Leveraging Future Surplus for Present Wins
by azruavatar on Aug 1, 2010 4:00 AM EDT
Email
PrintI know a lot of you aren't happy with this trade. I'm not here to tell you it's a blockbuster that John Mozeliak knocked out of the park. I think it's a very defensible trade in which the Cardinals leveraged future surplus for a shot at the division title this season. If you characterize the trade in that fashion, and I'll lay it all out for you, the trade is defensible. You can still not like the trade but I hope you'll come around to the idea that it was a rational move.
I wish Mozeliak would have thrown me a scrap to work with in his comments to the media. Mozeliak is walking a fine line here and it leaves us with terribly delivered rationale for the trade:
Why we did the deal? We felt like we had to change something up.
There's a handful of quotes from scribes and articles that Ludwick was a great clubhouse guy so I don't think that this was a "chemistry" deal. But gosh that quote sounds like moving deck chairs on the Titanic so that you've done something. I don't think that's the case but to make a rational argument for this trade, you've got to throw two players on your team under the bus (Hawksworth and Suppan). Mozeliak can't really do that, not should he. Fortunately, I've no such inhibitions.
Let's set the stage here. We need to first identify the value of Ryan Ludwick. Ludwick was owed $1.8M* over the rest of the season. He was probably going to earn around $9M in his final year of arbitration. Over the next 225ABs (the remainder of the season) he's likely to be worth 8.5 runs on offense, 2 runs on defense, 7 runs for being a warm body and -2.5 for his position. So all told he's a 1.5 WAR player for the rest of the year. That's about a $4M dollar surplus in 2010. Based on his current ZiPS projection (.358 wOBA), I've got him as about 3 WAR moving foward. This includes a 80% playing time adjustment since he hasn't reached 600 PA since 2008 and has missed significant time in 2010. You could argue he's more of a 3.5 WAR in 2011 but then you'd have to start your own blog post. If he gets $9M and produces 3 WAR that's a $3M surplus.
Currently, Ludwick would be a type A free agent. I'm not going to get into a protracted guessing game as to what he'll be after another 15 months of life and baseball but there's some potential value in offering him arbitration that the Cardinals are losing out on. I'm going to be conservative here (remember Ludwick has a long injury track record that could derail his free agent status) and assume that he'll be a type B free agent which is $2.6M in compensation. So we're trading $4M in surplus in 2010 and $5.6M in surplus from 2011. About $10M in surplus total. This is in a vacuum.
Jake Westbrook is owed about $3.6M over the rest of the season but, from what I can tell, the Cardinals are on the hook for something equivalent to Ludwick's salary so $1.8M. Westbrook projects as a 4.51 FIP player moving forward. He's likely to get 11 starts over the rest of the season, let's say that's 66 innings. Pitcher's in the AL get dinged for facing stiffer opponents. We're going to use 4.25 FIP moving forward for Westbrook to compensate for this. So a 4.25 FIP puts his WAR at 1.0 for the rest of the season or about a $2M dollar surplus.
In 2010, the Cardinals come out $1M in the red. In a vacuum for this season, the Cardinals held par with the trade.
Of course, that ignores the value that Ludwick provides in 2011. This is where things get messy because there's a host of complicating factors that are very difficult to quantify.
- The Cardinals are in a pennant race and their marginal wins are more valuable in 2010 than in 2011. An extra win to the Cardinals in 2010 should count for more than a extra win in 2011. How much more? I have no idea how to put a number on that. If the Cardinals make the playoffs they get additional ticket gate sales so you could argue that the addition of a single marginal win could be critical and worth millions.
- Opportunity cost. We complain about this alot when a crappy veteran is talking away at bats from a prospect in the minors. You lose the chance to see what that player can do. It's doubly damning if that player is on the 40-man roster and you're burning an option year. This year we've been confronted by something different. The Cardinals have a productive player in Ryan Ludwick as well as Matt Holliday, Allen Craig and Jon Jay. The Cardinals are losing service time control on these players (and I'm primarily lookin at Rasmus here) without maximizing their contributions. There's value in giving these players more playing time that we otherwise would not have gotten. I can't stress how important it is to consider that for the same price we might get an extra 5 runs out of Rasmus & Jay than we otherwise would have gotten. More on this later.
- The offense has underperformed on paper all season. Count me among the group that wanted to add offense at the trade deadline. That type of Kelly Johnson/Dan Uggla deal never materialized. The reality, however, is that our offense has been underperforming ALL season. Albert is having a down year. Skip and Boog have hit into a ton of bad luck. On paper, we have a good offense and it should have better results than what we've seen. We can't say this about the rotation. There's been no truly bad luck from the rotation other than some injuries. We're running out replacement level players (or worse) in Jeff Suppan and Blake Hawksworth 2 out of every 5 days.
There's one primary counter argument to this trade: We should have gotten more for Ludwick. Several commenters have said this and, admittedly, I agree with them to some extent. We could have waited for the offseason and possibly gotten more. The problem I have with this is that the market for Ludwick didn't seem to materialize. I think I've succinctly laid out Ludwick's $$$ so please don't tell me I don't understand that valuation. My argument is that regardless of what we perceive or calculate his value to be, the market did not consider him worth that much.
Remember that the very first mention of Ludwick being involved came from a NL club -- likely it wasn't the Padres or the Cardinals. You'd hear something like that as coming from a "padres source". It was not a secret that Moz was trying to move Ludwick. The argument that we should have gotten more relies on Mozeliak not doing his due diligence with other teams AND other teams being dumb. Both of those premises are extremely suspect. Indeed, we've looked at this as the Cardinals being the primary movers in this trade. More likely, it looks like it was the Padres greasing the wheels.
So if the Cardinals weren't able to capitalize on Ludwick's total value, the argument then proceeds that they should have kept him. That's risky business. Who knows what the offseason market winds up producing for you. You've also then passed up the chance to upgrade for the 2010 run. It's unrealistic to think that the Cardinals could have kept Ludwick at $9M in 2011. It was never going to happen with their payroll constraints. They traded him now for a) a certain return and b) the marginal 2010 wins.
Walt Jocketty was often criticized for leveraging the future of the club for the present value. Mozeliak is doing that now but on a very small scale. I like the decision calculus here but I'll readily admit that the team seems to be leaving some future surplus on the table -- probably something on the order of $5M.
*All figures are best guesses gleaned from yesterday's reporting.
* * *
So, now that I've done my part as the team's salesperson, I've got a bone to pick. I made the argument yesterday that Jon Jay/Allen Craig help to mitigate the trade of Ryan Ludwick. I stand behind that. I may have been overly optimistic with my numbers for Jon Jay. I threw out a .340 wOBA but it's probably closer to .330 wOBA. I've never been high on Jay as a player. I'm on the record numerous times as Jay as a fourth outfielder. Still, a .330 wOBA is average and that changes the decision calculus further if you remove the trade from the vacuum.
It also takes a decision out of the hands of Tony LaRussa. TLR has said that Jay was "earning his at bats". The problem has been he's earning them at the expense of the better player in Colby Rasmus. John Mozeliak has effectively taken this decision out of the hands of TLR. That's a good thing. Time and again this season, TLR has made baseball decisions based on faulty evaluation that relies too much on his personal relationship with a player and too little on their on the field abilities.
Equally damning has been the roster decisions and that falls on the shoulders of the front office to a large degree. Putting players like Aaron Miles, Nick Stavinoha and Mike MacDougal on the roster over players like Tyler Greene, Allen Craig and Fernando Salas is inexcusable. In each case, the latter player is definitively more talented and definitively more probable to produce than the former. TLR only compounds the folly by giving those players time on the field.
This club is in a tight pennant race. The club has some touch decisions coming up. When Allen Craig is available in 5 days, he should be recalled and Stavinoha should be demoted. There is not an excuse for this not taking place. When Kyle Lohse returns, Jeff Suppan should be DFA'd. Moving him to the bullpen is a failure. Getting him off the team is the decision that should be made. Mike MacDougal should be sent down for Fernando Salas. When David Freese returns, Aaron Miles should be DFA'd.
These are, imo, obvious talent based decisions. If the club isn't making them, someone isn't doing their job. They've made a good move for 2010 in acquiring Westbrook. They need to show equally good judgment regarding their other players on the 2010 roster. The organization cannot afford to be giving away runs at the margins in the 2010 NL Central race.
* * *
There's a lot of other things going on here that I'd like to talk about but having written a ton already I'm going to cut short:
- This means bad things about Brad Penny, imo. I don't think the club expects him back this season.
- Westbrook's fastball has been "worse" this season per the linear weights. First of all, remember that pitch type linear weights leave out important things like sequencing so I wouldn't get too worked up over them. Still to address Flim's question from yesterday, the reason the fastball is down in value is almost certainly due to command. His first pitch strikes are way down. He's probably struggling to put the sinker in the bottom of the zone rather than out of the zone. It also could be random fluctuation. I wouldn't read much into it.
- I'm not sure if we'll pick up another player of the waiver wire. If we do, it's likely possible because the Cardinals kept this as a cash neutral deal. If they had spent the extra $2M to get Westbrook and keep Ludwick, they'd have dealt some flexibility in the process.
* * *
Always check the captions. Robots can't write nearly as well as they can quip. Know your strengths.
484 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Cards offense
I was OK with the trade from the start. The lack of quality pitching from the 4 and 5 starters seems to have been wearing on the bullpen lately. Westbrook is a proven innings eater who can come in and ease some of that strain.
Yeah, I’ll miss Ludwick tremendously, but I think going with the kids will work out OK in the short term.
I’m not trying to stir up trouble or be overly negative, given the team’s position in the standings, but I’m starting to wonder if the offense might best be improved by changing the hitting coach or getting McGwire some help. Looking at all of the Cardinals’ position players, last year to this year, it’s getting harder and harder to make the case as the season wears on that McGwire is doing a decent job. Maybe he’s over his head? Would he accept the Cards’ bringing in a consultant to teach him on the job or something?
I mostly lurk on this site and don’t dive much into the comments, so apologies if this topic is old hat.
I don't think this can be laid at feet of McGwire.
I give Ryan a pass because he is playing after surgery — no one knows here if he is 100% and he didn’t get a spring training. I expect him to be better each month. Schu was already at his ceiling. I never expected him to get better and he hasn’t. Holliday and Pujols are having MVP seasons -that is both will get MVP votes. Mr Freeze was doing well before he got hurt. Lopez has had a typical season. Luddy was great. Molina has been worse —again I never expected him to be as good as he had been, so no surprise. Rasmus has been the big conundrum - do we think that is McGwire’s fault. I don’t. The bench is awful — that is Mo’s fault.
To me it boils down to not having a strong 2B who can set the table, injuries, and a horrid year for Ryan— if we did, we would have 3-5 more wins and running away with the division
Just win
yes...
Ryan had wrist surgery albeit a simple one. Who knows how that has affected his swing?
You fit into me
like a hook into an eye
a fish hook
an open eye
Good reply
I see what you’re saying, but Yadi is hitting down in the .230s, which is flat-out terrible. Despite Pujols’ MVP quality numbers, I can’t recall a season where he’s been hitting 30 points below his career average this late in the year.
If there were one or two hitters who were hitting above their career norms, I’d write it off as a fluke, but even Holliday looks to be simply treading water.
And while Ryan is coming back from injury, a falloff of 100 points (which has lessened in the past couple of days) is pretty extreme, especially when he’s being platooned on occasion.
The only guys who’ve surprised this year have been the youngsters, Freese and Jay, which makes me wonder whether Mac’s strengths as a hitting coach are better suited to working with youngsters than helping out established vets. (I remember hearing/reading somewhere that Mac doesn’t use nearly as many film sessions as most hitting coaches, for instance.)
by Dirk Dorkelson on Aug 1, 2010 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions
i worry the kids will be a stav-jay platoon, not a craig-jay platoon
just like greene is not in the infield rotation as much as miles
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
I thought I read something from Goold recently
about how Craig was going to be called up on Wednesday since it had been10 days or 15 or however many was required.
Albert Pujols does not have "down" years. He has "~6 WAR" years.
Ok, your argument is pretty convincing
As I had said in the other thread, I think the Cardinals come out as good or better of a team after this trade than before.
That being said, it was a bad trade – or at the very least it should have been better. The Indians gave up Westbrook for a C/B- prospect on the Padres and paid cash to both teams. You don’t think that they would have accepted Lance Lynn or Adam Ottavino or Daryl Jones or one of our fringe prospects? I do, and thus I think trading Ludwick was unnecessary.
Secondly, when you do trade Ludwick you had better get a lot more back than 1/2 year of Westbrook, and a C prospect. If Ludwick is being paid 11 million over the remainder of his time under team control, that makes him close to a 10 million dollar surplus value. I know that the trade is not made in a vaccum, but you should always get a fair return for your assets. If you trade a 10 million dollar surplus player – especially one who could help teams in pennant races – you should definitely get more than 1/2 year of Westbrook and a C prospect.
So, my opinion, still a horrible trade from Mo based on what I’m seeing. It might actually help our team, but Mo did a terrible job of valuing assets – both ours and others.
by vivaelpujols on Aug 1, 2010 4:46 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
In a word, no.
If the Indians would have accepted Lynn/Ott/DJ straight up for Westbrook, that trade would have been made. Give Mo at least a little credit here. Options like this were undoubtedly explored and rejected by Cleveland.
StanTheManFan
Contributes any way he can.
He's normally a nuclear physicist
Except when writing for this list.
by StanTheManFan on Aug 1, 2010 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions
i disagree
because i think the objective was to move lud
nothing else in this 3-way craziness makes sense to me
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
+1
addition by subtraction although it seems like the club house loved him.
maybe he got everyone too amped up? Who the hell knows but what’s done is done let’s win some games and play some fall ball.
You fit into me
like a hook into an eye
a fish hook
an open eye
maybe, maybe not.
Most likely Shapiro had latitude to accept a player like Lynn, but his negotiating objective was the player they got from SD. If Mo had played a little tougher, they would almost certainly have accepted a lower offer, because they really had very little leverage. Keeping Westbrook did not benefit them in any way, moving him saved them $$$, and if they let the trade deadline pass, they’d end up getting nothing for him (or at best, a lower prospect). Mo had the most leverage- we didn’t NEED Westbrook, we had the best player to change hands in the deal, we didn’t need to move luddy, we could have claimed Westbrook after the deadline, etc. yet he still overpaid.
This is yet another example of Mo failing to negotiate as effectively as possible. Much like the Holliday, DeRosa and Greene trades, and the Lohse and Holliday extensions, he clearly overpaid. I’ve gone from really supporting him, to being really disappointed in him, over the course of about two years.
Well the girls would turn the color of the avocado when he would drive down the street in his El Dorado... -the modern lovers
by SleepyCA on Aug 1, 2010 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Although Lynn would have been an even bigger overpay
an ottavino or Jones would have been a more acceptable price.
Well the girls would turn the color of the avocado when he would drive down the street in his El Dorado... -the modern lovers
Only if he heals
and it’s not clear that he’s going to.
StanTheManFan
Contributes any way he can.
He's normally a nuclear physicist
Except when writing for this list.
by StanTheManFan on Aug 1, 2010 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Can't you removed a non-healed player off of the DL
trade them, and then the target team puts them on the DL?
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
good point
but there are several others in the org who fit the same description.
Well the girls would turn the color of the avocado when he would drive down the street in his El Dorado... -the modern lovers
I think
the Cards probably could have traded Lynn for Westbrook but didn’t want to. In order to pay Albert, the Cards must develop some cheap starting pitching (along with having a fairly cheap bullpen and a few cheap infielders and outfielders). Lynn is, in my view, an important component to the Cards’ future – not as a star but as a cheap starter. Thus, the Cards preferred trading Ludwick, an outfielder getting more expensive and one who can be somewhat replaced by cheap youngsters. The subcontext of the trade is it’s all about Albert’s future contract. Luddy was obviously gone no later than after the 2011 season, if he lasted that long. So, why trade a young minor-league starter instead of an expensive current player? Having said all that, I think the Padres should have given up better prospects for 1.5 years of Luddy.
why dump lud's salary now
when we have such trouble scoring?
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
Amen!
Baseball first, teams second, players third, agents last.
by Dave Pendleton on Aug 1, 2010 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions
agree, Lynn would have been too much to pay
so at least Mo didn’t screw up THAT badly.
Well the girls would turn the color of the avocado when he would drive down the street in his El Dorado... -the modern lovers
Good job of trying to make this a rational trade
But I am still standing by my opinion that this was most likely a trade that was made out of desperation and quite frankly made quickly without much serious thought invloved about the value of Ryan Ludwick….or at least it seems that way to me.
To me it is one of two things:
1. Tony for some reason wanted Luddy gone and Mo made it happen despite the lopsided value of the trade. Don’t forget he released Kennedy with 4 million still on the hook to please Tony.
2. I hate to think this….but Mo just might not be as savvy the Gm and just might not possess “baseball smarts” that at least I thought he had. He was desperate to get a pitcher being Westbrook and took the first deal he could get done the quickest because of the deadline.
If this was a pure salary dump then he should have waited till winter with the hopes of getting a little more in return. DeWitt is on record in saying that they could take on some salary this season…so I have a hard time buying that as an excuse. And I have even a harder time thinking we couldn’t get Westbrook without trading Ludwick to San Diego.
Now I know Jay and Craig are ready to take his spot and should fill in and contribute. That I have no problem with. What I have a problem with is trading Ludwick for a 4th starter who will only be with us for 2 months. If Luddy was part of a package with some prospects to get a Haren or Oswalt and even Cliff Lee ….that I could swallow… at least a pitcher that would be with us next year. But this whole thing leaves me with a bad view of Mo…and I really wish it didn’t. It’s the kind of trade that just isn’t a smart trade…even with our need of a 4th starter. I just can’t see not being able to put together a package that could give the Indians a fair return for 2 months of Westbrook that didn’t include trading Ludwick. It just isn’t a good value for value trade for a team that is contending.
