What's the trade market like for Ryan Ludwick?

by ICEYhawtSTUNNAZ on Dec 18, 2008 12:30 AM EST Comment 22 comments

Something to get the trade juices pumping again; feel free to yell at me if this should be in the hot stove thread...

Aside from Colby Rasmus, I'd say Ludwick is out hottest trade chip right now, but the teams that were purportedly looking for a corner outfielder with a bat (or should be looking for one if the aren't) either A) already got one this offseason (Tampa got Matt Joyce, Philadelphia got Raul Ibanez) B) aren't offering what we want (Matt Cain is off limits, Jonathan Sanchez seems hard to pry loose, and Kelly Johnson is extraneous if we're keeping Kennedy) C) don't have what we want (Texas has no starting pitching) or D) are in our division (Pirates bounty).

However, it does seem like our old friends in Cleveland might be able to help out. They very well might have the worst corner outfield in their division, and they have Jeremy Sowers, a young, cheap good pitcher and Rafael Perez, a fairly nasty, also young, also cheap lefty reliever. Ludwick for Sowers/Perez/prospect certainly seems like a good fit for both parties to me, in addition to being probably the only fit that doesn't fall into those 4 categories I mentioned before. Just curious to hear what you all think. I'm getting hot-stove withdrawal.

0 recs | Comment 22 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Or we could trade Luddy for Anthony Reyes

by vivaelpujols on Dec 18, 2008 12:43 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think

your post seems sound, but the numbers will give it flight (on Sowers and Perez, I don’t know who they are)… otherwise, yeah, throw it into the stove

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 18, 2008 1:51 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

you dont know who sowers and perez are

but your gonna tell the guy his post is in the wrong place?

there sure are a bunch of post nazi’s around here

Milt Thompson FTW!

by gossard56 on Dec 18, 2008 9:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

sorry

I apologize… but it would be more informative with that info

this line is dedicated to '09

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Dec 18, 2008 3:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

Calm down….Its the holidays :)

by madeintaiwan on Dec 19, 2008 2:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

nazis is plural

not possessive. It should be “nazis”, not nazi’s."

by chuckb on Dec 19, 2008 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs

additionally

“your” should be “you’re.”

by chuckb on Dec 19, 2008 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs

You know,

I thought about going this route, but I figured I would end up taking grief over it.

Also, “Nazis” is a proper noun.

by spants on Dec 19, 2008 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Now, that is an interesting argument to be had, though.

If we are talking about ‘post nazis’ have we adjectified the word to the point where it is no longer a proper noun? It’s certainly not actually ascribing National Socialism to the person, as we are specifically referring to them as a modifier of ‘post’, where it would be gibberish to apply a toxic political philosophy to posting behaviour.

But then again, if we are to take it in the metaphorical sense, then perhaps it is more proper to capitalize. Still, in the future, sidestepping the issue with the more directly applicable term ‘posting gestapo’ would seem prudent.

They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...

by Valatan on Dec 20, 2008 11:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

really, though, i just wanted to extend the grammar debate

They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...

by Valatan on Dec 20, 2008 11:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm

always in favor of that. :)

by spants on Dec 21, 2008 1:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

I don’t think it really is a proper noun when used in this context. If you’re talking about Germany’s National Socialist party — Nazis is a proper noun. However, if the term is used as an insult the term is being used to, essentially, describe one’s behavior. He wasn’t literally calling us members of the Gernan National Socialist party of the 1930s and 40s. He’s saying that we’re acting like dictators who are enforcing draconian rules. Therefore, it’s not a proper noun when used in this context. Are there any linguistic experts who can chime in to solve this conundrum?

by chuckb on Dec 20, 2008 11:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not a linguistic expert here...

But, if we are giving them the title of Post Nazi, then it should be capitalized regardless of membership to the Nazis in Germany several decades ago.

by stlfan on Dec 21, 2008 10:16 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Say what you want...

… about the tenets of National Socialism. At least it’s an ethos.

Kindly visit my Webbed log.

by Anonymous Communist on Dec 23, 2008 11:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, no

it’s inconsistent and strange. But that wins bizarre comment of the year.

They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...

by Valatan on Dec 23, 2008 1:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Big_Lebowski

Space.

It's a problem we face.

So we never go anywhere.

We just stay in one place.

by hazel on Dec 23, 2008 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ah.

They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...

by Valatan on Dec 23, 2008 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We're not going to get equal value for Ludwick

Yes, he’s cheap, but he’s also old-ish and has a long, long injury history. Teams aren’t going to pay for him like they would other premiere hitters who are proven more durable and have more consistent track records.

Given that, it makes no sense to trade him just to get rid of him. He was probably the single most overlooked offensive force in the NL last year, even by our fanbase — the guy had a 150 OPS+, for chrissake. He wasn’t Pujols at the plate, but he was just about as close as anyone else in the NL.

by mojowo11 on Dec 18, 2008 3:35 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Age/how they'd pay

Have more to do with the market of teams he is limited to whom he’d be traded rather than us having the highest evaluation. He’d be tremendously valuable to a contender but to a team like the Orioles or Marlins or Texas who have the 2B studs, a player who is likely going to be in decline by the time they fancy themselves a chance at contending just isn’t valuable.

It’s a time thing. The only reason for the Cardinals to deal Ludwick is to get immediate help—-and the only reason the hypothetical trading partner would trade something of immediate value is to get future value for when they will contend. Ludwick doesn’t provide much future value (3-7 years down the road) at 30 thus he has next to no value to a non-contender. And no contender is going to open up one hole in their team to plug another unless they’re being run by Steve Phillips.

Not afraid to nitpick

by joker24 on Dec 18, 2008 9:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sowers

you’re right on 2 of 3 counts – he’s young and cheap. On the 3rd count (good), he’s not so much. There’s a good probability that he would not outperform our 5th and 6th starters. Classic case of a guy with the right combination of command and stuff to waltz thru the minors, but then not have it match up well against major leaguers. I worry that PJ Walters may share a similar fate.

by siddfynch on Dec 18, 2008 8:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Sowers was dominant in the AAA in 2 of the last 3 years

He career strikeout to walk ratio in the bigs is about 1.5, not a very encouraging sign. I might take a chance on him because he is a lefty, but I wouldn’t trade Luddy for him and a lefty reliever.

by vivaelpujols on Dec 18, 2008 12:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I love this place

You more or less summed up my thought on this as well. I see Sowers as a classic soft-tossing lefty whose MLB performance doesn’t match his minor league track record. Not to say he couldn’t put things together – but that’s not the value I’d want for Ludwick.

by airhad on Dec 18, 2008 9:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs