P.6 Ludwick to SD; Westbrook and Pads prospect to STL

[albertmvpujols]

Disagree with Holliday. It's not every day you get 31 year old LFers who are fairly consistently 5+ win players, and he got a good amount less than market value.

This makes no sense to me. Holliday was a free agent, thus was paid exactly what market value was.

Not this [expletive] again.

Who's on first?

Maybe I missed the debate about this during the offseason, as I'm not around much during the offseason, but I'm not sure it's an inaccurate statement. I'm guessing this was debated ad nauseam around here, and if so I'm sorry to have brought it back up. I'm not upset at all about the Holliday deal, just didn't think it was a huge positive or negative in regards to my feelings to Mozeliak.

[WentCrazy]

the REAL take-home message from the discussion between Phin, TT, et al: However we compare Kluber and Lynn, both are similar (and pretty pedestrian) prospects -- and one of them was traded for Jake Westbrook.

So why did we trade an 800-OPS, decent defensive outfielder on a team struggling to score, for a pitcher worth a pretty pedestrian prospect?

Comes down to one of two things -- either

(a) we did not receive commensurate value for what we gave up;

or

(b) veterans performing about equivalent to their contracts, do not have the trade value we like to think, and the reason we gave up Ludwick for the same pitcher valued as worth a minor league pitcher profiling as a reliever, is that that was the surcharge that was necessary to get cash thrown into the deal to pay off Westbrook's trade escalator etc. Without cash considerations, Westbrook is worth a Lance Lynn or Mitch Boggs; with cash considerations, it takes more.

And it might work in reverse too ... Trading a corner OFer -- productive and under team control for one more year but age 32 and about to double his salary -- fetches a two-month rental of a decent league-average pitcher in his walk year, plus a couple million bucks to fund the buy-out, trade bonus, etc.

I think I agree with this but it highlights the most confusing piece, the cash considerations. The Cardinals acted like they were a cash-strapped organization with a less than 50% chance of winning the division. This trade might makes perfect sense in that regard: "hey, we saved a little money this year, cleared payroll next year and if Westbrook goes on Woody Williams circa 2003, he could actually be the difference maker".

The trade doesn't make sense if the team was already slight favorites in the division AND the organization was in a position to add payroll to the current team.

[Jmodene]

I think I agree with this but it highlights the most confusing piece, the cash considerations. The Cardinals acted like they were a cash-strapped organization with a less than 50% chance of winning the division. This trade might makes perfect sense in that regard: "hey, we saved a little money this year, cleared payroll next year and if Westbrook goes on Woody Williams circa 2003, he could actually be the difference maker".

The trade doesn't make sense if the team was already slight favorites in the division AND the organization was in a position to add payroll to the current team.

2001, actually...

[Bo Hart]

2001, actually...

I'd imagine that's why he explicitly typed out "circa."

[Leroy]

I'm still upset we traded TJ Mathews.

[sighyoung]

I'm still upset we traded TJ Mathews.

No, Greg Evigan's show was canceled, not traded.

[Jmodene]

Didnt' that show produce the "Sheriff Lobo" spinoff series?

[sighyoung]

Didnt' that show produce the "Sheriff Lobo" spinoff series?

Yep.

[Jmodene]

I thought I remembered that. I was working for an NBC affiliate at the time, and the stuff that network was forced to put on the air in the post-Silverman years was pretty abysmal; for awhile, there, the best they had to offer was Gary Coleman and Barbara Mandrell.

[New Pagodi]

Didnt' that show produce the "Sheriff Lobo" spinoff series?

Yep.

ORLY?