Boy a frosty cold Budweiser would be great about now"…long pause…then an "aahhh". --Mike Shannon
Mo was the guy who brought Ludwick to Cardinals
I think he knows the value of ludwick. I also can’t think of a single reason why TLR would want Ludwick off the roster.
this thread is all Aaron Mile's fault.
yeah, i'd think tlr wouldn't have a single problem with luddy personally
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
TLR has seen a lot of players in his day come and go.....
The idea that he wanted Luddy gone, or that any player that gets traded or demoted or whatever is one he wants “gone” is competely unsubstaniated. Well-liked players get traded; well-liked players don’t get re-signed because they cost too much, etc,. Grasping for personality-based rationales for every decision is a fruitless exercise. I guess TLR wanted Chris Duncan “gone” too. Wait, no he didn’t.
Why would this be a “pure salary dump”? The deal was money-neutral so there was no “dump.” And we got back a starting pitcher in Westbrook – a worthwhile player. It’s not a salary dump by the very definition of what a “salary dump” move is.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Aug 1, 2010 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions
it's essentially a salary dump
in that we had to dump luddy to pay for westbrook because apparently we have no money to spend this year. if we could have paid westbrook ourselves i’m sure we could have just given the indians a prospect and the salary relief, which is what they got for westbrook. then we could have kept luddy for the run this year and moved him in the off-season.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
But since we also essentially traded a good player for a decent player, it's not a salary dump in the traditional, trading a player for cash or essentially nothing sense.
אנא טוני לא יותר ט.א.ס.ס
obviously
but it’s essentially that, either to pay for westbrook and/or to free salary to spend on a MIF’er off waivers. either way, dumping lud’s money mattered, else we would have dealt straight-up with cleveland for westbrook.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
a salary dump is when you trade away an asset for NOTHING, just to remove the asset's salary
a salary dump IS NOT when you trade a present asset for another present asset, only at a different position, in a salary neutral deal.
This isn’t a “salary dump” by any definition of the term.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Aug 1, 2010 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions
yes, we all know what a salary dump is in literal terms
this amounts to, or is essentially, a salary dump is what i said, although if we did indeed acquire westbrook from san diego rather than from cleveland that would change things quite a bit and i’d say luddy was just the talent-cost of acquiring westbrook and san diego did well by buying something and selling it for double the same day.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
I Still Think..
…it is less a salary dump as it was shoring up the rotation, which, as has been pointed out previously, was trotting out below-par pitchers every 4-5 starts. Westie is gonna be better than Soup or Hawk, and when Lohse gets back (and hopefully effective) our 1-5 cud be impressive. If u wait and make the dump later then u don;t get the pitching help NOW. Trading Luddy was painful, but unless we were trading any baby birds (and the FO was not going to do that) then there wasn’t much choice left. Our surplus was in the OF, and there was probably a moooch better market for Luddy than Craig or anyone else not named Rasmus. So I believe the choice was make the Westie trade for Luddy or do nothing. I think do nothing was potentially a worse option – we don;t even know that Lohse coming back will be effective. And I for one am happy we kept of baby birds, especially the Shelbster.
I didn’t want to see Cowlick leave this team any moore than anyone else, but sometimes u have to make a moove like this for the overall betterment of the team, and I think MO did that – although it is a shame we cudn’t get moore for him, but I suspect Mo got what he cud.
I do think Soup, Stav, and MacDoogie’s days with the main club are numbered – but expect Grit to stay with the team. He’s TLR’s rabbit’s foot at this point. Remember, even in this day and age people involved in baseball are notoriously superstitious.
Big McLargehuge!
:=8O
Well said, Moo
I think you’ve given the rationale for the trade very well. The only thing I would add is that getting rid of Luddy’s salary was also important for the future (if not so much this year). That and the development of Jay and Craig made Luddy the odd man out, as much as we all love him as a player.
Agreed...
and this works as long as it is Craig or Jay who are developed. I’m liking Jay Bird moore and moore!
:=8)
Big McLargehuge!
:=8O
Ask yourself:
If Jon Jay was this good, wouldn’t the Padres have wanted him instead of Ludwick?
Answer: Yes.
Keep that in mind when his BABIP drops to .350 and his batting average plummets at the same time.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
But the point is, four
that we can’t afford Luddy much past this year. The FO is betting that Jay or Craig or a Jay/Craig tandem would be an adequate replacement for Luddy. After all, our offense problem has not been right-field (and hopefully that won’t become the problem but you’re right, it could) but second, short, catcher, etc. Also, I saw below that you asked why we couldn’t have traded Lynn for Westbrook straight up. My guess is that we could have, but didn’t want to because Lynn represents future low-cost starting pitching for us, something that is required given an Albert re-signing. The undertone to all this is to be able to pay Albert in the future.
and if albert walks
we’ll wish we had lud
he was great insurance in that sense
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
If Albert walks
I’ll start missing the Walrus a lot more than Ludwick.
this thread is all Aaron Mile's fault.
No, we won't
Because we have Matt Holliday, who is a better hitter right now than Brett Wallace will probably ever be.
We’re not going to miss Brett Wallace, First Baseman. We’ll just replace Albert with any one of the .850 OPS first baseman that are on the market every year and then upgrade other positions or the pitching staff with the money left over.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
Why can't we afford Ludwick past this year?
He’ll be due around $8.5M, TOPS, for 2011 and then is a FA. You’re telling me we can’t afford an extra $2M next year? When our payroll is currently under $100M? This is a poor argument for trading Ludwick — we could easily afford him next year, and then we’d get him at a similar rate or get a draft pick when he leaves. Financially, this comment makes no sense.
We can’t afford him IF WE’RE MAKING ANOTHER MOVE TO ADD A PLAYER. Which we didn’t do. Alex Rios isn’t likely to be given away for free this year, and I don’t much want Carlos Lee even if he IS given away for free.
Lynn does represent future low cost starting pitching….but how many of those guys do we need? Hawksworth can be a 5th starter, Boggs can be a fifth starter, K-Mac can be a fifth starter (David Kopp, do I really need to keep going here?), and the market for 4th and 5th starters is pretty good every year even for FA. There’s always a Brad Penny/Brett Myers type out there to be had for $5-$7M or so each offseason.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
We could afford Luddy next year
but doing so would require using an internal fifth starter or having the same infield in order to save money. That would have to be Hawk (who hasn’t performed real well), McClellan, Lynn (who probably won’t be ready), Otto (coming off injury), Walters (please, no). Earlier this year, I thought that was the plan but the performance of Jay/Craig, the internal pitching issues above, and the middle infield problems apparently moved the FO to reevaluate. Next year, the Cards can use Luddy’s dollars on a more proven (I.e., veteran) fifth starter (perhaps Westy) or could use an internal option and shore up the middle infield. Many more options are available with Luddy’s salary gone.
You don't think we're starting 2011 with an internal option as the fifth starter?
What kind of Kool-Aid are you drinking? Can I have some? ;-D
Hawk, McClellan, Lynn, Otto, Kopp, Boggs, etc. will be auditioning for the fifth starter in the spring. TRUST ME. They’ll probably be auditioning with the Kipsidjeff Wellponweaver medusa of minor league free agent types that can be picked up on the cheap.
When you have huge holes of production at 2B and SS and also have questionable production in RF and 3B, it would make far more sense to spend that $8M on a RF — or just keep the $8M RF that you have since he’s likely to be worth much more than that.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
don't disagree, four
if you read my comment, the point I was making was the internal options aren’t great, perhaps with the exception of McClellan, and he does a nice job in the bullpen and is unknown as a starter. Getting an outside starter means the starting staff would be much deeper, with K-Mac, Hawk, Lynn, and Otto all as options for the 6th starter. But, as you say, the Cards may very well choose to spend their dollars on more offense, though I doubt it would be for a rightfielder. Trading Luddy just gives them all these options, something they didn’t have if they had to pay Luddy $8 m. next year.
You can't agree with me because you're arguing the opposite side of the debate.
You’re saying we couldn’t afford to keep Ryan Ludwick and pick up a fifth starter next year. My point is that our fifth starter is going to cost less than Ludwick’s raise (and should, since fifth starters are below average anyway) and will probably come from internal candidates, so there’s no rational reason why trading him frees up money for a starter.
There’s no rational competitive reason for trading him at all actually, other than our organization thinking that Jay/Craig can platoon and give us similar production in RF. That’s the only logical reason behind it, and I disagree with that assessment.
I actuality, they’re dumping his salary without any plan to add another player (which is clear, because the deadline has already passed) until next year, which makes even less sense competitively because our club will miss his offense for the rest of this season — a season in which we have a real chance to get to the World Series.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
a few things:
1) the waiver deadline has not passed, so they could add another player this year
2) they could be storing that money now in investments and the like in the interests of either deleting a player’s salary (i.e., Lohse) off of the books for a future dump to open up room, or for the Pujols contract.
3) The team needed rotation help. There is little arguing with this. You might not like this deal, but turning outfield depth into rotation depth was smart. The salary clearance is gravy.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
They could add another player, but not one that is likely to help
and not one who is cheaper next year than Ludwick probably would have been.
I’d like to see some targets you think would get through waivers to the Cardinals that have an immediate impact on this team offensively. I’ve asked repeatedly for those saying this to actually name someone — nobody’s done that yet. You named Figgins below — that would be a fucking terrible move. He’s owed $8M+ for the next 3 years after this one and might be on the decline.
The team did need rotation help, but trading away offense to get that pitching help pretty much washes out any advantage we gained by improving the staff.
If we’re storing money to dump Lohse off the books, that’s also indefensible. He’s got a full no-trade, which means we’re probably going to be eating half of his contract just to get another contending team to take him. It also certainly doesn’t help us in 2010, when we’re in a pennant race and have trouble scoring runs consistently.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
What if there's a pending waiver move at Chone Figgins?
That’s a decent buy low move, no? Seattle would have to eat some of that contract, certainly, but he has the potential to be an above average MIF going forward.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
If they do that, VEB is likely to explode.
He will be 37 when that contract concludes, so we’ll likely be paying a .250-.260 slap hitter with a slugging percentage under .300 $8M+ through 2014.
No thanks.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
You're just looking at this year
Next year they’re presumably going with Jay or Jay/Craig over Ludwick. They took millions off the book for next year.
The Indians did trade Westbrook for a B prospect and kicked out cash. After thinking about that aspect a little more clearly, I think the groupthink here had Westbrook’s market value pretty closely pegged. How Ludwick fits into this deal is surprising. I highly doubt there are any personal reasons for this. I think it was spurred by financial motivations. Don’t see another rational reason to include Ludwick in it.
Our financial situation must be a little dicier than widely believed. Injecting Ludwick into this deal also makes the Oswalt rumors seem a little silly in retrospect. It also makes me wonder if we should factor this move into consideration when talking about the Holiday deal.
by Merry CRasmus on Aug 1, 2010 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions
they gave up westbrook for a low ranked minor leaguer
and paid money to do it
lynn or whoever, we could not have managed that and moved lud for more?
for whatever reason, they wanted lud gone
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
or perhaps, we arent in any position to offer our minor league SP of value
as we will need them to pitch cheaply in the future for us. and the ones we can offer well its cause they arent valuable at all. so our one area of surplus that we CAN afford to deal from is what we did ML ready OFers. welcome to the reality of keeping a budget w/ albert and matt signed to those deals.
the more i read & think this over the more i hate it
roy oswalt, cliff lee & _ _ were traded this month & correct me if i’m wrong, but a player as good & as valuable as Luddy was not given up to get them. so that begs the question, why didn’t MO get the Tribe to trade Westbrook straight up? as Goold points in his article Lance Lynn is just as good if not better than the guy the Tribe got from the fathers. so again, why was Luddy forced into this equation? it makes no sense & it speaks poorly of MO & his ability to not get bent over when he trades. for whatever reason nearly every trade he’s done has been the exact wrong trade to make. ya the Freeze for Hollywood deal has been pretty good, but the deals for Lego, DeRo & now Luddo are clearly one sided & clearly bad moves. (yes,i still believe Walrus will be awesome thus making the trade & $120Mil given to Lego epically foolish)
i get what yo mean Az that we here maybe overvalue Luddy, but if he was indeed actively shopped by MO, for the life of me i just can’t wrap my head around that this is the best trade MO could have done. Luddy’s been the best RF in the f’ing game since 08, you can’t tell me 29 other teams dont know this & know his value is very high right now.
the sign of a good GM is his ability to get the best deal he can for his team when making a trade. and so far, MO hasn’t shown he’s able to accomplish that. he’s always giving up far to much & not getting nearly enough in return. i really do wonder if all these trades would have been done if TLR had not been the manager. those deals coupled with yesterdays fiasco have his hands all over them. at least to me, it’s pretty clear TLR still gets his way a majority of the time. there’s no other plausible explanation, MO’s supposed to be smarter than this.
i suggest everyone read the new stuff Gould & Bernie have to say about this. the quotes coming from the players are pretty interesting. one thing i think is pretty clear that MO has sent the clubhouse a message. no one is safe. if you all don’t get your heads out of your butts, you won’t be here much longer. and don’t you think for a minute TLR isn’t on board with said message. the problem is, his madding questionable decisions have gone a long way in contributing to this teams constant understatement since last september
i’ve stayed up entirely too late, but at least this is a welcome distraction from the sucky reality of life right now.
Out of suffering have emerged the strongest souls; the most massive characters are seared with scars
Oswalt, Lee
How is Ludwick better than the two prospects plus Happ? The Astros are out of the hunt this year, and it’s not like they’re going to overspend in arbitration to keep him another year. I suppose they get some sandwich picks if Ludwick leaves as a free agent, but Happ was a runner-up for NL rookie of the year not that long ago and looks good from the left side. He’s young and cheap. Those two prospects they got don’t look bad, either.
As for the package Texas got for Lee, if I were a bottom-dwelling team, I’d rather have Justin Smoak and Blake Beavan than Ludwick, as well. Both are highly regarded, first-round draft picks who’ve enjoyed considerable success in the minor leagues. They’re cheap and will be under the Mariners’ control for years to come.
An outfielder who’ll hit 25 home runs and drive in 90-some runs is nice, yeah, but when you’re 25 games out of first place or whatever the Mariners are, you need guys who’ll be cheap and good a couple of years down the road, not a guy you’ll have for half a year before his salary jumps way up.
As a Bay Area resident, though, I can’t believe the Cards couldn’t swing some Ludwick-for-Sanchez/Bumgarner deal with the Giants.
by Dirk Dorkelson on Aug 1, 2010 6:25 AM EDT up reply actions
gdm didn't suggest that luddy would have gotten us oswalt or lee
he’s just saying that luddy is better than any player sent in those deals. the m’s and astros aren’t in contention, so of course they wouldn’t be interested in luddy, and of course if they were in contention they wouldn’t even be trading lee or oswalt – contending teams don’t trade such key pieces…usually.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
what is the point though?
You think the Rangers would have given up Justin Smoak straight-up for Ryan f’ing Ludwick? No way in hell.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Aug 1, 2010 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions
who said that?
the point is luddy is better right now, and right now is when we are trying to win.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
I wasn't saying "you" as in you said it...more like asking you the question.
The bottom line is that Luddy isn’t as valuable on the open market as the people who don’t like this trade think.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Aug 1, 2010 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions
i don't like the trade
but, yes, i think some are overvaluing him on the open market. still, i think he’s more valuable to us right now than smoak or any of those other prospects, just like they are more valuable to the acquiring teams than luddy would be, but then our circumstances are different.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
was he ever on the "open market"
hard to believe this is the best lud would bring
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
Also
If the Cards want to deal Ludwick and want a piece that can help them this year in return, they pretty much have to get involved in a three-team trade. (Few teams that want to add an impact bat for a postseason push are going to want to give up another piece that can help a team win now, except for maybe the Giants with their wealth of starting pitching and their glaring need for hitters.)
It’s my feeling that the more parties you get involved, the harder it gets to optimize your returns, barring one of your trading partners having a brain-fart.
by Dirk Dorkelson on Aug 1, 2010 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions
No, but he did characterize Ludwick as being more valuable than those packages
And all I’m saying is that value is relative. Given his contract situation and skill set, Ludwick has the most value to a team in contention that needs to add a bat, like the Giants. To look at other deals and say that Ludwick is more valuable than Justin Smoak is a futile exercise.
by Dirk Dorkelson on Aug 1, 2010 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions
You lost me when you said the Hollidome deal was bad
Walrus has proven to be terrible on defense and the Blue Jays, who were so hot for him just a year ago, soured on him very quickly. Something is rotten in Whosville.
where have you heard the jays soured on walrus?
maybe they needed a speedy outfielder more than a first-baseman – we don’t know their long-term plans. and walrus is a terrible first baseman – based on what?
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
The Bluejays were known to have greedily wanted the Walrus ever since we drafted him ahead of them
For them to be willing to part with Walrus for a CF who many consider to be only an average major leaguer someday is curious.
by Mulliganstew on Aug 1, 2010 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions
true
but i believe they were also in talks with the reds about a reliever, maybe downs. and alonso was rumored to be in the deal, so i’m not sure what exactly the thinking was. well, we’ll get a good look at walrus here soon with the stros coming up.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
funny, i'm watching the game now
they interviewed wade, and the stros were intent on acquiring walrus all along because of planning to deal berkman. so they were in talks with toronto even before the oswalt deal, and their reason for gose in the deal all along was because he was someone the jays were interested in.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
...
i agree with gdm on the part that trading luddy was not the best move. he wasn’t talked about in any deal, and then was suddenly dealt yesterday.
i’m beginning to think mo gives up too much talent for decent players. take perez and todd for derosa, for example. two young pitchers that are supposed to be good somewhere down the line for a decent versatile player. we didn’t get anything out of that trade. or even this trade. it’s pretty much lud for westbrook straight up, and there’s no question that we are not the winners in the deal. i’m not sure why mo had to include a third team in this trade. why it could not have been between just st. louis and cleveland is beyond me. anyway, mo should have traded a couple of decent prospects for westbrook. it would not have taken shelby miller.
i like mo, i really do. but i am now beginning to wonder how much control TLR has in the team (soup, miles, etc.) and what he thinks when he trades for decent players. i know mo has only been in the chair for a couple years, and he hasn’t pulled any major trades outside of holliday, but how much talent given up is too much? at least jocketty would’ve traded without too much given up.
