he is, then he shouldn’t be. There is no law that says Tony La Russa MUST be the Cardinals’ manager, and Mozeliak is the one in charge of creating a team that can win both now and for a long time. TLR’s job is to work with the parts he has to work with. He’s good at that, not so good at overall team creation.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Nov 8, 2008 5:42 PM EST reply actions
Ludwick is a much better player
If this trade goes down the Cardinals will have made two unforgivable moves to start their off season. Mo needs to go.
i have no problem with the lohse deal
first of all, he got a ted lilly/gil meche/jeff suppan type of deal. would you rather have one of those three? i’ll pass. he had better years then all of those guys (and much better than silva i might add).
who did you want to sign? any other decent pitcher on the market is going to want a lot more than $10 mil per year.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
I would have signed any of those guys.
Go after Sheets as a reclamation project, if anything.
Free agent pitchers are a horrible investment, especially mediocre guys like Loshe. You’ll never get full value back.
by JI on Nov 8, 2008 8:42 PM EST up reply actions
then you will end up with no pitching staff
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
We had no pitching this year
and we won 86 games despite Ankiel basically missing half the season, and Wainwirght making 20 starts.
Pitching is overrated, the Loshe money would have been much better spent, say, towards a deal for Frucal to shore up the IF defense and plugging the hole at leadoff.
by JI on Nov 8, 2008 10:37 PM EST up reply actions
"Pitching is overrated"
I’m going to sleep on that one and see if I can make sense of it in the morning.
Catherine whispered into my ear, her breath rich with faraway spices, that she desire to make love. She wanted to try shinshi shinshi. Now, I'd been begging her to try shinshi shinshi for months. She'd refused on the grounds that it was unclean. Finally, she was willing to accept her lover's body in places no one had ever trespassed. Specifically, the ear canal.
You need pitchers who will get outs
A run scored is a run prevented (whether it be by pitching or defense).
Solid defense can make a pitching staff look better than it is.
There is no need to spend on mediocre pitching like Lohse. Either spend on the big guys, spend on locking your young pitchers up to team-friendly contracts (ahem Wainwright) or fill pitching holes cheaply.
This.
star "pitching is overrated"?
That is how I could make sense of it this morning.
I think star pitching is overrated, solid pitching? Not so much.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
yeah, it's 9:23am and it still doesn't make any sense to me.
Catherine whispered into my ear, her breath rich with faraway spices, that she desire to make love. She wanted to try shinshi shinshi. Now, I'd been begging her to try shinshi shinshi for months. She'd refused on the grounds that it was unclean. Finally, she was willing to accept her lover's body in places no one had ever trespassed. Specifically, the ear canal.
The Lohse deal isn't bad
Remember Carlos Silva never really had the king of year that Lohse had last year and the only reason he got by was because his walk totals were so low. Lohse has ligitmately above average stuff with good command. I think that it is safe to say the he is an above average pitcher if only slightly. And with the rise in price for a slightly above average pitcher we actually got a pretty good deal. Next year we will be paying him 8 mil or so which is below market price for an above average pitcher. In each progressing year with the rise of salaries for players like Lohse we would be paying him below market level each year.
by vivaelpujols on Nov 10, 2008 2:18 AM EST up reply actions
Except that Loshe isn't an above average pitcher.
by JI on Nov 11, 2008 5:30 PM EST up reply actions
he was last year
and he finished strong as well. Plus he has always had good stuff, he just needed something to put it all together. i think that was dave duncan. i think that with a little bullpen help he will win 15-18 games for the next 3 or four years.
by vivaelpujols on Nov 11, 2008 8:27 PM EST up reply actions
Holliday is a .280/.348/.455 hitter on the road
in his career
Ludwick, while he can’t be expected to match this years numbers, his most pessimistic projection would be better than this. Plus Holliday costs more, plus you give up other talent, plus 3 years of Ludwick vs. 1 year of Holliday, plus Ludwick’s superior defense.
This trade is a turd.
I don't know
This is what ZIPS predicts for Lud 274/347/522
I think you are way off base stating Ludwick is wayyyyyyyyyy better than Holliday. I would say they appear to be pretty similar and as Chuckb has stated and shown Holliday is probably a bit better player than Lud.
