JL21 wrote:Eh, but the Indians got the same thing either way- a middling prospect. It's not like they got something more by the Padres being involved.
Yea that's ultimately what doesn't make sense and what makes the payroll argument pretty light..
Unless they love this prospect from SD that much that they refused to do the deal or refused to pick up the cash without him....which...is maybe a little plausible? We don't know the thoughts the Indians have about this guy
JL21 wrote:Eh, but the Indians got the same thing either way- a middling prospect. It's not like they got something more by the Padres being involved.
Do you really think Kluber is a "middling prospect" though? 122 IP, 121 hits, 40 BB, 136 strikeouts. 3.45 ERA. 24 years old, at Double-A.
Like I said, I don't think the Cardinals had anything as good as him at the AA or AAA level to offer the Indians.
This was his first good year as a pro, and his stuff is middling (Low 90s fastball, solid slider, change that won't play in the big leagues). He's not a great prospect.
JL21 wrote:Eh, but the Indians got the same thing either way- a middling prospect. It's not like they got something more by the Padres being involved.
Do you really think Kluber is a "middling prospect" though? 122 IP, 121 hits, 40 BB, 136 strikeouts. 3.45 ERA. 24 years old, at Double-A.
Like I said, I don't think the Cardinals had anything as good as him at the AA or AAA level to offer the Indians.
This was his first good year as a pro, and his stuff is middling (Low 90s fastball, solid slider, change that won't play in the big leagues). He's not a great prospect.
So who do the Cardinals have at AA or AAA that's comparable?
JL21 wrote:Eh, but the Indians got the same thing either way- a middling prospect. It's not like they got something more by the Padres being involved.
I think that you ask an excellent question (why Ludwick and not a middling prospect of our own?) and in return, the best answer I've been able to come up with is that they had already decided to non-tender him anyway. It makes sense, really, because they have Craig and Jay and they will save $8-10 million that can go into another spot on the roster next year without sacrificing too much from RF.
If that's true (and I'm speculating), then the next question the organization might have asked is, are we willing to simply drop Ludwick without getting anything for him while keeping him for the stretch run this year OR should we go ahead and make the leap now while we can get a return.
Last edited by Fat Strat on July 31 10, 9:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Don't know that we have anybody, but that doesn't mean he can't be a "middling" prospect given the state of our high minors. We definitely do have assets of comparable value.
cpebbles wrote:Don't know that we have anybody, but that doesn't mean he can't be a "middling" prospect given the state of our high minors. We definitely do have assets of comparable value.
Like what? Assuming they were looking for young pitching.........
Mitch Boggs. It's not like they were only willing to trade Jake Westbrook for a 24-25 year old RH starter with 0 years of service time, so we have to find the nearest match to Corey Kubler in our system.
More on what I was saying... Aren't we a better club next year with a $450k RH'er who is approximating Ludwick's production? A more reliable starter filling Penny's spot ($7.5-9 million)? And $8-$10 million in extra resources to put into another roster spot... say SS or 2nd?
We are better. That really doesn't have anything to do with the trade today, though, other than we get something for Ludwick rather than simply letting him go.
Letting Ludwick go would have been a terrible move though. He's right around the top quartile of major league corner outfielders, and even the $8 million salary we're choking over is quite a bit less than he's worth in a rational market.