Albert's grand slam, 7/3/09
Waino's CG, 7/4/10
@zoomzoomj88
Fire Tony LaRussa
Forget the bench coach - the Cardinals need to hire a baserunning coach. Hello, Larry Walker.
Three team deal b/c
it’s pretty much lud for westbrook straight up, and there’s no question that we are not the winners in the deal. i’m not sure why mo had to include a third team in this trade.
Ludwick for Westbrook wasn’t going to happen. Go back to Mo’s quote about asking TLR for “a bat or SP.” Tony said “pitching.” If CLE would have taken Ludwick straight up, I believe Mo makes the deal. Westbrook was the target, and the only way to get Westbrook was to involve another team.
The real value of this trade I believe is in AZ’s roster moves: Stav/Miles/Soup DFA’d for Greene,Craig, & Lohse. Our bench improves by subtraction.
Finally the trade also gets to prove just how good our farm system is. To me Ludnow’s on the spot here.
"They're so stunned they didn't even boo!"
John Rooney 5/3/10 referring to Philly fans on Cards 5-run 7th inning
do you really believe stav and miles will be dfa?
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
...
thankfully, those moves might be forced. although i’m sure TLR will bitch at mo if that happened…
Albert's grand slam, 7/3/09
Waino's CG, 7/4/10
@zoomzoomj88
Fire Tony LaRussa
Forget the bench coach - the Cardinals need to hire a baserunning coach. Hello, Larry Walker.
he lost his Professional Hitter
and most versatile defender?
"He’s in his own world out there. He says he doesn’t cuss. I disagree." - Skip Schumaker on Jason Motte
STOP TRYING TO TRADE SHELBY MILLER!!
no one is suggesting that the non-contending indians would have taken lud
anyway, lud for westbrook straight-up would be a bad deal for us, and that’s what this basically boils down to. the suggestion is that, since the indians received a pitching prospect for westbrook, why did we trade luddy at all and not just deal with the indians ourselves? adding westbrook is good, but with luddy still in right we are that much better and have the potential for a good bench (if it is comprised of who it should be comprised of).
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
lud for westbrook straight-up would be a bad deal for us
I disagree. I believe you are overvaluing Luddy’s value on the market, and you are especially overvaluing the benefits of Ludwick over Jay/Craig versus Westbrook over Supp/Hawksworth.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Aug 1, 2010 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions
i disagree
obviously luddy has less value to the indians given their situation. but i’m just talking talent-wise. if westbrook were the same pitcher but on a different (contending) team that needed outfield help, and we as a contender needed pitching help and had a surplus of outfielders, and the money was the same, luddy would be an overpay for westbrook, imo, because he is a better player.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
Of course Luddy straight-up would be an overpay for Westbrook!!!!!!!!!!!!
Which is why we got a couple million dollars and a minor prospect IN ADDITION TO WESTBROOK
(Just joking) Seriously, it seems like many people here (not you) can’t get this deal straight.
Ludwick was traded for Jake Westbrook, several million dollars, and a Single A pitching prospect.
I woud have liked to have seen a better prospect in the deal coming to the Cards, but it wouldn’t have been a deal breaker. I’m fine with the trade. I think the Padres made out the best in this deal (given their marginal need in the outfield and what they gave up) but I think it was a win-win-win for all three teams.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Aug 1, 2010 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah, that's pretty fair
the pads made out the best, but they did seem to hold the cards.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
Yeah
the obession with who ‘won’ the trade is stupid. The question should be whether or not the Cardinals came out ahead/improved the team. It’s a radically different question than ‘who go the best deal in this trade?’, which, IMO, is a stupid question.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
the question should be
did the cardinals come out ahead/improve the team as much as possible. it’s that last bit that was not accomplished, imo.
Well the girls would turn the color of the avocado when he would drive down the street in his El Dorado... -the modern lovers
Then I don't understand the level of anger
If you just think that you could have gotten a better deal, fine. But once you’ve admitted the deal makes the team better overall, then you’re complaining about a good, but suboptimal thing.
Which is very different than everyone screaming about this being a horrible deal.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
and no one knows whether the optimal thing wished for actually existed.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Aug 1, 2010 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Also, that.
Regardless, I don’t get being furious about a trade that you admit improves the team.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
it improves the team this year, slightly
but weakens it by ~2 wins or more next year. I’ll be very surprised if we win the division in 2011.
Well the girls would turn the color of the avocado when he would drive down the street in his El Dorado... -the modern lovers
I was already prepared for Ludwick to go this offseason
and to be replaced by a Jay/Craig platoon so the trade makes no difference to my expectations next year. I don’t know if I think Luddy would be 2 wins better than a Jay/Craig platoon next year, but I do know the platoon will be $7MM+ cheaper.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Aug 1, 2010 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions
me too.
but I expected the trade to bring back future value, and it didn’t. To me, that’s a terrible choice to have made.
And I’m shocked that a bunch of hyperventilating prospect geeks are arguing against me on this one.
Well the girls would turn the color of the avocado when he would drive down the street in his El Dorado... -the modern lovers
by SleepyCA on Aug 1, 2010 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
whoa whoa whoa
please back up the ~2 wins claim with some details please
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
we traded a 3-4 WAR player for peanuts.
He is going to be paid like a 2 WAR player next year. That is rarely a positive thing.
Even if you assume that Jay/Craig or whatever they plug into RF can replace those wins, they got nothing really useful in return for Ludwick, and there was significant value there. You don’t really improve your team long term by pissing away wins like that.
Well the girls would turn the color of the avocado when he would drive down the street in his El Dorado... -the modern lovers
we weren't getting luddy next year
that’s not really fair at all IMO
Rasmus can hit lefties
cardinalred
St. Louis Sports blog
So you're not answering the question I posed.
You said, that the trade
weakens it by ~2 wins or more next year
I don’t agree with that but I can’t take issue with it since I don’t know how you got to that conclusion.
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
Ludwick's value over Craig/Jay is likely somehwere in the vicinity of 2 wins
by vivaelpujols on Aug 2, 2010 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Not sure I agree with that.
Working from CHONE, I’ve got it more like a 1 win differential between Jay & Ludwick. I think you’re probably using OLIVER. . . so the difference may be as simple as that.
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
Yeah
It’s an inexact science, but Ludwick’s a pretty good bet for a .360 wOBA and +5 defense next year, which is worth a little over 3 WAR in 140 games.
I think the median projection for a Craig/Jay platoon should be between 1 and 2 WAR, but obviously they have a lot of potential.
I don’t dislike starting Jay/Craig over Ludwick to save money. But I really don’t think we got fair value for Ludwick (thus overpaying for Westbrook).
by vivaelpujols on Aug 2, 2010 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions
no
Jay and craig don’t factor into it- they have their own value, and could be traded for upgrades in other places, or they could platoon in place of Ludwick, or we could trade Rasmus and play Jay in CF, etc. I’m talking specifically about the marginal value of Luddy’s performance over what he’d be paid.
If he’s a 3-4 WAR player earning $8.5M, and we give him away for nothing, we’re leaving 1-2 wins on the table. We should have gotten something at least that valuable in return, and we didn’t.
Well the girls would turn the color of the avocado when he would drive down the street in his El Dorado... -the modern lovers
How many chances will Ludwick have
to hurt us vs. how many chances will Westbrook have to hurt the Pads?
Baseball first, teams second, players third, agents last.
by Dave Pendleton on Aug 1, 2010 9:57 PM EDT up reply actions
um....no
i like mo, i really do. but i am now beginning to wonder how much control TLR has in the team (soup, miles, etc.) and what he thinks when he trades for decent players. i know mo has only been in the chair for a couple years, and he hasn’t pulled any major trades outside of holliday, but how much talent given up is too much? at least jocketty would’ve traded without too much given up.
Mo makes the roster. Mo makes to the trades. You do not get to pass blame on Tony just because you like Mo and you don’t like Tony. Now I’m sure Mo asked Tony something along the lines of, “If I get you a competent SP, it’s going to cost us Ludwick, are you okay with what we have behind Ludwick in the outfield?” And if Tony would have told him to lay of the Meth it won’t happen.
All of Mo’s moves have been from surplus to weakness. Yes Perez and Todd have futures. But behind them we have plenty of other Relievers to step up and take their place. (which they have.)
this thread is all Aaron Mile's fault.
Smoak was easily more valuable than Ludwick
And probably Happ too even though he’s not that good.
Not afraid to nitpick
more valuable presently, while in a pennant race?
although i would have rather dealt luddy straight-up for happ than westbrook, which would have allowed the phillies to move werth, which was their plan before victorino went down. the phils could have still acquired oswalt.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
maybe you misread my post - happ was with the phillies
so that’s who we would have been trading with. ludwick’s value to the phillies > happ’s value to the phillies.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
Right
But we wouldn’t be trading for Roy Oswalt with the Phillies. He said Ludwick was the best player among the packages sent to Houston/Seattle, which isn’t true in terms of his value to them.
Not afraid to nitpick
yes, but he was the best player right now, in general
just saying, would have been nice for both us and philly to send luddy for happ, allowing them to deal werth for more than happ, send the equivalent of happ out of that deal with the rest of their package to houston for oswalt, and keep the surplus themselves.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
better than what we did
wonder if it was really possible
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
one more thing & then i'm done i swear
everyone go get a copy of SI this week. The Man is on the cover all by himself for the first time & JPO wrote an excellent article about him. or so i’m told, i haven’t actually read it yet
i’ll see ya, when i see ya, last one off the island is a rotten egg
Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing can be made
that Stan the Man article
is one of the best articles I have EVER read. I was full of pride and emotion…. Knowing that truly the Greatest all around ball player and person played his entire career in St. Louis is so awesome. Get the Mag and Read the article… YOU ARE NOT A CARDINAL FAN IF YOU DON’T
It is a great article
However, I have to say one thing (and I feel kinda bad for being “that guy” about it). The article is basically a re-dux or a companion to the very excellent article that the writer (the totally awesome Joe Posnanski) already wrote a while ago which he re-posted on his blog here. He does add some very cool information, I believe, that was not in that first article. But it relies heavily on the first one as well. So the original one is very much worth a read if anybody hasn’t read it yet.
Albert Pujols does not have "down" years. He has "~6 WAR" years.
I think you present as good a justification for the Ludwick trade as possible
Without knowing more than we do. We just don’t know what could have been obtained for Ludwick. I voted that I liked the trade and understood it better after reading the analysis. It is the kind of thing that I come to VEB for.
The sequence of roster moves you move on to afterward, though, seems completely out of character with what this manager and GM are capable/willing to do.
Play ball!
I was happy
with th trade form the start. I have been talking about trading Luddy for his value for a while now and have been getting shelled for it. your absolutely right about what we think his value is and the actual market value and yes westbrook is risk, but pitching can keep you in the game better than offense, though big stick dont hurt. i two would have like to see a little more help in the line up, middle infield particully, but i will take a quality starter, who healthy, is a number 2 or 3 starter. let’s not forget about us getting the lefty from SD. I don’t know to much about him nor have i read to much, but this deal is good. We could still make a splash with a waiver trade or something who knows.
Ozzie is, was, and always will be the greatest Cardinal!
Dwight Howard is inviting you to the BLOCK party!
Is Gerald the real McCoy?
This deal is all about winning division
I think Mo’s comments are that we won’t have shot at wildcard and that he thinks throwing Hawk/Supp out there every 5th day will kill us in our division. Fast forward to Carp, Waino, Garcia, Lohse, Westbrook with Supp in reserve and we have a chance to win every day. Assuming no more injuries we win the division hands down. Could you say the same thing if we had stood pat? No. So in this respect, it was the best deal Mo could make to chance the calculus.
If we win division it is worth it. Then we have Carp, Waino, Garcia in a short series with Lohse for the seven game series. If Ludwick is what it costs to get there..so be it.
And.. it is a hedge against a Garcia flameout.
Just win
agreed.
also, westbrook is in-season and post-season insurance against injuries to Carp (certainly a possibility), Garcia (definite possibility), Lohse (definite possibility) and that Penny never comes back. We had no insurance for these injuries. We had quite a bit of viable insurance for Luddy’s absence.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Aug 1, 2010 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions
we added westbrook but lost luddy (and lohse is on the way)
the reds added volquez, with harang and bailey on the way, but without losing, say, jay bruce in the process. i hope you are right about running away with the division, but it’s been tight so far, and the reds arguably are gaining a better overall upgrade than we are.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
And I think the Cards can re-sign Westbrook for reasonable dollars
if they like what they see. Why would Westbrook go back to the rebuilding Indians rather than stay with the Cards at his age? From the Cards viewpoint, Lynn is still probably another year away, Otto is uncertain with his surgery, PJ is very questionable, etc. Thus, next year we can have a rotation of Carp, Waino, Garcia, Lohse, and Westbrook, with Lynn and Otto as sixth starters. Of course, this all assumes that Westbrook perfroms well.
maybe
i know the indians are interested in bringing westbrook back.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
But, as with Holliday
Westbrook may learn to appreciate playing in St. Louis to big crowds, to being in the NL, and to having Duncan as his pitching coach. Westbrook doesn’t really know any of this if he doesn’t have the last two months here and we just try to sign him as a free agent in the off-season. All speculation of course and, as I said above, it assumes Westy performs (spelled it correctly that time).
I think
Holliday appreciated the massively over market value contract given to him. He didn’t exactly leave money on the table to stay here.
by Dave Barry on Aug 1, 2010 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
No diagreement, Dave
but still, Westbrook playing here for a while will increase his comfort level of re-signing with us if we want him. And, as last year, the market for somewhat older, mid-level pitchers may not be great.
Right now
my confidence in the front office to make cost effective decisions for free agents is non existent. Lohse’s contract is terrible, even Penny seemed to be overpaid relative to the market in dollars, but at least it was only for one year.
Lohse's contract was not terrible. It only seems that way because due to injuries he hasn't provided as much as expected.
If Lohse pitches 200 innings, he’s worth about 2.4 WAR over his career, which translates nicely to $10 mil. So that’s paying him market value. The risk of course is the injuries, but I don’t see how the front office could have predicted those.
אנא טוני לא יותר ט.א.ס.ס
Really?
We bought high, and paid all star money an average pitcher. It was widely criticized at the time as a terrible use of resources and only looks worse now. The fact that he had to maintain 200 IP a year for the contract to be of positive value out is a good sign that it was a bad contract.
free-agent all-star pitchers are getting more than lohse
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
I recall multiple
reports of the Cardinals bidding against themselves. I think it’s nearly consensus that this contract will look quite poor before it’s finished.
i think it's neraly consensus that it won't
There have been many of post year outlining the expect value of the Holliday’s production and the consensus was that while we are underpaying for the next few years and over paying at the end, the contract is at worse market value.
this thread is all Aaron Mile's fault.
I thought the contract was fine and the reports of the Cards bidding against themselves were baseless and likely bs.
I think the contract is very likely to provide surplus vaue over its life.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Aug 1, 2010 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions
that depends on what other offers were on the table
i don’t think we know that. the yanks didn’t seem to be involved, nor the red sox, so i’m not sure who else was bidding against us. i believe boras indicated that if holliday didn’t receive an acceptable long-term deal he’d sign a one-year deal and re-enter the free agent market the following year. i would have been down with a 1-yr deal for holliday, but i believe it was a bluff by boras because crawford and werth go on the market this year too, which is stiffer competition for a contract than bay represented.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
holliday's contract will be an albatross by year 5
all these 5+ r contracts are going to look bad, including whatever they give apu
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
Sorry if I piss someone off but
This was a very smart move. I love Luddy.. I will miss Luddy… But he was going to get too expensive and he is on the wrong side of 30 and injury prone. Time for the Kids to play.
that makes it defensible, or rational, or what have you
not “very smart.” Very smart would have been flipping some replaceable prospects for westbrook then trading Luddy in the offseason for a higher return
agree
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
The Indians
apparently wanted a minor-league potential starter. With the exception of Lynn (see my comment above) or Miller, that is not an area of strength for the Cards.
the idea that Luddy, an injury-prone 32-33yo corner outfielder, who had one great year in 2008, and is on a 1yr $8.5MM contract before FA, was going to bring a "higher return" in the offseason
IMO, misunderstands the market for players of Luddy’s ilk.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Aug 1, 2010 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions
except holliday
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
by sportsman on Aug 1, 2010 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I didn't see an option for me.
I wish we had gotten a better prospect along with Westbrook, but I don’t entirely dislike the trade. I felt like a trade involving Luddy was coming sooner or later.
Reminds me a bit of bill parcells.
I think gdm is correct in that this lets everyone know that nobody is safe. Every time Parcells took over a team he would cut a veteran that everyone thought was safe to send a message to the team and create a sense of urgency. This team is loaded with offensive talent that has underperformed and played lethargic since last fall. Having a 2nd baseman hitting 280 instead of 240 isn’t going to correct that. Talent wise the deal is clearly a loss, but for the reasons azru listed above it was something the team needed. That and a cardboard cutout of Mo with a peel-a-way suit.
I thought the same thing
no one’s safe. And the reaction of the rest of the team confirms that. I like the pyschology of the trade even if its slightly less than even.
Just win
i really don't think that had anything to do with it
i don’t think it was luddy in particular, but rather his contract in particular. however, mo’s comment about shaking things up that az noted does give me pause in saying that.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
One question I haven't seen raised is
Is Luddy expected to accept arbitration? It matters enormously in thinking about this trade.
StanTheManFan
Contributes any way he can.
He's normally a nuclear physicist
Except when writing for this list.
as long as he finishes the season pretty strong
i don’t know why he would – seems he could get a 3-year deal.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
he has no choice.
He’s still under club control for one more year.
Well the girls would turn the color of the avocado when he would drive down the street in his El Dorado... -the modern lovers
then why are we worried about him accepting or not accepting arb?