Maybe you are just trying to make some statement but why do you say Lud is so much better? Pure Meatball Homerism?
zips, like all projection systems, is broken with players like luddy and ankiel
just ignore the projections, or develop an algorithm that works for players who have non-typical career paths. A projection that assumes they are typical players will never come close to being correct.
the enemy's gate is down.
+1
I get tired of hearing statistical projections on guys like this. It means nothing.
by tangledbrett on Nov 8, 2008 11:04 PM EST up reply actions
ankiel’s a problem for the stats projections, since there have been obvious sample size and development issues. but that’s not really the case with ludwick. you’re not beating zips or chone or whatever with a 30-yo who’s been on the field and healthy the last three years. no sense in trying, but i’m sure some folks will.
luddy's first healthy year EVER was 2007
and he had sporadic playing time that year because TLR thought juan encarnacion was “the core player”.
Missing by a ton on guys like ludwick and ankiel is not a big negative for the projection systems; you just have to understand their flaws and know when to use them.
There are assumptions made, when developing the systems. The players we are talking abot have career paths that don’t fit the model, so they can’t be projected using the model.
it’s like trying to use an inviscid flow model to design an airfoil for a supersonic airplane; you’ll get answers that don’t work for your application. And that is fine, it doesn’t mean the basic models are bad, when used in places where the underlying assumptions apply; it just means you have to know more about the subject than just the basic “he’s a 30yo rhb” to get a good prediction of future output.
If you asked the guys who developed the systems, they would almost certainly say the same thing. If they didn’t, I’d be very concerned.
the enemy's gate is down.
"it’s like trying to use an inviscid flow model to design an airfoil for a supersonic airplane"
Wow! You took the words right out of my mouth!!!
Catherine whispered into my ear, her breath rich with faraway spices, that she desire to make love. She wanted to try shinshi shinshi. Now, I'd been begging her to try shinshi shinshi for months. She'd refused on the grounds that it was unclean. Finally, she was willing to accept her lover's body in places no one had ever trespassed. Specifically, the ear canal.
I think that project is a bit short on power
But I don’t think Holliday is as good as that line (though he would have more contact and fewer homers), and when you factor in defense and salary Ludwick is much more attractive.
by JI on Nov 8, 2008 10:39 PM EST up reply actions
What was the ZIPS projection for Ludwick
for the 2008 season?
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
compelled to redundant post
I’m in the camp waving the Ludwick-alone-is-too-much-for-Holliday banner. And it seems a waste of Skip’s value to move him for a piece that, considering our pressing MI needs, is relatively redundant. Let’s get that shortstop, let’s go into spring training with Rasmus having a great shot to break camp as the starting cf. Let’s keep 2008’s #2 slugger for a few years. Let’s spend some coin on a lh reliever (Ah for the days hopefully approaching when bullpen construction won’t cost us big free agent dollars and perhaps even draft picks). Granted I haven’t provided any tangible solutions to our gaps, but I think I fall in w/ the Affeldt, Zobrist, Brandon Wood oh my bunch.
by infallibleopiniongenerator on Nov 8, 2008 8:53 PM EST reply actions
I like Skip as much as the next guy
but since when did an outfielder with limited power and the so far inability to hit lefties really have that much value? Even if you add the defense , I still don’t see teams giving up much for him. Maybe I am wrong, but I don’t see Skip bringing back anything in a trade except a comparable player or a prospect. Am I the only one who sees Skip’s value as that of someone who is added to sweeten a trade proposal for a superior player?
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
i didn't really articulate my position
I agree with you, but I think it’s a waste of the value he does have to use him as a sweetener to a package already including a cheaper Matt Holliday-ish player to acquire Matt Holliday. Let’s put him in a package for a ss, for a young starter, or a young bullpenner.
by infallibleopiniongenerator on Nov 8, 2008 9:58 PM EST up reply actions
you left out he grounds out to 2nd in 850% of his at bats
i like Skippy too, but if he’s gonna block Colby, (and right now only TLR knows the answer) he needs to go.
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
yes, he needs to go
but he was more valuable than carl crawford and Chris Young in 2008. he should have at least some trade value.
the enemy's gate is down.
