GatewayRedbirds.com

Lame

Jmodene wrote:Strauss just tweeted that this makes the Cardinals the first contending team in MLB history to lower payroll in the middle of a tough pennant race.

I don't even know how you define that, let alone believe it.

InvincibleCakeEater wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote: He doesn't have to maintain a .446 BABIP to match Ludwick's production.

I know that. What I'm saying is that expecting Jay, a guy with a career .799 OPS, to match Ludwick's production is pretty absurd. If you normalize his BABIP based on his LD% his numbers look awfully different. His LD% would be in the top 25 worst in baseball, with almost all the players worse than his being power hitters that rely on fly balls leaving the park.

That .799 is only .033 below Ludwick's.

Faceman wrote:The "who cares what we have to do" - that makes no sense, if we did have to win now, we'd have traded Miller for Oswalt.

Well I exaggerate a little, but apart from thinking they had zero ability/payroll room to sign Ludwick long-term going forward in the midst of the hopefully looming Pujols deal, or enough belief that Jay/Craig could approximate or improve upon Ludwick's production (which I don't), I don't know why it took Ludwick to do it.

And anyway, it's my belief that Wade wouldn't have given us Oswalt for Miller, I still think he just didn't want to trade Oswalt to a division rival.

Faceman wrote:

Cronos69 wrote:As also has been stated, it seems to me that this move reeks of desperation.

That Mo and the Cards brass were willing to move Ludwick for Westbrook and a future long relief guy says that they must not have been too happy with what they saw in Hawksworth and Suppan either, definitely says that they expect Penny is finished for 2010, and also makes one wonder about their view of the future (ie, we have to win now, who cares what it takes to get more pitching) and their thoughts on their chances of signing Pujols long-term.

Desperation? Why? Because they know they are using Ludwick's salary next year to help fund AP's extension? Sounds like planning, not desperation.

Again, there's no rule that says Ludwick has to be offered arbitration next year.

The Cardinals have spent the last month or two advertising their "payroll flexibility". Maybe that was just BS, but payroll in 2010 is the only decent explanation for why they don't have both Ludwick and Westbrook on the 25-man roster right now.

Vidor wrote:

InvincibleCakeEater wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote: He doesn't have to maintain a .446 BABIP to match Ludwick's production.

I know that. What I'm saying is that expecting Jay, a guy with a career .799 OPS, to match Ludwick's production is pretty absurd. If you normalize his BABIP based on his LD% his numbers look awfully different. His LD% would be in the top 25 worst in baseball, with almost all the players worse than his being power hitters that rely on fly balls leaving the park.

That .799 is only .033 below Ludwick's.

And they are in two very different leagues.

Let me give a hypothetical scenario for what I'm talking about.

Let's say that, before the season, Bill DeWitt and co. allocate $100 million to distrubute throughout payroll and throughout the draft budget. They set budgets of $94 million for payroll, and $6 million for draft funding (bonuses and what have you).

However, you constantly hear DeWiit say that the money is there and available "for the right player." Maybe from a financial perspective, that means that he can conceivably allocate $103 million throughout both budgets, but reserves the right to hold off on doing so unless what we're spending the money on something that has a high probability of recouping the money. In other words, if spending that extra $3 million is the difference between bringing in a superstar and putting for fans in the seats, he'll do it; if that $3 million is going to be spent on a relief pitcher who'll have a marginal impact on the game, maybe he won't grant approval. Maybe that extra $3 million is spent on a can't-miss prospect who's a very good bet to pay dividends down the line (e.g. being paid a fraction of what he's worth during his pre-free agency years).

We'll call $100 million the "soft cap," and $103 million the "hard cap." Maybe DeWitt can theoretically spend more than that, but in the end, this is a business, and that's his cap and he refuses the budge. We'll also say that coming into the season, the Cards were right at their $94 million payroll cap.