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
we're not.
Well the girls would turn the color of the avocado when he would drive down the street in his El Dorado... -the modern lovers
what i don't understand
sd gets lud for 2 low rank minor leaguers
that was his true value?
westbrook’s true value was one low rank minor leaguer; actually less because they paid for that player
it implies zero,or near so, value for both lud and westbrook
i don’t get it, it being the intrinsic value of westbrook and lud and why the two were tied together
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
Agree that San Diego really makes out in this deal.
They patch a SEVERE immediate need at negligible cost. We patch a severe immediate need at a considerably greater cost (which is not to say I don’t still like the deal, I do). They did better.
I still don’t get what Cleveland was thinking, though.
StanTheManFan
Contributes any way he can.
He's normally a nuclear physicist
Except when writing for this list.
by StanTheManFan on Aug 1, 2010 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions
What do you mean?
Keeping Westbrook had negative value for Cleveland. They were highly motivated to move his contract, which they did. The fact that they got anything for him was remarkable.
Well the girls would turn the color of the avocado when he would drive down the street in his El Dorado... -the modern lovers
Ludwick's value = Westbrook, +$2MM, and a A-ball LHP
by Willie McGee's Twin on Aug 1, 2010 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions
well, that's what we sold him for, anyway
I once bought a rare, small production run, car amplifier off of ebay using “buy-it-now” for $300. The guy selling it had no idea what the market value was and underrated what he had, and was in a hurry to sell.
i could easily sell it, today, for upwards of $1K, since there were only 8 of them ever made, and they are considered some of the finest amps available.
What is the value of that item? $300? $1K?
Well the girls would turn the color of the avocado when he would drive down the street in his El Dorado... -the modern lovers
And Westrbook's value = C prospect
And the only reason we are getting money for Ludwick is to cover the extra cost of Westbrooks contract.
So, by extension, Ludwick’s value = 2 C prospects.
No C prospect would be able to step into the Cards rotation and...
help with the playoff race this year. So, no, Westbrook does not equal a C prospect. A “C prospect” woudn’t even be expected to make the majors, much less be expected to pitch 70 innings down the playoff stretch.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Aug 2, 2010 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions
The Indians got a C prospect for Westbrook
Therefore, Westbrook = C prospect in terms of value.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
I get his point; it's just wrong because it doesn't account for time value.
The point can be proven easily by reversing the transaction -
As of today, would the Cards trade Westbrook straightup for a C prospect? Obviously they would not. Westbrook and a C Prospect are not fungible. Indeed, it’d incredibly stupid. Why would it be so stupid? Because of the present value of a marginal win to the Cards. So, no, Westbrook does not = a C Prospect, and it’s not even close.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Aug 2, 2010 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions
What?
I’m not talking about value to the Cardinals I’m talking about overall value. If Ludwick was traded for a C prospect and Westbrook, and Westbrook was traded for a C prospect, that means Ludwick was valued at two C prospects. That’s how much we got for him.
Now Westbrook is a lot more valuable to us than a C prospect would be, but that doesn’t change Ludwick’s intrinsic value – meaning what we should be able to get for him in a trade.
by vivaelpujols on Aug 2, 2010 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Then why was he traded for a C prospect?
You’re making this far more complicated than it really needs to be.
Talk in circles all you like, kinda hard to argue with the conclusion that the team trading Westbrook got a C prospect in return for him.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
You not understanding something is not the same as me talking in circles.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Aug 2, 2010 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Me not understanding something?
It’s you that doesn’t understand English or math apparently.
Us getting cash in the deal is, um, IRRELEVANT TO THE ACTUAL CONTENT OF THE DEAL IN TERMS OF TALENT.
Why didn’t we just trade them a C prospect for cash and Westbrook? Because they didn’t want our C prospect. Westbrook was “worth” a C prospect.
Get it? If not don’t both replying — arguing with you about anything is the most frustrating thing on the planet. Even when you’re clearly not GETTING THE FUCKING POINT.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
they got a C prospect and salary relief
there are two different markets at this point- the contender market, and the noncontender market. Westbrook had negative value to Cleveland; giving him away for free actually benefitted them by several $M.
the fact that they got anything at all for him was gravy; they weren’t going to NOT trade him at the deadline, if there was anyone willing to take him. The fact that we actually paid them something for him was remarkable- saving them ~$2M or whatever should have been payment enough.
Well the girls would turn the color of the avocado when he would drive down the street in his El Dorado... -the modern lovers
All of that is pretty much irrelevant in actuality
Because we’re talking about what Westbrook was “worth”, and since they got back a C prospect and had to give cash in the deal, his value clearly was that of a C prospect or worse in this situation. Otherwise, why would they have dealt him for less than his “value”.
Keep in mind, when I’m talking about “value” I mean at that particular time and situation. WMT’s version of value is apparently in wampum or something because he’s always arguing semantics about the word “value”, and what the meaning of that word is.
If you call a “spade” a “shovel”, but everyone else calls it a spade, why the do you bother arguing endlessly about whether it’s a fucking shovel or not? Why not just accept the community definition for the purposes of context and move along?
What some of us are upset about is that we clearly have better C pitching prospects than what they got, so why couldn’t we just trade them a C prospect and have them give us cash, for go the pitching prospect from SD in favor of keeping Ludwick? It’s not been explained and probably never will be, but either they had their heart set on getting the SD prospect or they were going to keep Westbrook, and that was NOT an optimal solution for them.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
And this logic makes no sense to me
The whole point of a market is that everyone has individual needs and wants, and needs to trade from a surplus to get their needs. An abstract notion of value can only get you so far, particularly in something like MLB where there is such a limited number of market actors.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
I don't understand why everyone thinks his value was higher than that.
Explain to me the rationalization for this instead of just telling me that “the logic makes no sense”. It’s perfectly logical, because THAT’S WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED!!!
There are a limited number of market actors, you are correct, which also limits the value of assets. So why is it so hard to believe that his actual value wasn’t much more than a C prospect?
How much value does Kyle Lohse have right now? Alfonso Soriano? Carlos Lee? You wouldn’t trade for them right?
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
I'm fairly neutral
on this one- although I wish Luddy had been like Milton Bradley or someone, and this would be easier to take. He’s just a likable dude.
This sentence is telling
The organization cannot afford to be giving away runs at the margins in the 2010 NL Central race.
By not waiting until the offseason to trade Ludwick, the organization is giving away roughly half a win (5 runs) by going with Jay/Craig (or Jay/Stavinoha until Craig returns). These 5 runs may be key. I still maintain that we could have waited until the offseason to trade Ludwick and done better than Jake Westbrook, even if it meant giving Ludwick away for a B prospect in AA.
due diligence
we/our/my thinking is asking every mlb team what they would give for lud and this is the best answer, is hard to believe
it’s obvious we could have gotten westbrook for what cleveland got easily
it looks more and more like another case of tlr didn’t want him
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
Suppose that deal had been done RIGHT NOW.
Luddy for a B prospect in AA.
What’s the best player — in terms of both present need and long-term value — that that B prospect in AA would have fetched in a trade?
StanTheManFan
Contributes any way he can.
He's normally a nuclear physicist
Except when writing for this list.
by StanTheManFan on Aug 1, 2010 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions
Right
They are giving away half a win downgrading Ludwick→Jay/Craig, but Suppan/Hawk 5.5 FIP→Westbrook 4.25 FIP is +1 win.
Not afraid to nitpick
thing about starting pitching though
it’s hard to quantify the value of saving the bullpen.
this thread is all Aaron Mile's fault.
interesting take on the cards in an si article
…
The Cardinals misdiagnosed their needs, downgrading their offense in an effort to add a No. 4 starter in what is one of the most puzzling trades, deadline or otherwise, in years. …When (Jay) fades, Randy Winn is going to get too much playing time, and then you’re going to see something like this in a key September game:
Lopez 3B
Rasmus CF
Pujols 1B
Holliday LF
Winn RF
Molina C
Schumaker 2B
Garcia P
Ryan SS
… and there’ll be people wondering why the Cardinals keep losing 3-1. This trade of an above-average hitter for a below-average pitcher, is why.
Albert's grand slam, 7/3/09
Waino's CG, 7/4/10
@zoomzoomj88
Fire Tony LaRussa
Forget the bench coach - the Cardinals need to hire a baserunning coach. Hello, Larry Walker.
sounds like a stupid article
not a great trade imo, but there is a rationale to it. It’s not as egregiously “puzzling” as the article makes it seem.
Durability questions
I happen to agree that the needs were misdiagnosed, offense was a greater need than rotation help, now and for the rest of the season.
Here is the most troubling line in that article to me:
“Jake Westbrook is a command pitcher who doesn’t miss bats and who is coming off two lost seasons, which creates questions of durability as he heads towards an innings count he hasn’t reached since 2006.”
This, combined with what I assume will be Garcia’s lack of availability at times in the last two months, to me means that we will again see Hawk making starts at the end of the season. So it could very well be that we will be right back where we started minus Ludwick and his RISP mojo. I was actually hopefully looking forward to having him bat cleanup again with Holiday in the 2 slot. Yes, I realize this was probably a pipe dream even if we kept him.
they haven't watched Soup and Hawk pitch
And when Jay Fades Craig will get more playing time. Not Winn.
this thread is all Aaron Mile's fault.
unless Craig also fades
or there’s a righty on the mound and La Russa wants to have the left-handed hitting Winn.
Craig....
..is hitting .139/.200/.250 – there ain’t much left to fade from…
:=8/
Big McLargehuge!
:=8O
did he also show the lineup for the next game?
when it had Suppan pitching in it and the Cards lost that “key September game” 8-5?
by Willie McGee's Twin on Aug 1, 2010 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I am trying to al least get to a neutral place about this trade but it's hard.
I said I felt better about it, but that was just me trying to be nice. We gave up Luddy for 2 months of Westbrook.
The thing that bothers me most is I’m losing my faith in Mozeliak. It looks like Tony was totally on board with this. He wanted another pitcher. If it cost Ludwick, so be it. Did Tony go jerk on Mo’s chain and this was the best Mo could come up with?
Did Mo offer Ludwick to Cleveland and they said no, so then San Diego was brought in? That’s the only way this makes sense? Why else involve San Diego? We really didn’t have a prospect that Cleveland wanted?
I know that Tony LaRussa is a valuable baseball man, but I think he is demanding too much influence in roster decisions. And DeWitt and Mo are caving and giving into him.
Mo has made some good deals but this one “reeks of desperation” as someone else suggested. Knowing how many dollars plus or minus this nets the Cardinals isn’t enough for me. However you spin it, we overpaid for what we got.
I realize this is all supposition on my part, but the information we have about this deal makes me suspicious. Is Mo making good business decisions or is Tony demanding with Mo panicking. More than anything on this team we need a good GM who will make good decisions.
"I told myself from the very beginning: 'If he's going to throw a shutout, then he's going to tie,'" Wainwright said. "He was not going to beat me today."
it seems that with each successive move Mo makes
we’re trying harder and harder to come up with rationalizations/justifications for why it wasn’t a bad move. Ok, maybe I’m expecting too much, but it would be nice just to be able to say, “Wow, Mo really fleeced [insert asshat GM’s name here] on that one.” Something like, you know, getting a Luddy caliber player for a throwaway prospect and another easily replaceable prospect.
The big disappointment for me is the prospect we got out of this. If Mo even gets a halfway decent prospect this deal looks 1,000x better. Obviously we don’t have all the details, but I’m also just a little confused about why we had to involve the Pads at all.
All this being said, this move might make our team a little better in the short term. So I’m gonna turn down the bitching meter, though I’m not too happy with the deal as a whole.
Mo definitely won the Freese trade
but i agree with you here. Every other time in which he has faced a negotiation challenge, he has come out on the “overpay” side.
Well the girls would turn the color of the avocado when he would drive down the street in his El Dorado... -the modern lovers
A year on, isn't the Holliday trade looking nicer than it did on the day of?
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
we just traded Ludwick for a guy
who is roughly equivalent in value, going forward, to a guy we traded as a throw-in in the Holliday trade (Mortenson). Mort’s MLE FIP is 4.67, according to minorleaguesplits.com. Westbrook’s FIP this year? 4.67.
So, no.
Well the girls would turn the color of the avocado when he would drive down the street in his El Dorado... -the modern lovers
And the
payroll constraints imposed by Holliday’s contract probably had a lot to do with this trade as well.
i doubt if Mort's MILE FIP
is going to be the same when he gets to the Majors.
this thread is all Aaron Mile's fault.
rationale?
Well the girls would turn the color of the avocado when he would drive down the street in his El Dorado... -the modern lovers
Translations are not the same as projections.
An MLE is what his performance to date would like in the majors. IT IS NOT a projection of what his future performance would look like.
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
So he "would have had a 4.67 FIP"
If he had pitched in the majors just like he pitched in the minors, this year. but for some reason, he would be worse going forward?
Why?
Even if he’s a little worse than that, going forward, we’d have him for 6 years vs the 2 months we’d have westbrook.
Well the girls would turn the color of the avocado when he would drive down the street in his El Dorado... -the modern lovers
So if a pitcher rattles off a 4.67 FIP in like 100 innings in the majors
your projection is a 4.67 FIP moving forward? Regardless of what we know about regression or aging curves or anything else? That is not a good projection system.
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
Seriously evil frog
after the last few days, you bring up Anthony Reyes on this site? What to throw some compliments at JD Drew while you are at it.
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
I can use Drew if I want
Reyes is just the most recent “failed” top prospect from the Cardinals’ system.
Failed might not be the right word, because anyone who is pitching on a major league team, (I know he is out this year for TJ surgery) shouldn’t be labeled a “failure”.
Anyway, i’m not doing to spite A-Rey.
Did you see that sliding catch by Drew yesterday? Wasn’t that awesome? Chances he is out of the line up for a sore bum today? I’d say 90%….
this thread is all Aaron Mile's fault.
Mort's already near his career high in IP
Presumably at some point soon he’ll get a tired arm or be shut down. Westbrook, on the other hand, is a proven innings eater.
by Dirk Dorkelson on Aug 1, 2010 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, but he's not the typical post-surgery guy, either
He actually took a fairly long recovery time, relatively speaking, and isn’t a particularly hard thrower, is he?
by Dirk Dorkelson on Aug 1, 2010 11:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes I don't want to turn this into a bash TLR thing
If Mo is feeling panicky about these potential moves, that’s all it takes to weaken your bargaining position.
"I told myself from the very beginning: 'If he's going to throw a shutout, then he's going to tie,'" Wainwright said. "He was not going to beat me today."
actually, it's tlr panicking
and sending those vibes through mo.
Albert's grand slam, 7/3/09
Waino's CG, 7/4/10
@zoomzoomj88
Fire Tony LaRussa
The Cardinals need to hire a baserunning coach. Hello, Larry Walker.
why would Cleveland want Luddy?
he’s over 30, injury prone, and fairly expensive. The Indians were dumping salary and wanted potential low-cost pitching back.
he's not suggesting they would
just wondering why we didn’t offer a so-so pitching prospect to cleveland ourselves.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
Where was our Double AA starting pitching prospect that was leading his league is strikeouts and threw 94mph?
Frankly, even assuming our comparable is Lance Lynn (who some publications had as our top prospect at the beginning of this year), I would rather give up Ludwick than Lance Lynn given that I don’t think the Cards had any intention of paying Ludwick $8-9mm next year and that going forward, I think we need young, cheap starting pitching more than old, declining, expensive coner outfielder’s.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Aug 1, 2010 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions
what about hooker?
and the lesser the prospect we send, the more salary of westbrook we could have taken on to make it worthwhile for cleveland.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
Last time I saw something about Hooker
he was hitting high eighties on the gun and was getting drilled in the first inning in A ball. Is Hooker in Springfield? Hooker’s comp in this deal is Greenwood, not Kluber.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Aug 1, 2010 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Hooker is in Palm Beach
and this is the second time I’ve seen you under report a prospects velocity in as many days. Not sure where you are getting your numbers from. Hooker is comfortably in the 90s and will touch 94/95.
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
I actually got both velocities for Hooker and Gorgen from your site (FR)
And, if you’ll put your reading comprehension goggles on, I said:
“Last time I saw something about Hooker he was hitting high eighties on the gun and was getting drilled in the first inning in A ball.”
That came from a comment I just saw on the 7/29 Daily Farm report, in which an eyewitness said Hooker was consistently topping out 88, couldn’t get out of the 1st inning, and wasn’t fooling anyone (he gave up 6 ERs). Someone else replied and said that’s what they saw out of Hooker on a separate occasion. Maybe the gun was off, maybe it wasn’t, doesn’t change the fact that that’s the last thing I saw reported about him, which I relayed accurately. And I knew he was in Palm Beach, thanks). “Is Hooker in Springfield?” was a rhetorical question to someone who was implying that Hooker may have been analogous to Kluber, who was already having success in AA.
The Gorgen velocities came off a report by erik manning from the AFL; the report implied that the velocities came off Pitch f/x. Maybe Gorgen does throw 90-92, maybe he was injured/tired the day of the readings, maybe the gun was off, whatever. Doesn’t change the fact that some scouts/reporters said that Gorgen’s velocity sits around 87, which again, I reported accurately.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Aug 1, 2010 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions
carry on
(I think those velocities are low on both counts. Very different from what I’ve seen off of scout’s guns)
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
There is absolutely no way
that Tony demanded that Mo move Ludwick. Tony would’ve given up our best prospects, IMO, rather than trade Ludwick. I do think that La Russa has too much stroke in roster decisions but trading Ludwick here is all on Mo.
correct
I’m sure Tony would have rather sent Miller to Cleveland for Westrbook and keep Ludwick.
this thread is all Aaron Mile's fault.
well, even tony would balk at miller for westbrook
hooker would have been fine.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
No, frog, I think that's the issue
The Cards wouldn’t send Miller (or Lynn) to Cleveland for Westbrook. They are too important to the Cards’ future. Luddy was expendable (we hope).
sorry, frog
I think you were being sarcastic – read and replied too quickly.
i wasn't being sarcastic
If Mo asked Tony, “Hey I can get you westbrook, but it will cost either Shelby Miller or Ryan Ludwick.”