A team like Seattle desperately needs a guy like Schumaker
(and maybe even Ducan too)
by JI on Nov 8, 2008 10:39 PM EST up reply actions
Uhh, he plays CF well.
A .770 OPS from your centerfielder isn’t
He doesn’t play GG defense. He’s not an MVP candidate. Your team can’t be made of GGs and MVPs. A bunch of superstars on big contracts and a measly farm system turns you into the Yankees of 2008, and they missed the playoffs by how many games?
Of the 8 teams that made the playoffs, I would say 5 featured a strong, home-grown core to supplement the trades/FA signings (Tampa, Boston, Milwaukee, Philly, Dodgers). Yeah, the Dodgers did need Manny and Colletti isn’t really the epitome of intelligence, but the reason they got into the playoffs was not as much Manny as it was their core of Loney, Kemp, Martin, Ethier (yes he was acquired in a trade, but a established player-for-prospect trade), DeWitt, Billingsley, Broxton, and Kershaw. Solid play for the bulk of the season for most of them.
The three that didn’t were all first round eliminations anyways.
This.
a .770 OPS from your CF isn't bad
I might be in the wrong here, I just think that until he proves that he is a an everyday player by being able to post more than a .474 OPS against lefties, then he is what he is, and that is mostly a platoon OFer
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
Keep in mind
LA won 84 games last year and had the Cardinals been in the West Division, they would have won it by 2 games.
Basically, I’m saying I don’t really want to hear how the Dodgers were such an example to the Cardinals when they were worse and played in a shitty division.
Catherine whispered into my ear, her breath rich with faraway spices, that she desire to make love. She wanted to try shinshi shinshi. Now, I'd been begging her to try shinshi shinshi for months. She'd refused on the grounds that it was unclean. Finally, she was willing to accept her lover's body in places no one had ever trespassed. Specifically, the ear canal.
Misc. Thoughts
I like the idea of the Holliday acquisition but I also agree that something positive has to be done regarding SS & 2B. I hope that a Holliday trade would not impact the possibility of upgrading those positions. I would hope that the Cards would still have adequate trade chips and $ for free agents to address those needs. I agree that trading for Holliday would not make much sense if we have the same middle infield, but such assumption may be invalid. I want to see all needs addressed and an impact bat to protect Pujols is just one of the needs. Trade for Holliday and that need is solved.
I also think that it may be invalid to assume that payroll would not be increased for the right players. I am probably to optimistic but I think that a SS, 2B and left specialist can all be acquired through one more trade and two FA signings.
ludwig was great, but...
in games i watched he popped it up ALOT and he strikeout even more. i think that the only way the he will continue to be AS productive is by having a healthy dose of hitting in front of albert. that said holiday would probably do better in that spot than ludwig. though not enough to trade him i think.
dude
his name is Ludwick. with a C and a K. the first few times i overlooked it, figured it could’ve been a mistake. but you call him ludwig every time.
Ludwick = kick ass baseball player
Ludwig = kick ass drum set
"I'm as nauseous as I've ever been. I have a terrible headache. My head is pounding. I feel like throwing up and I'm having trouble swallowing. And the beauty of it is, you want to feel like this every day." - Tony LaRussa
He's a pop-up and K-heavy guy
and always will be. What impressed me in 08, however, was that when he hit the ball, he hit it HARD. That says outstanding bat speed to me, which is why, although I doubt he will quite reach his 2008 production again, he’s likely to come damn close.
Moz, keep your powder dry for middle infielders. Even an average hitter at SS improves the team more than the marginal upgrade Holliday would provide.
by MdRedbirdFreak on Nov 9, 2008 10:35 AM EST up reply actions
as a 2010 FA
holliday might have a market of 10 teams, willing to take on a 5/125 contract.
any club with the funds and desire to sign him long term, should wait out the market and allow him to become a FA.
he’s too close to free agency to trade for him now. the ludwick investment lost, is too great of risk, if holliday signs elsewhere after 09.
if stl managment decided to absorb holliday in a bugdet increase, they should target holliday as a 2010 FA, for a holliday, rasmus, ludwick outfield in 2010.
that just about sums up my shole thinking on this subject
now why did it take you 320+ comments to get it there?
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
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
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
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.