Following me so far? Let's look at a few scenarios:

Scenario A: the Cardinals acquire Jake Westbrook and retain Ryan Ludwick. This requires taking on $3 million in salary. We'd now go over that soft cap, but DeWitt approves dipping into those "extra" funds, because we're still under the hard cap, and it improves our playoff chances. We spend the previously-projected $6 million on the draft, and are forced to let Wilson scamper off to Stanford.

Scenario B: the Cardinals acquire Jake Westbrook, but trade away Ryan Ludwick. The salaries are a wash. We now instead go over budget on the draft and sign Austin Wilson, too; our draft budget jumps to $9 million (over the projected $6 million), but DeWitt approves this, because Wilson is deemed a reasonable bet to invest in. We spend $94 million on payroll, and $9 million on the draft -- over our original soft cap, but still under the hard cap.

Scenario C: the Cardinals acquire Westbrook, keep Ludwick and sign Wilson. We spend $97 million on payroll, and $9 million on the draft. We spend $106 million total over the season. This can't happen, because we go over the hard cap, which DeWitt refuses to budge on.


Here is the extremely important summary: everything I just said is hypothetical. I'm not passing it off as fact, but I'm saying it's completely possible/plausible. To imply that the two budgets do not influence each other is, in my eyes, downright silly. All of the funding for this team is ultimately stemming from the same place. I'm also not saying that trading Ludwick was motivated by signing Wilson -- I just facetiously said that. I do, however, think a scenario along those lines is completely possible.

I'm a little bit surprised by the loathing expressed towards this trade. Will Jay keep up a 1.051 OPS? No. But it could drop 200 points and still be higher than Ryan Ludwick's. Ludwick isn't Roberto Clemente. He has a career .832 OPS. It's .827 this year. The Cardinals got the starting pitcher that they badly need to hold off the Reds in the NL Central race.

greenback44 wrote:

Faceman wrote:

Cronos69 wrote:As also has been stated, it seems to me that this move reeks of desperation.

That Mo and the Cards brass were willing to move Ludwick for Westbrook and a future long relief guy says that they must not have been too happy with what they saw in Hawksworth and Suppan either, definitely says that they expect Penny is finished for 2010, and also makes one wonder about their view of the future (ie, we have to win now, who cares what it takes to get more pitching) and their thoughts on their chances of signing Pujols long-term.

Desperation? Why? Because they know they are using Ludwick's salary next year to help fund AP's extension? Sounds like planning, not desperation.

Again, there's no rule that says Ludwick has to be offered arbitration next year.

The Cardinals have spent the last month or two advertising their "payroll flexibility". Maybe that was just BS, but payroll in 2010 is the only decent explanation for why they don't have both Ludwick and Westbrook on the 25-man roster right now.

That's my whole point - payroll relief was more important in this regard. Hell, the Indians or Padres may have asked for Craig or Jay in the deal, and we may have been the ones who insisted they take Ludwick or the deal was off.

By 2012, we'll be down to Pujols, Holliday, Wainwright, Molina, and 21 sub-$1MM players, as I now expect them to not exercise Carp's $15MM option for 2012.

Cronos69 wrote:

Faceman wrote:The "who cares what we have to do" - that makes no sense, if we did have to win now, we'd have traded Miller for Oswalt.

Well I exaggerate a little, but apart from thinking they had zero ability/payroll room to sign Ludwick long-term going forward in the midst of the hopefully looming Pujols deal, or enough belief that Jay/Craig could approximate or improve upon Ludwick's production (which I don't), I don't know why it took Ludwick to do it.

And anyway, it's my belief that Wade wouldn't have given us Oswalt for Miller, I still think he just didn't want to trade Oswalt to a division rival.

Yeah, it seems a little weird, but what it tells me is that Ludwick was walking after the season, regardless. If that's true, a larger return would have been nicer, but looking at what vets are drawing right now, probably not very likely. I personally do not have any problem with them taking a proactive stance to budgeting for AP (and AW, down the road). Sucks because we never really saw AP/Holliday/Luddy hit at the same time - would have been fun to see the offense actually not suck.

If Wade turned down Miller for Oswalt, well, that would be dumber than pretty much all of us think he is. Possible, yeah, I agree.