Tony would have said Miller before the “wick” even came out of Mo’s month. What does Tony care about a low A prospect? Good chance he’ll be hawking wine while saving the animals by the time Miller makes the Majors.
this thread is all Aaron Mile's fault.
I wasn't trying to say that Tony wanted Ludwick moved.
I suspect it was more along the lines of “get me Jake Westbrook” or X starting pitcher. Perhaps in order to appease TLR, Mo panicked a bit and didn’t have the strongest negotiation position.
"I told myself from the very beginning: 'If he's going to throw a shutout, then he's going to tie,'" Wainwright said. "He was not going to beat me today."
The problem with this line of thinking
Is it ignores the fact that we had to trade Ryan Ludwick for 2 C prospects from another organization in order to trade 1 C prospect to Cleveland.
If this was the only way to get the deal done, then that is a damning statement about our player development. Also, it is pretty telling if we had to make this deal salary neutral, in that the “willing to take on payroll” statements were a lie.
If you come out in the red in a deal, you’ve lost. Even if you think the deal fills a more pressing need, a net loss is no longer dealing from a position of strength but of desperation.
If this was Jocketty, for all his warts, he’d have flipped Jon Jay and his unsustainable success for the starting pitcher we need. As it looks now, it seems that the only teams that ever take Mo’s calls are Cleveland and San Diego.
by Hardcore Legend on Aug 1, 2010 10:46 AM EDT via mobile reply actions 1 recs
can you blame cleveland and san diego?
i think i’d take mo’s calls too.
i too think money was a (the) key factor in this deal – so much for dewitt’s statement that he’d rather part with money than talent.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
definitely a salary dump...
DeWitt didn’t want to pay Luddy next year and isn’t going to resign Westbrook…its as simple as that…
Hold my stones!
i think salary was an a factor
not sure if it was just a dump though. Waiting until we weren’t just a game up to trade away or third best offensive player if it was just a dump.
I do think it will allow us to pay for something in the middle infield.
this thread is all Aaron Mile's fault.
Thats the thing, I cannot think of any other reason to include the Padres in that deal...
unless salary was a factor or the key factor. We could have just as easily given up a shitty prospect or two like the Padres and gotten Westbrook. But we didn’t, we included them in the deal when they shouldn’t have been. Its absolutely mind-boggling.
Hold my stones!
the padres included us in the deal to get ludwick
we didn’t include the padres in the deal to get westbrook.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Aug 1, 2010 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions
the pads were talking to the indians about westbrook?
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
The guys at Gaslamp Ball made it sound that way.
They wanted him too.
I'm out of champagna. How about some 7-Up and Mad Dog 20/20?
by The Continental on Aug 1, 2010 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
i didn't know that
knew they wanted starting help so they could ease up on latos’ innings, etc., so it makes sense.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
Yes
My understanding is that Westbrook was traded to the Padres, who then flipped him, a couple of million bucks (some of which likely came from the Tribe), and Greenwood to the Cardinals for Ludwick
by Willie McGee's Twin on Aug 1, 2010 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions
in that case the deal makes a little more sense
in that the pads held the cards, but it makes me question why we didn’t acquire westbrook ahead of them instead of paying the middleman a premium.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
like every other deal in the world...
you need a middleman when he provides something you don’t already have. especially here since we’ve done straight deals with cleveland before.
logic would say that the padres were willing to give up more in prospects and/or money than we were to the indians.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Aug 1, 2010 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions
i have to agree with you
i just question why we wouldn’t have given up the equivalent in prospects, as it wasn’t really all that much, and hold on to luddy for the stretch. that would have been my preference is all, but yeah, i don’t know what we offered or what cleveland wanted instead.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
I personally think there's a pretty good chance they re-sign Westbrook basically with Penny's expiring money
Not afraid to nitpick
possibly, they will need a 5th starter for next year of course...
I would axe any deal that asks for Lohse type money though, which I imagine is what he’ll want.
Hold my stones!
if he costs penny money we won't
in that case luddy is far more valuable.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
although after this deal
I bet a lot more GM’s answer the phone.
Well the girls would turn the color of the avocado when he would drive down the street in his El Dorado... -the modern lovers
BAD TRADE - NO WAY AROUND IT
No problem trading Ludwick, I thought that was the smart thing to do because of Jay and Craig. However, they did not get enough for Ludwick and surely they could have found enough prospects to get Westbrook. Cleveland got one B/C prospect for Westbrook – do not tell me that the Cards could not have put a prospect package together for Westbrook.
Ludwick should have been dealt for all of the financial reasons previously discussed, but there were several contending teams looking for a bat and there had to be several three-way opportunities where Ludwick could have gone to a contender for prospects and the prospects being flipped for a decent 2B/SS. Arizona for example had Drew and Johnson available. Johnson has 17 dingers, is hitting .283 and is better defensively than Lopez or schumaker. His splits are bad but so what. Lopez will soon slide over to 2B and slide is hilarious because Lopez does not know how to slide. In two weeks he has come up two yards short on a slide to second base, made no effort to slide into home plate on a contact play, and got picked off last night on a terrible slide back to 1B. There is a reason he has been on so many teams – HE HAS NO HEART. Schumaker has heart and lacks talent, Miles is not worth talking about. This is why this was a bad trade – and Ludwick should have been used to address this weakness.
The trade does make the team better because they have eliminated on AUTOMATIC LOSS DAY. However, they could have done so much better. Westbrook and a second baseman should have been the haul, not westbrook alone.
This move makes about as much sense as some of Larussa’s managerial decisions – CRAZY.
so maybe that ludwick/kelly johnson trade thought from a couple years ago should've happened after all...
Albert's grand slam, 7/3/09
Waino's CG, 7/4/10
@zoomzoomj88
Fire Tony LaRussa
The Cardinals need to hire a baserunning coach. Hello, Larry Walker.
Maybe not two years ago
because they did not have the depth in the outfield at that time. However, it sure seems like it would make a lot sense now. It would have to have been Ludwick to a contender for prospects and flipping the prospects to the DB’s for Johnson but that seems possible with so many contending teams looking for a bat.
Kelly Johnson at 2B would have been a good move.
No
the Ankiel for Escobar trade though….
After I saw that the Braves traded for Ankiel yesterday, It got me thinking that I wished we’d made that deal. Either that, or sent Luddy to Colorado for Holliday before Holliday was traded to the A’s. Oh well.
Padres' RFL for GG!
Explain how this works......
Ludwick could have gone to a contender for prospects and the prospects being flipped for a decent 2B/SS. Arizona for example had Drew and Johnson available. Johnson has 17 dingers, is hitting .283…
Your rational is that Ludwick could have been flipped for prospects to get Kelly Johnson, and that we want Kelly Johnson because, e.g., he has 17 dingers and hits .283 and plays 2B.
Ludwick is a 32yo corner outfielder on a 1yr/$5.45MM deal w/ 1 more year of team control hitting .281 with 11 dingers
Kelly Johnson is a 28yo 2Bman on a 1yr/$2.35MM deal w/ 1 more year of team control hitting “.283 with 17 dingers” (as you state) -
How could Ludwick, an older, more expensive player, with worse stats according to the ones you’ve chosen to highlight, at a less premium position, bring back sufficient prospects to get Johnson, a younger, cheaper player at a more premium position, who has better stats?
How are you going to get the prospects for Ludiwck to be able to get Johnson? Seriously, how exactly does this work?
by Willie McGee's Twin on Aug 1, 2010 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
ask san diego
they got the outfield bat they wanted for a couple middling prospects.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
or else we were set on westbrook and not spending any money to get him
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
did't the dbacks value of kj mean those stats and value should be close to lud's
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
no, not at all
why would Lud get the benefit of having his value judged in a vacuum but KJ gets his value judged according to team context? (Actualy this is why so many folks here think this trade is lopsided – they want to judge Luddy’s value in a vacuum, but judge Westbrook’s value in the context of the Indians. It doesn’t work that way though. Every trade will come out lopsided then)
It makes even less sense since the whole premise of the OP’s post is that Lud gets traded into the marketplace for “prospects” and those same “prospects” are flipped for KJ. The whole implication of the OP’s post is that Luddy and KJ, even if not able to be traded one-for-one, are of comparable value on the open market. This simply isn’t true.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Aug 1, 2010 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions
completely incorrect characterization.
value is judged in terms of contract and performance. The team they play for is irrelevant, for the most part, but you have to take leverage into account in negotiations- it would cost a lot more to get a player like Westbrook from a contender than from a team that is out of the race- and if the Indians didn’t move Westbrook they would be extreme losers. They were going to get either nothing or something for him; we offered them “something”, they countered with “a bunch”, and we said “yes”. I’m certain there was much joy in CLE front office after this trade. They shot for the moon, with very little leverage, and Mo handed it to them on a silver platter.
Luddy is owed less money and will outperform Westbrook over the next few months. He’s also under control for next year, and will cost less and outperform Westbrook next year as well. As Az showed above, he was worth a lot more than Westbrook + small $ + C prospect.
If the performance that KJ has put up this year is for real, we made a mistake not trading Luddy for KJ last year. However, there are several indications that KJ this year is an illusion- the home/away split, the suddenly acquired ability to be a plus defender at second, etc.
Well the girls would turn the color of the avocado when he would drive down the street in his El Dorado... -the modern lovers
a lot i would hope, plus grady sizemore.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
It's surprising
That Mozeliak isn’t criticized more for his performance as GM. Most of his moves have been questionable, at best. I think as an aggregate, he has made more poor decisions that good ones. He generally seems over matched by agents, other GMs and even his own manager. When he signed his extension I cringed, but was surprised when the common consensus was positive.
You seem to be commonly bashing Mozeliak for no apparent reason.
I thought all or most of his trades last season were very good (And some, like the Wallace trade, look a lot better now). Please, lay on me why you think he’s a bad GM, or are you just a troll?
In baseball the object is to go home! And to be safe! "I hope I'll be safe at home!"
-George Carlin (RIP)
brings balance
to everyone bashing TLR. Half the bashing has been for moves Mo has made.
this thread is all Aaron Mile's fault.
No, I just want him to outline deals where Mo's moves have bee questionable.
Because most of the moves I have observed have had good rationale behind them. I just want to attempt to shoot down any supposed hatred towards Mo.
In baseball the object is to go home! And to be safe! "I hope I'll be safe at home!"
-George Carlin (RIP)
i don't understand all this "the wallace trade" looks a lot better now
the man has played one big-league game. if he puts up numbers in houston (like i think he will), the trade will definitely not look better – maybe it will look the same, as everyone expected him to hit anyway, but if he does as expected i don’t know how it could look better. i think the astros did well in the oswalt trade, especially by identifying the guy the jays wanted beforehand with the plan to flip him for walrus and trade berkman.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
yes they did
and i guess v wells is available again
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
It looks better because he's been a mediocre hitter,
who is no confined to first base, in the hitterest hitter’s park of all AAA. He’s looked bad this year and his prospect stock has fallen from where the Cardinals traded him. They sold high.
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
"he's looked bad this year" - is that your assessment, or someone else who has
seen him play a lot?
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
I'm not sure what the insuation is.
Go look at the stats this year. He’s played poorly.
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
no insinuation
is that your assessment, or someone else’s you trust? i know the stats, and i know beyond the stats. just asking what you yourself have seen, because that’s a pretty bold statement to stake your rep on. i’d say the kid’s gonna tear it up, and he was certainly bored and biding his time in AAA, just working on the overall game. he didn’t really have anything to prove there. i know the knock has been his defense, but not at first base – he looked great picking balls today. hitting? oh, he will hit. can’t blame him that apu blocked his stardom in st louis – apu blocks everyone on earth.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
I've never been high on Brett Wallace
I’ve been on the pessimistic side of him since they drafted him. People told me he was going to stick at 3B. He didn’t. Now they tell me he’ll be good at 1B. I don’t believe that. He’s a bad bodied hitter. He’s going to hit some, sure, but he HAS looked bad this year. That’s not the same as me saying he’s going to be a shit player in the majors. I’m just saying that a club trading for him isn’t going to value him quite the same as they did a year ago when the Cardinals swapped him. He’ll be a fine first baseman but I don’t think he’s going to light Houston on fire. (I will be lighting Houston on fire, but that is a different context.)
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
If he's bored and biding his time in AAA and that's why he's underperforming
isn’t that a massive black mark against him, anyway? What’s to say that in three years, he’ll just be bored and biding his time at the 100 game mark when no one is paying close attention. Professionals play their best all of the time.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
I was irritated when I first read this
but I’ve already gotten at least a dozen different laughs out of the Russian Scientist line. For whatever reason, that cracks my shit up. Nearly as much as this XKCD comic (my all time favorite):
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
by azruavatar on Aug 2, 2010 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Brilliant
>Pitcher Change: Felipe Lopez replaces Ryan Franklin, batting 7th, replacing third baseman Felipe Lopez
Adam Wainwright reaches on force attempt, throwing error by Aaron Heilman. Jaime Garcia scores. Brendan Ryan to 3rd. Adam Wainwright to 2nd. None out.
If you work in an office,
put it outside your cube. Explaining it is fin.
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
You know what else is a bold statement?
This:
i’d say the kid’s gonna tear it up, and he was certainly bored and biding his time in AAA, just working on the overall game. he didn’t really have anything to prove there.
Bored and biding his time? If that’s the case, then I’m sure glad he’s gone, because I’d rather have a guy like Allen Craig, who REALLY doesn’t have anything to prove at AAA but goes down there and tears the fucking cover off the ball every chance he gets.
If he’s “gonna tear it up” why did a team with a giant hole at 1B (and a DH spot available as well) past this season just deal him straight up for a B- prospect? Very few prospect for prospect deals are ever done, yet he’s been involved in TWO of them in the last 12 months. That should tell you something right there.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
I've been a member
this site for five years, because I think Mo is a poor GM does not make me a troll, there’s no need to make an argument personal because you don’t like what’s being said.
Like I said, Mo seems over matched, there has been more than enough chatter about how MO does not have full control over his own roster, and frankly I believe there is merit to that sentiment. Can anybody make a case for a Aaron Miles to be on this roster from GM’s point of view? Or how about Larue, or Winn? The instance of trading Duncan for Lugo and having TLR and Duncan blatantly criticize Mo in the media is something that has always stuck in my mind as indicative of his standing with the field staff.
Then there are the contracts. Kyle lohse’s contract was panned negatively from the very beginning and has turned out worse than initially thought. Not only because of the performance of the player, but also the hamstringing it has placed on the teams financial flexibility.
It seemed no one else was willing to go beyond five years for Holliday, until we offered seven. As has been documented time and time again, the longer a contract is, the more risk is associated with it. Did Mo needlessly hand out two more years on a that contract?
Ryan Franklin’s extension was another oddity, giving an aging reliever with sketchy perifs guaranteed money when the team already held a team option on said player didn’t seem wise, much like giving schumaker two guaranteed years while he was under team control.
I didn’t like the Greene trade at the time, not because I wasn’t fooled into thinking he had upside much like everyone else, but rather because he was a good candidate for a salary dump and being familiar with Gregorson, thought he was way too much to give up in that trade.
Derosa was made redundant shortly after his trade, which certainly created a feeling of buyers remorse. I would argue that a few weeks of foresight is necessity a good GM.
After 2008 we had one of the top farm systems in baseball, entering this year we had one of the worst. Were the trade chips allocated wisely? I do not think so.
It has not all been misses, Freese obviously was a coup and the initial Loshe contract along with lopez this season have all been productive moves.
Overall however, I feel like he has done very little with the resources give to him.
you sir, are correct
kg’s salary and any diligence about how/why he broke his hand would have put the kbosch on that deal
we have given up a lot for a little
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
The troll comment was out of line, I apologize for that.
Just tired of hearing unsubstantiated claims about firing John Mozeliak when it really isn’t merited. Anyway, to the meat of the post.
In regards to TLR’s sway or lack there of with the FO, I really think it could be worse to give the manager some say in the lineup. At least the entire organization is connected in some way, and are on the same page. If Mozeliak doesn’t give TLR some input on some random bench players, do we really want a crisis in the middle of a pennant race between the FO and the manager, when Mozeliak is bound to lose because most STL fans love Tony La Russa? I think Mozeliak is doing the best he can to keep the entire organization stable.
The Kyle Lohse contract was one that was performed in a very different market in different circumstances. It sure as hell looks bad now, but the economic downturn was just starting to affect teams, making for a very unsettling environment. Also, at this time, Carpenter and Wainwright were coming off of injury years, and we had absolutely no idea what we were going to get out of them in the coming year, whereas Lohse was a very solid presence throughout the season and was durable. The contract that Mo gave him was out of desperation, in that if he didn’t acquire somebody, he would be playing Russian Roulette with his rotation. If the guy pitches like he is supposed to, and doesn’t get fluky injuries, the deal is a market value contract if not a bit better than market value. I can’t criticize the deal, no matter how constricting it is right now to the rotation. If he is healthy and doesn’t suffer so many fluke injuries that nobody saw coming, then we never have to make the deal for Westbrook in the first place.
As for Matt Holliday, who the hell knows what information was reaching Mo’s ear. Scott Boras has built his empire on providing misinformation into the market, and there is no legitimate way to know that there were no real offers out there. I don’t tend to give the articles that said there were no other offers much regard really. If John Mozeliak loses Matt Holliday, what backlash do you think he faces? It would be pretty substantial right? So, Mo took the safe route. While Holliday may be expensive in the later years of the contract, we are paying for his performance right now, which is good to say the least. So did he do it needlessly? Maybe, there is no real way to know, but he did lock up a hitter that this lineup has desperately needed for a while now, and that’s all that mattered to him at that moment.
The Ryan Franklin extension was somewhat puzzling, but I think it had more to do with Franklin and the relief core rather than locking the guy up. Ryan Franklin, like many other players, was playing for his final contract before he retires, and this was a contract year. The pressure facing him in that regard must have been exponential. From Mo’s side of the deal, Kyle McClellan was still shaky, and hitters were just laying off Jason Motte until he threw what everyone knew he would throw, a screaming fastball right down the middle. He needed to lock up his guy before he hit FA, and by doing that, he also alleviates pressure from Ryan’s shoulders in regards to job security. I think it’s a decent proposal.
While losing Gregorson was regrettable, it is not unlike the Ludwick trade. We were dealing from a strength in the farm system (Still had Motte, McClellan, and Perez in the RH relief department) for a position of desperate need. I am going to lay this on the Padres not really giving a crap about Greene’s mental status rather than Mo not doing his due diligence. It was a freak injury, he wasn’t actively trying to break his hand or something. If that were a sign of some big mental problems, then Matt Holliday must be screwed right? Plenty of players do it to release stress, and 99% of the time, it isn’t a problem, while in Khalil’s case, it happened to be. Not much Mo could do here in my view.
“Derosa was made redundant shortly after his trade, which certainly created a feeling of buyers remorse. I would argue that a few weeks of foresight is necessity a good GM.”
Really? Who would you have liked to play 3rd then? More Joe Thurston? We desperately needed a 3b, and someone decent and healthy behind Pujols, which Derosa provided in the short term. Another thing that Mo couldn’t control was DeRosa breaking his wrist. You are assuming that Derosa was always going to be the answer at cleanup, when in reality, he wasn’t. It’s fairly possible that Mo was working on a Holliday trade at that moment in time, and that Derosa would have simply been moved back in the order once Holliday was acquired. I don’t think you give Mozeliak much credit in that regard.
“After 2008 we had one of the top farm systems in baseball, entering this year we had one of the worst. Were the trade chips allocated wisely? I do not think so.”
The farm ranking argument is complete crap to me, considering that we graduated Rasmus, Motte, McClellan, Garcia, and so many other players, while also dealing Wallace, a useless prospect to us, for a key cog in the lineup. I think that considering how many homegrown pieces we use, and how many were traded for good assets, that he is handling it well, if not decently.
In baseball the object is to go home! And to be safe! "I hope I'll be safe at home!"
-George Carlin (RIP)
I haven't heard that
Mo needs to be fired, said very frequently. Frankly, I feel like the outlier even suggesting that he hasn’t done a fantastic job.
Of course there is a need for the front office and the field staff to get along. I just don’t see Tony making nearly as many concessions as Mo, and it’s detrimental to the team.
There is no way Lohse’s contract looked good for a second, in any economic climate.
He was signed after a career year, but as if his career year was his true talent level. In his eight prior years, excluding his career year in 2008 he had provided a value over 10M once. For Loshe to have lived up to his contract he would have had to nearly replicate his 2008 in his age 31-34 age seasons. Nobody bet on him to do that. Also, There were plenty of other pitchers available in free agency, including Brad Penny, Randy Wolf and John Smoltz that all signed one year deals that would have provided just as much security with much less risk.
Why would there have been so much backlash if he had failed to resign Holliday? Mo just essentially gave away Ryan Ludwick because of a percieved depth of outfielders, so it was absolutely essential to sign Holliday? It’s not just Holliday or nothing, there is also an opportunity cost involved with payroll allocation, including the eventual need to resign Pujols. Being a little more creative or patient might have landed some thing else that was a little more practical for the team as constructed.
So by your rational, Franklin was extended because of the lack of other reliable arms in the bull pen? A problem that was created by dealing Gregorson, Perez, Todd, Perdomo etc etc. He gets no sympathy from me for creating a problem and then addressing that problem with an irrational signing.
As far as derosa goes, Holliday made him redundant in the outfield, and Lopez (remember he posted an OPS+ of 153) did the same on the infield. Essentially after those two moves, there was no need for Derosa.
The farm system went down in talent quickly, your belief in the rankings don’t change that it’s bad. Some guys will be traded, it’s the targets they are traded for that are up debate. Of all the players we traded, I don’t see a single person on our roster that is a product of those trades.
Let me edit
that last line. Of all the players we traded from the farm system, i don’t see a single person on our roster as a result of those trades.
Matt Holliday?
Blaine Matthew Burns: Albert Pujols' biggest fan (his first words will for sure be "Albert Pujols is RIDICULOUS")
though I guess drew wasn't 'from the farm system'
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
A few people have Fire John Mozeliak in their sig
It’s a little ridiculous to me anyway.
As for the Lohse contract, from 2002-2008, Lohse had started more than 30 games in all but one season. That’s fairly durable for most starts nowadays, and that’s what we needed, an innings-eater who was dependable. There is a reason that Randy Wolf, Brad Penny, and John Smoltz only got 1 year contracts : injury risk. We already had at that point too much injury risk, adding more would be playing with fire essentially. Moz took a look at the market, was fairly desperate for a dependable starter, and signed Lohse to a long term deal. His value was in the innings, and to ask him to pitch 190 innings a season was not a tall task, he had done it his entire career at that point.
As for Holliday, he comes off a season where he absolutely thrives as the cleanup hitter to Albert, and solved what had been a really big issue at the time. Ludwick could not be counted on to stay healthy and consistent at that time. Moz absolutely had to lockup the only guy on the market that could sufficiently protect Pujols (Jason Bay was the only one that even came close, but is a below average defender). There was nothing practical about this situation, as nobody has a hitter that is IBB’d and pitched by as much as Pujols. And to be frank, it was essentially Holliday or nothing, Bay was already signed by the time Holliday agreed to a contract. There was no other hitter worth the prospects really available on the market.
“So by your rational, Franklin was extended because of the lack of other reliable arms in the bull pen? A problem that was created by dealing Gregorson, Perez, Todd, Perdomo etc etc. He gets no sympathy from me for creating a problem and then addressing that problem with an irrational signing.”
Again, he dealt from a position of strength for a position of need, which included 3b and SS. If you don’t call that maximizing your resources, I don’t know what you would call it then. A 2 year/6.5 million dollar contract for a guy whose skill set ages well is not a crippling signing. Let’s look at Mo’s other options here. Does he sign a closer at market value (Jose Valverde signed for 2 years/14 million, good idea of how much Franklin could have gotten) or rely on 2 young but inconsistent players in McClellan and Motte? If it works, it’s a very cost-effective move by having an above average closer for below market money, and if it doesn’t, the contract isn’t horrible, and it doesn’t sink the club. It was a worthwhile gamble in my view.
“As far as derosa goes, Holliday made him redundant in the outfield, and Lopez (remember he posted an OPS+ of 153) did the same on the infield. Essentially after those two moves, there was no need for Derosa.”
We didn’t have Lopez last season, Milwaukee acquired him from Arizona last season, so I don’t know exactly what you mean here, unless you are mistaken. There was a reason Thurston and Barden were getting starts in the infield….
“Of all the players we traded from the farm system, i don’t see a single person on our roster as a result of those trades.”
This is a ridiculous argument. It’s no secret that Mozeliak tried to hit the jackpot by using rental players to reach the playoffs, in an effort to not only revitalize the team, but also convince Albert Pujols that the Cardinals were serious about acquiring players and winning a championship. Matt Holliday was here, and Julio Lugo served his purpose as a utility infielder last year, and was promptly shipped off for cash once Lopez rendered him useless.
In baseball the object is to go home! And to be safe! "I hope I'll be safe at home!"
-George Carlin (RIP)
it seems there is a lot of "dealing from strength"
as a substitute for extracting max value
whether we have a lot or a little
maxing value is jmo’s job
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
exactly
even for a team with a $100M payroll, you can’t do that forever.
Well the girls would turn the color of the avocado when he would drive down the street in his El Dorado... -the modern lovers
Alright.
Let me put out an example. What is the dropoff of Derosa (Pre-injury) to Thurston? Pretty big right? What is the dropoff from Perez to McClellan? Perez is better but not by a huge margin. Mo is getting more wins from individual positions by dealing where the talent pool is large for positions with huge deficiencies in talent.
How is that not rational and maximizing value with his budget?
In baseball the object is to go home! And to be safe! "I hope I'll be safe at home!"
-George Carlin (RIP)
Unless TLR was behind this move
Wouldn’t we all have been happier going forward if Mo traded Jay (and a C prospect) for Westbrook?
Jay was a sell high guy.
Westbrook clearly fills a need and improves the team, so acquiring him is the right move.
Winn can play the Jay “4th outfielder” position this year.
Ludwick could be moved for (likely) more after the season.
Craig would enter 2011 as the clear-cut (I hope) RF if Ludwick was moved—now he (and Rasmus) still have Jay to contend with.
No Problem Trading Jay Either
but Westbrook went for a C/B prospect. If you are going to trade Jay you have to get value for him as well and surely he now has more value than a C/B prospect. Jay and a prospect for Steven Drew or Kelly Johnson would make sense to me.
umpteen better scenarios than what went down
t me, it’s another tlr driven decision
so jay is in rf and his partner will be stav
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
I was really hoping this trade would mean Allen Craig back to the Cards.
But Stav goes 3-4 one day in Memphis and the next day is back in StL.
"I told myself from the very beginning: 'If he's going to throw a shutout, then he's going to tie,'" Wainwright said. "He was not going to beat me today."
yes, that is correct. Have you heard anything about Stav getting sent back to Memphis?
Or Winn being DFA’d to make room for Craig to come up on Wednesday? I will be pleasantly surprised if that happens.
Not holding my breath, however.
"I told myself from the very beginning: 'If he's going to throw a shutout, then he's going to tie,'" Wainwright said. "He was not going to beat me today."
Looks Like There Is Still a Log-Jam
Given LaRussa’s tendency to keep vets there is no telling who will get sent down and who will stay up. They said before that Jay and Craig were sent down because they wanted them to get consistent at bats. Well now they should be able to get enough bats in for them to stay up, but who knows what LaRussa is thinking.
I like how we are complaining
about TLR driving this deal, causing him to play the Rookie Jay over the Veteran Ludwick. And then immediately turning around about and complaining about LaRussa prefering veteran’s over rookies.
this thread is all Aaron Mile's fault.
by Evilfrog on Aug 1, 2010 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don't think anyone is saying that Tony wanted Ludwick traded to he could play Jay more.
"I told myself from the very beginning: 'If he's going to throw a shutout, then he's going to tie,'" Wainwright said. "He was not going to beat me today."
I'm kind of shocked by all this.
I don’t know how to discuss with people who have already staked claims to both sides of the argument.
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
spants has all the knives
and I hate to steal schticks. Mine weighs enough as it is.
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
I'm hoping it is Craig in RF
I really like Jay but Craig has been dominating AAA as well. He hit two dingers last night and has been hittiing at a very high level for two years now. He is an RBI maching at Memphis and I think he is a good fit for RF.
considering zach duke is starting for PIT today
i wouldn’t mind that one bit
Albert's grand slam, 7/3/09
Waino's CG, 7/4/10
@zoomzoomj88
Fire Tony LaRussa
The Cardinals need to hire a baserunning coach. Hello, Larry Walker.
but unfortunately cannot be called up til Wednesday
most likely, one of either Jay or Rasmus is sitting today in favor of Stavinoha…actually, I can almost guarantee it.
Hold my stones!
PIT lineup for today vs. waino
McCutchen CF, Tabata LF, Walker 2B, Jones 1B, Alvarez 3B, Milledge RF, Cedeno SS, Jaramillo C, Duke P
Albert's grand slam, 7/3/09
Waino's CG, 7/4/10
@zoomzoomj88
Fire Tony LaRussa
The Cardinals need to hire a baserunning coach. Hello, Larry Walker.
@mlbdailylineups on twitter.
Albert's grand slam, 7/3/09
Waino's CG, 7/4/10
@zoomzoomj88
Fire Tony LaRussa
The Cardinals need to hire a baserunning coach. Hello, Larry Walker.
Tony does like to get a guys feet wet as soon as he gets here....
this thread is all Aaron Mile's fault.
Friday's game. Meeting at work had me running late and forgot my camera. only had my phone
Albert
Carp
Punchfest
Blaine Matthew Burns: Albert Pujols' biggest fan (his first words will for sure be "Albert Pujols is RIDICULOUS")
What this trade shows me
Is that the Cardinals can take on no more salary this year. This was a cash-neutral deal meaning the Indians ate a few million dollars in salary to get a C+ prospect and save some cash. So what would the Indians of accepted if they didn’t also have to eat millions of dollars in salary? Probably a low grade prospect. Westbrook to the Cardinals for straight salary relief and a prospect in A ball. That should of been enough to get the deal done. That is Westbrook’s value.
Since the deal went down different. It shows the Cardinals have no money to spend THIS YEAR. They felt they had to upgrade the pitching staff without taking on any new salary. We don’t have the prospects to get someone that is still under team control. So we had to overpay with our surplus of OFer’s.
I expect no moves from guys going through waivers. This team can’t take on salary anymore. Honestly, all the people that are saying we traded Ludwick to save salary in 2011 make no sense to me. 2011 is next year. We would have an entire off season to trade Ludwick.
I really do think I am most upset that we didn’t trade Ludwick + Ryan for Yunel Escobar
Escobar would have worked for me
There just seems to be so many different possibilities that might have worked.
Flim, Mo has said there is still financial flexibility to add someone else
now whether that actually happens (and whether he actually means that) is obviously not clear.
from what they were talking about on the radio
they were also trying to get a middle infielder and were prepared to take on salary there.
this thread is all Aaron Mile's fault.
From what they were talking about on the radio
Mo sounded like he was trying to take heat off himself and being completely non-comittal about getting another player.
He came off as “Well, yes we could Mike but don’t get your hopes up.”
by Hardcore Legend on Aug 1, 2010 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions
possible too...
Radio host “So Mo, you traded away a fan favorite in Ludwick, what are you going to do next?”
Mo “Hey look over there! A distraction!”
Raido host “What?”
Mo “I mean, middle infield. But don’t get your hopes up.”
this thread is all Aaron Mile's fault.
What it says to me, cash-wise,
is that the Cardinals wanted to maintain the flexibility to take on the money of some big-salaried player who clears waivers after the deadline.
if that happens, and was the impetus behind dumping luddy
i’ll change my opinion on the merits of this deal.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
well...
they made the move for pitching and still have the flexibility. It shouldn’t matter they are able to use that flexibility. The right piece might not come alone. But it’s good to be prepared for that piece.
this thread is all Aaron Mile's fault.
ok, then i'll say if that's the plan
whether it happens or not, then my opinion will change – but it will change more if it actually happens.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
If this were the case
they could have placed Ludwick on irrevocable waivers and gotten a C prospect back, just like they did.
by Hardcore Legend on Aug 1, 2010 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Not for Ryan Ludwick
The only rational explanation for trading Ludwick was to save money for another player because this deal was money neutral (or we lost) and we took on a lesser player.
The idea we couldn’t have gotten Jake Westbrook unless we got rid of Ryan Ludwick only exists when it comes down to money.
by Hardcore Legend on Aug 1, 2010 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions
me too
possibly, depending on who they come up with.
Baseball first, teams second, players third, agents last.
by Dave Pendleton on Aug 1, 2010 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Then why did they keep saying that they had money to take on a salary. Why
were they in on the Oswalt talks. I don’t buy it – I think they had money and they just could not get anything done because everyone wanted some of the roster players that they did not want to give up.
I think
my only retort is, do you have a better reason? Because it doesn’t make sense other way I look at it.
I don't rememeber a trade by the Cardinals
That made such a large portion of the Cardinal base upset over it.
I don't think anyone's upset at acquiring Westbrook
It’s just the fact Mo seemingly overpaid to get him using the 3rd/4th best hitter in an offense that will likely be the team’s downfall if they make the playoffs.
by olddomination on Aug 1, 2010 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions
+1
Albert's grand slam, 7/3/09
Waino's CG, 7/4/10
@zoomzoomj88
Fire Tony LaRussa
The Cardinals need to hire a baserunning coach. Hello, Larry Walker.
lineup
Lopez 3B, Jay RF, Pujols 1B, Holliday LF, Molina C, Rasmus CF, Ryan SS, Wainwright P, Miles 2B
Hold my stones!
After Suppan's night at the plate,
I’d be happier if he snuck in at 2B.
I'm out of champagna. How about some 7-Up and Mad Dog 20/20?
by The Continental on Aug 1, 2010 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Why not Greene? I don't get it
I mean, anyone can play 2B.
by Mulliganstew on Aug 1, 2010 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Free Shaggy!
I'm out of champagna. How about some 7-Up and Mad Dog 20/20?
by The Continental on Aug 1, 2010 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Because Miles is hitting .300
Of course he’s already begun the trek back towards a <.600 OPS, but he’s hitting .300 for now.
Not afraid to nitpick
they said during the broadcast that greene is on the DL
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
no stav yay, miles... dammit.
Albert's grand slam, 7/3/09
Waino's CG, 7/4/10
@zoomzoomj88
Fire Tony LaRussa
The Cardinals need to hire a baserunning coach. Hello, Larry Walker.
Which is worse lineup positioning?
Our #5 hitter or Miles in any position?
by Hardcore Legend on Aug 1, 2010 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions
have to mull that one over
it’s always odd to see molina at 5.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
My reasons for this being a good trade...
1. This trade provides flexibility for the Cardinals going into the offseason. You take Penny’s salary and Ludwick’s projected, you are creating about 16-18 million dollars to have available next year that can be used in different areas (FA SP, trade for Stephen Drew – and no, you couldn’t have traded Ludwick to AZ for Drew because Arizona is selling, not taking on salary).
2. This trade wasn’t sending Ludwick to a basement team. Ludwick is being sent to a contender where he will have a chance to play in the postseason. He wasn’t sent to the Pirates/Diamondbacks/Nationals/Orioles/Royals. He was sent to a good situation for winning. Sure, his numbers may not be as big at Petco, but he will be in the same role he was here as a power bat in a lineup with a superstar. If you try to maximize Ludwick’s value, he would be most valuable to a team like the Royals who have trouble getting FA power bats to come to their town, and would be willing to pay more.
3. The Cardinals get a SP without giving up the prospects that are valued a lot higher internally for a short term player (Shelby Miller for Oswalt?).
4. I think Ludwick would have been traded last season, but the team wasn’t sure of Rasmus’ identity as a player. Is Rasmus a top of the order high obp, 15 hr power hitter, or is he a middle of the order run producer? Since Rasmus has shown he is a power hitter this year, I would expect to see him in the lower half of the lineup going forward. With power production coming from CF, you can afford to have less power from your RF. This fills your OF at a much lower price tag.
5. Financial flexibility provided could allow the Cardinals to lock up Rasmus this offseason.
6. Pujols extensions cost money, and by moving Ludwick for a cheaper option allows the Cards to keep Pujols. I never believed the Cardinals would be able to have/afford both Pujols and Ludwick on the roster going forward past their current contracts.
7. Financial flexibility gives the Cards more options next year for the rotation. With Salas and Sanchez developing and getting closer to being on the big club permanently, McClellan can be moved to the rotation along with Wainwright, Carpenter, and Garcia. The Cards can then see if Lynn/Walters/Hawksworth is ready to eat some innings, or go out and get a cheap 5th starter.
i'll only disagree on the royals/ludwick scenario
the only market for luddy at mid-season is a contender. also, i would have rather dealt luddy directly to san diego for a couple good prospects and flipped one of them, or someone lesser from our system, to cleveland for westbrook. we should have received a good prospect in this deal, and didn’t, which bothers me the most.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
Look, I think we should have gotten more, just like everyone else,
but I’m not sure “Lynn/whomever from out farm system for Westy, straight up” was ever going to happen. It’s not like Cleveland hasn’t had the opportunity to peruse the Cardinals farm system in the past.
I REALLY think that nothing was going to happen if Mo tried to do this as a 2-team deal. The way it sounds to me, Mo wanted Westbrook and nothing we had matched what Cleveland wanted. The cost of getting San Diego’s prospect to Cleveland turned out to be Ludwick.
i wouldn't have traded lynn for westbrook
but someone like hooker i would have. and we could also have given the indians more salary relief in a westbrook deal, depending on the minor-leaguer we sent.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
I get what you're saying,
but my point is that I don’t think Cleveland wanted anyone we had. Doing it this way allowed Mo to avoid sending money to anyone, and in fact get a little money in return to go after a waiver-wire veteran if one breaks loose in August.
Trading Lud for prospects and then flipping one to the Indians for Westbrook might have worked, too, but I’m not sure that such a thing was ever in the works, or if there was enough time to arrange it onec the Westbrook talks got serious.
if houston can manage to identify and get a prospect for oswalt to flip for walrus
meaning they were engaged all along with toronto in this deal, then surely we could have done something similar.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
To play Devils advocate here
They could have traded Ludwick in the offseason to get payroll flexibility – they did not need to do it now.
1.14.10, the day I went green.
IT IS ABOUT NOT GETTING VALUE
Jumsy, I agree that it makes sense to trade Ludwick for all of the reasons that you mention. However, they gave him away. There were several teams looking for an outfield bat who were contending and who had prospects to give up. Why not just trade him for prospects and work directly with Cleveland for Westbrook. Cleveland gave up money and Westbrook for a B/C prospect.
well, atlanta traded for ank
and has been looking for an outfielder all year.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
okay, but I don't see anyone else who was chomping at the bit to get Ludwick.
אנא טוני לא יותר ט.א.ס.ס
I would have tried to trade him for Medlen personally
and the Braves have been interested in Ludwick before.
In baseball the object is to go home! And to be safe! "I hope I'll be safe at home!"
-George Carlin (RIP)
We just dont know what the market for Ludwick was
It might have been Jake Westbrook
1.14.10, the day I went green.
Oh, I am totally with you,
I just wonder if they would have had any interest or not. I doubt it though.
In baseball the object is to go home! And to be safe! "I hope I'll be safe at home!"
-George Carlin (RIP)
atlanta didnt take on any salary for next year in their deals
this is what limits the market for ludwick. he is no longer cheap. he may still be worth what he will get paid assuming no injuries, but teams have budgets
luddy wouldn't have required them to take on salary for next year
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
Ludwick is not now, nor has he ever been a better hitter than Lance Berkman.
Ludwick’s ridiculous 2008 season, which he has never come close to equalling and very likely never will, was at a .406wOBA. Lance Berkman has 5 seasons better than that, and another 3 at right around .400 wOBA.
Lance just had knee surgery this spring, missed spring training and was still recovering in April/May.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Aug 1, 2010 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions
And Atlanta gave up nothing to get him.
So to pretend like they were willing to throw prospects around for Ludwick is a sketchy position.
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
i think there is a difference between luddy's value and ank's value
nobody is giving up anything for ank, and in fact are probably desperate for help if they are acquiring him.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
I have come around to the idea that Ludwick had to be moved
In that Colby and Matt are fixtures in the OF and there was talent being blocked. I even get that we probably over-valued Ludwick in that COF are perhaps the most fungible player-types. I am, however disapointed in Westbrook. My gut tells me he won’t be any better than Suppan will/would be just as good going forward.
I doubt that this trade will remembered as being that bad though. I don’t think Ludwick is a great fit for Petco and I believe that Jay, Craig and spare parts will will the OF void fine.
The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!
I think you're seriously underestimating how easy it will be to be "Better than Suppan."
We could probably promote a single A or double AA pitcher to the bigs right now, and they’d have a better-than-decent shot of outperforming what Suppan has done for us.
didn't see the game
but from the boxscore looks like soup did ok last night. probably buys him another start anyway, allowing lohse to continue to rehab.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
he certainly did do well - granted, against the pirates, but 5 k, 0 bb usually means a good performance
that doesn’t really have that much bearing on his overall performance over the past few years, both with milwaukee and with us, which has been nothing short of terrible.
אנא טוני לא יותר ט.א.ס.ס
yeah, but lohse would be better off with a bit more work in AAA
so maybe soup can do it one more time. i believe i also saw he got a lot of grounders to go with the 5 k’s and no walks.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
given the off-days
the Cards could give Lohse 3 more rehab starts if they keep Suppan for the present and give Soup one more start – then Lohse could return on Aug. 24 if all goes well with his rehab – I will predict the Cards will do this if the alternative is to let Soup go – at the moment, Soup just gives us some more insurance in case of an injury or tired arm to a current starter
i wouldn't call it garbage
it does what it is suppose to do. Which is to remove a pitcher from his defense. Though pitchers do pitch to their defense so it is flawed. (not that anything else out there is flawless.) And I think it’s important part of any discussion about a pitcher.
This formula FAILS because it implies that all successful contact pitchers are lucky.
I do agree with this to an extent. All Balls hit into play are treated equally in FIP. and they are not.
this thread is all Aaron Mile's fault.
Weak grounds to second aren't more desirable than screaming liners to the gaps in the outfield?
Blasphemy, Frog. Blasphemy.
what. the. hell.
This is a new avatar. I don’t even KNOW you anymore.
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
greinke talks about how he pitches to his defense and parks
ubaldo does the same. i like fip, but like you said, nothing is perfect.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
This is why I like tRA/tERA, which is like FIP that corrects for batted ball types.
אנא טוני לא יותר ט.א.ס.ס
i'll have to check that out
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
that is the funniest baseball picture i think ive seen
Does anyone think that we would make the playoffs with suppan and hawksworth as 40% of the rotation?
Does anyone think Ludwick is not an injury risk? I really do think he has bad knees
Also, more playing time for rasmus!
chief justice
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Aug 1, 2010 1:06 PM EDT reply actions
never heard of luddy having a knee problem before
is this something new?
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
The more time for Rasmus is huge to me.
We had too many of one thing and not enough of another. Yes, we should have gotten more for Luddy, but how much more realistically? Jay’s hitting will regress, but will his defense? Not as likely as Luddy’s will going forward. Luddy’s almost part middle-age for a baseball player, as per the injuries. I doubt this trade will kill us, and not nearly as fast as Soup and hawk’s pitching. I’ll now use a very popular meme: FREE ALLEN CRAIG! I think that does as much for us as anything will.
You're the fail to my win?
"There is not a better feeling in the whole world than knowing that you are the best team in both leagues."- Bob Forsch on winning the 1982 World Series.
by MaytheForschbewithyou on Aug 1, 2010 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm surprised more people aren't talking about the more Rasmus playing time
chief justice
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Aug 1, 2010 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions
i think because it's odd to talk about having to make a trade
to get your star centerfielder more playing time. he is the starter and will get the bulk of the time with or without luddy. jay is not displacing colby – i’d say it was more of a wakeup message from tony. but tony certainly knows which of the two is the much better player.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
tlr has shown many times
he feels no need to play the best palyers
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
Let's have another experiment, why not?
try Randy Winn at 2nd base and move Miles to the bleachers. Could be an improvement.
Baseball first, teams second, players third, agents last.
Miles is too short for the bleachers, he cant see over anyone...
and he gets carded EVERY TIME.
Hold my stones!
make that allen craig to second and im on board!
chief justice
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Aug 1, 2010 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions
I could do that!
Baseball first, teams second, players third, agents last.
by Dave Pendleton on Aug 1, 2010 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Then why haven't you?
You're the fail to my win?
"There is not a better feeling in the whole world than knowing that you are the best team in both leagues."- Bob Forsch on winning the 1982 World Series.
by MaytheForschbewithyou on Aug 1, 2010 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions
It's not up to me,
but I’d do it if I could.
Baseball first, teams second, players third, agents last.
by Dave Pendleton on Aug 1, 2010 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions
The ever-scientific gut feeling
I like to think I can keep my emotions out of the way when evaluating a trade or team move, but this one still leaves me puzzled. I get why it makes sense and I get the justification, but I can’t shake the feeling in my gut that it wasn’t the right move.
When we traded Scott Rolen, I was ecstatic about the trade. Rolen was, and still is, one of my favorite ballplayers of all time. Great guy with a weird sense of humor who plays as hard as anyone. But at the time, it was pretty clear that his future wasn’t in St. Louis, and I was just glad that we could deal him and end the drama and get someone good in return.
I like Ludwick quite a bit, but nowhere near as much as Rolen. And no matter how much I justify or think about this deal, it just doesn’t seem right. Very strange.
defy, cards, defy. hey logic --- you suck.
...
rolen’s future was obvious. it was obvious he wasn’t going be in st. louis much longer. luddy’s departure came as a total surprise. the fact that he was a fan fave and clubhouse fave makes it a lot harder.
Albert's grand slam, 7/3/09
Waino's CG, 7/4/10
@zoomzoomj88
Fire Tony LaRussa
The Cardinals need to hire a baserunning coach. Hello, Larry Walker.
hard to believe
that the cards couldn’t have gotten a better package than the royals got for trading podsednik.
"Never judge a taco by its price" - Dr. Gonzo
is he old enough to shave?
Baseball first, teams second, players third, agents last.
by Dave Pendleton on Aug 1, 2010 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Hogwash
I have no idea what compels you to attempt to defend this horrible trade. Say RFL will be more expensive in 2011 one hundred times and it still does not obviate the fact he had been one of our top 1 – 4 offensive producers over the last few years and was still under team control for another year. WTH do we care what he might cost in 2011? Moreover, if I am not mistaken, he was one of the best in the NL – this year – with RISP. The arguments trotted out, that he was injury prone, potentially expensive etc. (you could make this same specious argument with respect to any ball player) don’t hold water from an objective standpoint , which is why this deal is being roundly characterized as a complete failure. I have no problem whatsoever for any member of the team being traded – as long as we get decent value. We did not get decent value here, even according to the convoluted and senseless premise that the value of RFL somehow factors into the value of JFW for 2 months. This is the type of deal that indicates the 3-year man is a puppet of an owner whose interests are not congruent with those of the paying customers.
Other mysteries remain. TL
Ok, first off, I'm not saying the trade was acceptable, because it wasn't because we undervalued Ludwick in the trade
We should have been able to deal for Westbrook and deal Luddy in different trades and gotten more from Ludwick…
But this statement is why you aren’t a GM:
WTH do we care what he might cost in 2011?
It was an obvious move based on money.
Hold my stones!
Money when?
Now? there is no monetary consideration now. Next year yes, but based on the premise we could afford Oswalt now and next year, this is a non starter. Say the above premise was incorrect for whatever reason, we pay Luddy his arb, which relatively speaking would be reasonable, and when he goes FA in 2010 we get some picks which are certainly of a higher value than the year old dust in left our hands that was JFW. I’m not a GM, but neither is Mo.
Other mysteries remain. TL
Make that FA in 2012
Other mysteries remain. TL
Well apparently our FO wants a cheaper OF for next year...
What I dont understand is why we didn’t trade him this offseason instead of at the deadline…
Im not saying I understand, especially the money part. But its the only reason I can find for the move, and next year’s payroll has to be the reason. Otherwise, I’m at a loss.
Hold my stones!
Fine
If we want to go cheap and productive with high ceiling youngsters, then it could possible make sense to trade someone of LFW’s ilk, but only if we get a decent return. Clearly we did not get a decent return and the only conclusion I can come to is that the Cards are sellers, despite our position in the standings, which is an uncomfortable realization.
Other mysteries remain. TL
i think next year's money is bs
2010 penny plus lud is much less than lud would have pulled next year
they had 9 set aside for bp and lud would not likely have consumed that
still leaving ~5+ for whatever
hopefully abetter decision than bp
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
O goody!
A “RISP is important” based argument. I haven’t heard that in like 2 months since Matt Holliday shot that argument all to hell.
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
It's not completely random or anything!
Ludwick is just a winner, while Holliday is just not clutch!
/end sarcastic rant.
In baseball the object is to go home! And to be safe! "I hope I'll be safe at home!"
-George Carlin (RIP)
holliday shot it to hell?
what’s he hitting now w/risp?
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
.753
which is much better than he was hitting earlier in the year. But please continue to reference sample sizes that aren’t predictive. It helps me to recognize who understands baseball.
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
holliday is hitting .753 w/risp?
surely you understand baseball enough, at least, to recognize that has to be an error? and, btw, he has for his career underperformed with risp – is that sample size? don’t tell me about baseball until you get some basics under your belt and we will be fine. i don’t give a f who you think you are, learn the damn game before you fire up the computer. sorry, but some of your nonsense would get you laughed out of my circles, so chew on that, robot. and if you can’t take it, tough shit. you can ban me and take your ball and go home. and if you don’t ban me, then don’t f’ing tell me again about who understands baseball, because i have questioned your understanding for quite some time now, but at least i haven’t called you out for being a know-nothing, until now. you understand baseball?? LOL. you understand baseball like a russian scientist.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
He's mildly underperformed his career numbers (.930 OPS)
versus RISP (.880). Sure, I won’t argue that. Again, you continue to take what I said out of context. He was hitting horribly at the beginning of the year with RISP and everyone asked what the problem was. There was no problem and no reason to get worked up over it. His numbers have moved back toward career averages.
But to get back to the initial point. Ludwick’s RISP is hardly a reason to keep him on the team this season. That was my point from the start.
As for the rest of the nonsense that you wrote, I’m not going to ban you. I don’t know if you think I’m petty (I think we’ve banned like 2 long time members, ever) but it’s not something I do on a whim. I particularly enjoy when people fling attacks about me sitting behind a computer before they proceed to level vague statements about their “circles”. It’s ironic and I’ve always enjoyed irony. Also, I assume Russian scientists understand baseball quite well as they would be, on balance, smart people. So thank you for the odd compliment. I’ve not been praised in that manner before.
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
by azruavatar on Aug 2, 2010 8:34 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Is it a safe assumption
that all the scrimping and dumping is so that we can pay Albert when the time comes?
If that’s the case, what is that contract likely to look like and will Albert continue to be worth it?
Baseball first, teams second, players third, agents last.
"will Albert continue to be worth it?"
If we pay him more than we paid Holliday, the answer is “almost certainly not.”
Well the girls would turn the color of the avocado when he would drive down the street in his El Dorado... -the modern lovers
that's what I'm thinking.
Will he take less than Holliday and is he worth more than Holliday.
So I’m wondering how much fuss there’s going to be about paying him or trading him?
I’m really interested to see how that’s going to play out.
Will there be outrage and a lynching?
Baseball first, teams second, players third, agents last.
by Dave Pendleton on Aug 1, 2010 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions
...
B_Walton
MiLB.com reporting that #stlcards have optioned Tyler Greene to Triple-A Memphis
Albert's grand slam, 7/3/09
Waino's CG, 7/4/10
@zoomzoomj88
Fire Tony LaRussa
The Cardinals need to hire a baserunning coach. Hello, Larry Walker.
Ugh, so who gets optioned when Freese comes back...
and who gets optioned when Lohse gets back…
Hold my stones!
stav optioned, winn/miles DFA'd?
(we can only hope)
Albert's grand slam, 7/3/09
Waino's CG, 7/4/10
@zoomzoomj88
Fire Tony LaRussa
The Cardinals need to hire a baserunning coach. Hello, Larry Walker.
HOW DO THEY NOT SEE THAT AARON MILES IS TERRIBLE
He has a .670 OPS despite being brutally lucky. God fucking damnit he’s so bad, he can’t hit and he can’t field.
Not afraid to nitpick
...
BJRains
Look for a pitcher to [be sent down] in a few days when Craig returns
Albert's grand slam, 7/3/09
Waino's CG, 7/4/10
@zoomzoomj88
Fire Tony LaRussa
The Cardinals need to hire a baserunning coach. Hello, Larry Walker.
the actual tweet was
“Look for a pitcher to go in a few days when Craig returns”
might mean a soup DFA, but i would doubt it
Albert's grand slam, 7/3/09
Waino's CG, 7/4/10
@zoomzoomj88
Fire Tony LaRussa
The Cardinals need to hire a baserunning coach. Hello, Larry Walker.
And by "tough decisions" you mean that the org is bizarrely reluctant to drop Stav/Miles.
אנא טוני לא יותר ט.א.ס.ס
I like soup in the place of long relief, spot starter
Is he on our team for league minimum again next year? If so, I love that deal.
Just win
Why? He's below replacement level. If we can't find someone better than him from within the organization, (insert logical end to this sentence).
אנא טוני לא יותר ט.א.ס.ס
for the same reason he has been here for 8 starts -- there is no one else
He’s been a Solid, if unspectacular fifth pitcher for those 8 starts — Cards just haven’t scored any runs for him
Just win
He hasn't been solid, he's been BAD. Period. Don't dress it up like he's actually mediocre.
He just plain sucks.
אנא טוני לא יותר ט.א.ס.ס
Molina is batting in the #5 spot today
ugghh…post Luddy lineup management. not liking it much.
Milt Thompson FTW!
So ...
Maybe Mo will sell high on Jay. Maybe they deal him in another package and come up with that 2b or ss guy and we see Craig get the full time gig in RF. Maybe I just want this to make more sense.
Ludwick is aging, getting more expensive and does have an injury history a mile long but why did he have to go to the Pads? I’m sure we will see him if we make the post season and it probably won’t be pretty unless he get injured.
You fit into me
like a hook into an eye
a fish hook
an open eye
Replacement level or below
Jeff Suppan, Aaron Miles, Nick Stavinoha, Randy Winn, Skip Schumaker, Brendan Ryan, Blake Hawksworth.
7 out of 25, per FanGraphs based on performance this year.
I’m not convinced that any of these players will be replaced or demoted this year.
Play ball!
I'm not convinced that Skip or Ryan deserve to be replaced or demoted.
I’m also not sure about Hawksworth, maybe someone else knows more. He’s bad, but do we have a worthwhile replacement?
אנא טוני לא יותר ט.א.ס.ס
I'm not either
But that is over a quarter of our team, including several starters, who are performing like players you can’t pay people to take.
Play ball!
by IL and StL Fan on Aug 1, 2010 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not happy, cuz Luddy was probably my favortie Card
I will be devastated for a few days, at least.
And now I have to find a new effin’ avatar!
I am pleasantly pleased, thankyouverymuch
It's over and done.
Good Luck Padwick, and Good Night Irene.
Baseball first, teams second, players third, agents last.
I don't like this trade one bit.
I know I’m a bit late to the party here, but I’ve been away from all things civilized with the family for the weekend:
- I think what burns me the most is all the reporting that this was a “cash neutral deal”, and most of the reporting coming from the front office. Like I really give a shit that we didn’t take on payroll while having to trade one of our better hitters to do so.
- I’m a big fan of Westbrook — I thought he was the right pitcher for this team. But this just smells like a huge overpay because we had to give up an above average bat to get a league average starter. You’re telling me that we couldn’t have flipped Allen Craig/Daryl Jones/Lance Lynn for him? Really? Because what the Indians got back from San Diego is worse than those three guys.
- The Padres clearly steal Billy Beane’s mojo here — 2 C prospects to acquire what is now the second best hitter on their team (not that that’s saying a whole lot….)? They upgraded their team without giving up any of their top 8 prospects in a mediocre farm system.
- I lose faith in Mo’s negotiating skills and anything that comes out of Bill DeWitt’s mouth every passing hour…
Bottom line is this: We’re a net loser in a deal that is “cash neutral” according to the club.
What does that tell me?
Ownership doesn’t want to take on any more payroll due to long term financial obligations to the current team.
Which, pardon my French, makes Mr. DeWitt a fucking liar. Don’t blow smoke up my ass telling me there’s financial room to make a move if one presents itself, then have two guys traded in the span of a week who make a lot of money but are good pitchers and we don’t even sniff their behinds to see if it smells rosy there. Don’t make proclamations about the “right deal presenting itself” and “not taking rental players”……and then trade away a cost controlled above average outfielder to pick up a league average rental starting pitcher. This is essentially doing everything you said you DIDN’T want to do. It’s really hard for me not to see this as a money move, because all the signs point that direction. Does it make our ballclub better? Maybe — but that’s assuming that we can get Ludwick’s production (offensively and defensively) from Jay/Craig/Winn/Stavinoha, and I’m not sure that’s going to be the case the final two months of the season.
This is exactly the “split-the-middle” move I was concerned about last week when the Oswalt talk was going around. If you deal for Oswalt at least it signals that you think you can win right now. If you don’t make a move, you can claim that the price was too high and you like the hand that you have. But this move makes little sense except for one thing: saving money, both this year (by not acquiring a salary dump) and next year (by saving the $8M Ludwick would have made next season while not taking on any salary obligations for next year)
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
I disagree
I believe it shows that the club didn’t want to take on any more payroll to add Westbrook. There are still moves to be made, and freeing up ludwick’s money from next year may mean they are able to add on to players that are getting paid both this year, and the following year.
But the proof will be in the pudding. I don’t blame anyone for being upset over this move.
this thread is all Aaron Mile's fault.
Who?
Who is going to be available, that will clear waivers, that would upgrade this club offensively? Kelly Johnson? Maybe — but I doubt he ends up on the wire and makes it clear to us — he’s owed pretty much nothing, and the Reds might just claim him and stick him in LF just to keep him from going to St. Louis. I would think the Phillies would be interested in just about any middle infielder that hits waivers as well.
“There’s another move to be made” is just another line that is used to make you feel better about this deal. It keeps you optimistic that something else might happen, so that you don’t judge them based on just this trade by itself.
The proof will be in the pudding, but we seem to be on the short end of a lot of these deals the last couple of years (with the exception of the Holliday trade, which seems to look better every day), and there’s got to be something to that. Perhaps our FO is not as savvy as we’d all like to think.
FWIW — based on Mo’s interview before Saturday’s game and Bill DeWitt’s speech during Whitey’s ceremony….I’m not sure anyone takes them seriously when they call other GM’s. But then I remember that teams took Steve Phillips seriously and fleeced him for all he was worth. Mo doesn’t have a career in broadcasting if he loses this gig, so hopefully we start getting on the positive end of some of these moves eventually.
What a crock.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
Are you really suggesting that they didn't check out Oswalt thoroughly?
That was all that the baseball press talked about for like a week.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
I'm not suggesting that at all. I also don't know where you're getting that from my post.
I’m suggesting that the reason the Oswalt deal wasn’t done was that they didn’t want to take on any money this year or next year. They didn’t want to pick up his option year either. And they wanted $$$ kicked into the deal by Houston from all reports, but didn’t want to give up excessive talent for that to happen. It all points back to not wanting to add payroll. Period. I can understand that point of view (and I think I made it pretty clear I didn’t like the ramifications of the Oswalt trade in terms of dollars), but what pisses me off is that you say one thing and then do the exact opposite.
“We’re looking at non-rental players.”
“We just traded a non-rental OF for a rental SP.”
How is that not hypocrisy?
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
And they didn't want to give up their best prospects in the deal
that’s money too, but there at least, there’s a lot less going on than money. Ed Wade very well could have said, finally, ‘Miller or no deal’, to which Mo said, ‘fine, there are other pitchers out there’
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
I'm fine with that...
but then why not just trade for Westbrook straight up? You’re telling me the Indians thought more of the guy they got from the Padres than any multi-B-prospect deals we could have offered? Are we enthralled with the C LHP prospect that we got? Do we really think our offense (ranked 8th of 15 NL teams in runs per game) could stand to lose one of our better bats while our pitching (ranked 2nd behind the Padres in preventing runs) needed the boost of a 4th starter?
I agree we needed an arm. I disagree totally with trading a productive bat (and good defender) to get that arm, because offense has been the problem for much of the year.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
I agree....
Adding Westbrook made us a better team for the rest of the season….losing RFL!!! made us a worse team for the playoffs. This trade will really start to hurt once Jay crashes back to earth.
Asshattery: it's an epidemic.
Also, Dave Concepcion.
I can't believe that we couldn't have got the trade done without
including SD. They gave up a B and a c prospect. One would think that Westbrook could have been had for a ance Lynn type.
Asshattery: it's an epidemic.
Also, Dave Concepcion.
I think you're right
And I think the org. valued Lance Lynn over Ryan Ludwick.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Aug 2, 2010 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Why Lance Lynn?
That’s better than what they got in this trade?
Why not Deryk Hooker? Or any A ball C pitching prospect for that matter.
Forget it — you’l just have an intentionally confusing and vague response…I don’t know why I bother anymore.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
The only thing that I heard was that
We got involved in a SD-CLE trade—the Padres wanted Westbrook, and were going to make Cleveland eat more money to accept the trade. The cardinals came in to get Westbrook, etc etc
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
and last year for crappy offense
now we have matty all year and we still don’t score squat (except maybe against the pirates)
i’m not opposed to adding westbrook, just how little they got for ludwick
say what you want about his age etc, but he is what he is this year and that is the best predictor for next year.
we aren’t talking about a vernon wells contract here. even if the pads just “rent” him this year, they did so for 2 c prospects
we are renting westbrook at a much higher rate
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
Rasmus is now the key to our offense
Pujols and Holliday will and have hit.
Rasmus has been great for periods of time. So great that he looks like one of the best hitters in baseball. He has also been horrible for periods of time. With Ludwick gone we are going to need Rasmus to play up to his talent. If he does that, the drop off from ludwick to Jay/Craig wont be an issue.
But If Rasmus’ bat vanishes for a few weeks, offense is going to look pretty ugly.
this thread is all Aaron Mile's fault.
Rasmus is an .850 - .900 OPS guy.
But he’s going to have stretches where his OPS is 1.200 and stretches where it’s .600. Honestly — he reminds me a LOT of Jimmy Edmonds in this respect. He’s impossible to pitch to when he’s on but can strike out on a 90 mph fastball down the middle when he’s not.
He’s a streaky hitter. He’s probably always going to BE a streaky hitter. But streaky hitters NEED TO PLAY, and PLAY EVERYDAY. The only way they come out of their funk, usually, is to just keep walking out there every day. Considering his glove is pretty valuable on it’s own I don’t understand why he hasn’t been playing.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
Which is another reason to trade Luddy
he has also always been a very streaky hitter. No team needs a lot of streaky hitters. Hopefully, Jay and/or Craig will be more consistent, though that is yet to be seen.
good news! He'll get to play everyday now.
I think with adjustments Rasmus can be less streaky and still be a .850-.900 OPS guy with a gold glove. I think the Cardinals will benefit from it and we won’t have so many horrible offensive showings.
this thread is all Aaron Mile's fault.
And the thing no one has brought up
is that the Cards can now afford to pay Albert >$25 m per year beginning in 2012 and still have the same basic offensive players they do now – Albert, Holliday, Rasmus, Freese, and Jay/Craig can be the offensive hub for the next 3-5 years, and the younger players will all hopefully get even better with more experience. Obviously, to do this will require keeping bullpen costs relatively low (which the Cards are in good shape to do) and replacing some higher-cost starting pitching, such as Carp eventually and Lohse. That is why not trading Lynn (and Miller) is so important to the future.
Huh?
I don’t even know where to start with this comment — too much doesn’t make sense.
- Trading Ludwick has absolutely NO BEARING on 2012. None. Nobody was expecting him to be a Cardinal at that point anyway.
- We could afford a Pujols extension regardless of our outfield situation. Carp will most likely get bought out or extended cheaply, and his salary + Pujols current salary is more than enough for 2012 Albert + 5th starter. If Jamie is the real thing, we’ll still have the top of our rotation in place at that point, and hopefully Miller is knocking on the door.
- The core of this team cannot include Jay/Craig (and really can’t include Freese either) — we don’t have a clue how those guys are going to fare at the big league level in extended time yet. This is akin to saying “Bo Hart/Joe McEwing/John Rodriguez/Hector Luna are part of our core team going forward”. No they aren’t — the FO would demote them tomorrow to put a cheap, productive replacement out there. Don’t believe me? Then why the fuck is Randy Winn on the team? Those aren’t the type of guys you build your roster around, they’re the type of guys you fill time with while waiting for the guys you build your roster around.
- If you’re saving money on Ludwick next year, then I think it behooves the FO to throw that money at Zach Cox and Austin Wilson and next year’s draft picks and get them to sign. Soon. Tomorrow would be fine. I’d like to see Cox in the AFL this year if possible, since he’s a clear candidate to be a plus bat at 2B or at least an average one at 3B.
- We have to get production from our middle infield at some point. Either Tyler Greene is a MLB SS or he isn’t. If he isn’t, there’s nobody in the organization that is at the present time. I love Brendan Ryan, but he’s a more athletic Mike Gallego — he’s never going to hit consistently enough to make him an everyday player on a pennant winner. That’s got to be addressed, and addressing it requires serious cash — above average hitting SS aren’t cheap. I hope the Descalso can be a doubles machine at 2B while providing good defense, but I’m not convinced yet.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
I agree with most of what you say
But I think that Ryan is a perfectly capable starter going forward and it’s not the worst thing in the world to count on Jay/Craig/Freese to give us cheap production over the next few years. All of them are major league ready, and have consistently put up good numbers (with the exception of Jay, but his defense is his best asset).
by vivaelpujols on Aug 2, 2010 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions
It's not the worst thing in the world, I agree
But you can’t make the case that we’re better off with those guys for the rest of this year and next year than we would have been with Ludwick.
I don’t think Ryan is a capable starter. I think he’s a really nice bench utility player who can spot start at multiple positions and be double switched anywhere. We’ve seen his upside with the bat, and it’s probably 2008. I think he’s a .295 wOBA guy going forward, and most of the projection systems agree with that. That’s not a starting SS unless the rest of your lineup is loaded with bats. Since Molina isn’t going anywhere soon, and we have league average bats in RF, 3B, and 2B, I’d say our lineup is far from that, and it’s part of the reason we’ve had such a tough time scoring runs this year. If our big hitters aren’t hitting dingers, we don’t score a lot of runs, because it’s hard to put strings of hits together when three spots in the lineup are guys with wOBA’s below .300.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
Ugh -- Ryan's upside is 2009 with the bat, not 2008.
Stupid type, non-proofread because i’m hungry post….
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
See I disagree with this
But you can’t make the case that we’re better off with those guys for the rest of this year and next year than we would have been with Ludwick.
In a vacuum, yes Ludwick is a better player and a better bet to produce than those guys, but he’ll also cost somewhere around 9 million dollars whereas Jay and Craig will be free. I think we would be better served to spend that money on places where we don’t have adequate in house replacements (such as SP and 2B) than on Ludwick. I think that’s a pretty reasonable position.
Regarding Boog, if he’s a .295 wOBA player and is +10 runs per 150 games, that makes him league average. I personally think that sounds about right. Again, we could do a lot worse.
cool off a little, four
my assumption is that Freese, Rasmus, Craig/Jay will continue to be productive. Nothing we have seen so far (with the exception of Freese and Raz tendencies to get injured) argues against this, since all of these players have been productive as minor leaguers. If these guys don’t stay productive, then perhaps others will come along. Again, my point is (assuming these guys remain relatively productive), the Cards could keep the same offensive core for a number of years
I don't think we can afford to be league average at 5 different positions on the field though VEP
And that’s how I’m starting to see this play out. Our above average players right now would be Albert, Holliday, and Rasmus. Molina could also be considered above average depending on how you evaluate catcher’s defense (I think you an I would agree that he’s above average because we both value his defense more than a lot of other people), but he’s been putrid at the plate this season and you have to wonder if catching all the time the last 6 seasons is starting to catch up with him just a little bit.
Schu, Ryan, Jay/Craig, Freese are all projected as average players for their positions, and while that’s nothing to be upset about, it’s worrysome because only two guys need to not live up to their projections and you have a team that’s below league average on offense.
Do you see what I’m saying about “splitting the middle” with this move though? We didn’t get much better, we’re taking a huge risk and Craig and Jay can perform like Ludwick has shown he can perform, and we now have less depth in the OF than we did before, which might mean more playing time for Stavinoha and Winn if anyone gets dinged up. They could have made a move that kept the current roster intact while taking on a little more payroll but decided not to, even after saying that they had “flexibility”. This isn’t making a move to win now, nor is it making a move for the long term, it’s right in the middle and the point was to save money next year apparently, while possibly sacrificing this team’s chances this season.
For 2010, I hate this trade all the way around.
For 2011, I wait with baited breath to see what happens with that ~$9M or so they’re saving by dealing Ludwick. If it goes just to pay increases to players already on the roster, I reserve the right to blow a gasket, and I assume you would too.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
Well if we have average players for every position
In addition to a few stars (Rasmus, Holliday, Pujols) that would mean we’d have a well above average team. I don’t really see the problem with that.
Also, this comment wasn't referring to Oswalt:
then have two guys traded in the span of a week who make a lot of money but are good pitchers and we don’t even sniff their behinds to see if it smells rosy there.
I was referring to Haren and Lilly actually, but I can see the confusion there. I never thought we were serious players for Oswalt because of the dollars and the talent acquired to get him.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
I read it much the same
I have happened to really believe they are more financially strapped than they have let on. Mostly because of the urgency of their sales staff, their relentless advertising blitzes, etc. Not saying we’re in bad shape – just that getting fans into the stadium is quite obviously harder for them than it has been since 2003, if not earlier. I can see why they wouldn’t want to talk about that too much though. It won’t play well with anyone in this environment, and people might interpret that as a sign regarding Pujols, and pre-emptively vote with their wallets earlier. So, no, you don’t need go on and on yelling woe is me. However, you also don’t need to float bullshit talk about taking on Roy Oswalt. Just be somewhat realistic and honest in who your targets are. I am probably more cautious about their financial capabilities for most, but even I didn’t think we’d be shedding Ludwick to make a deal for pitching work out for us. Bottom line is that Cleveland gave up Westbrook for some cash and a nice little prospect. We could have done that, but we obviously wanted (or needed) to make the finances work better at the expense of this years club. They get a stronger pushback from the fans because they signaled the direct opposite.
by Merry CRasmus on Aug 2, 2010 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions
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
- The time Whitney Houston sang to Jim Bowden
- Pitchers and catchers! Mariners get early start in Arizona
- 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
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.
