GatewayRedbirds.com

InvincibleCakeEater wrote:

Vidor wrote:

InvincibleCakeEater wrote:

Vidor wrote: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.

It's more likely to drop somewhere in the 300 point range.

Okey doke. We weren't going to win the NL Central with Jeff Suppan and Blake Hawksworth in our rotation.

I completely agree. I just think that trading 1.3 years of Ludwick for 10-12 starts of Westbrook because Jay has had 115 incredibly lucky at bats was pretty dumb.

Again, we all know Jay is not going to be sporting a 1.051 OPS on October 1. But he has a chance to come close to the production we expect from Ludwick. We dealt from a position of strength to shore up a serious weakness.

InvincibleCakeEater wrote:

Vidor wrote:

InvincibleCakeEater wrote:

Vidor wrote: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.

It's more likely to drop somewhere in the 300 point range.

Okey doke. We weren't going to win the NL Central with Jeff Suppan and Blake Hawksworth in our rotation.

I completely agree. I just think that trading 1.3 years of Ludwick for 10-12 starts of Westbrook because Jay has had 115 incredibly lucky at bats was pretty dumb.

can't wait to hear Dan and Al discuss how Jay's recent play "allowed" us to make this move.

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've always argued that LaRussa prefers to manage a team that is not the clear cut favorite. How will he be mentioned among the year's best managers if he didn't have an outfielder at second base, a long-shot rookie in RF, etc? This deal should help cement his "doing a marvelous job with what he was given."

That said, our nuts were in a drawer with the starting pitching situation. We had to make a move and I'm thinking the loss of talent would have been even more depressing if we'd worked out a deal for Oswalt. Losing Ludwick doesn't bother me in the least. And I like the idea of Westbrook in our rotation. As much as this board screams for giving our young players a chance to play, I'm a little surprised at the reaction to this deal.

Jay must have impressed Month and Co. Anyways, many people hated the Freese deal. As of right now, I hate this deal, but hopefully, thr prospect in return will contribute to the Cardinals in a few years.

Richie Allen wrote:As much as this board screams for giving our young players a chance to play, I'm a little surprised at the reaction to this deal.

Quite.

Richie Allen wrote:

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've always argued that LaRussa prefers to manage a team that is not the clear cut favorite. How will he be mentioned among the year's best managers if he didn't have an outfielder at second base, a long-shot rookie in RF, etc? This deal should help cement his "doing a marvelous job with what he was given."

That said, our nuts were in a drawer with the starting pitching situation. We had to make a move and I'm thinking the loss of talent would have been even more depressing if we'd worked out a deal for Oswalt. Losing Ludwick doesn't bother me in the least. And I like the idea of Westbrook in our rotation. As much as this board screams for giving our young players a chance to play, I'm a little surprised at the reaction to this deal.

The reason I hate the trade is because we downgraded offense for pitching, when if anything, our problem is lack of good offense. And while Westbrook is a major upgrade over Suppan, Ludwick's value is much better used trying to improve the infield.

In other words, if we can still get a m.i. with what we have, I wont hate this deal as much. But Ludwick being one of our best assets, I don't like the fact he was traded for something we have as a strength, which is our rotation.

Jmodene wrote:

Vidor wrote:
Ludwick wasn't going to be on the team in 2012 regardless.

Obviously. And there's something wrong with a system that encourages teams to dump good players just because they think they can't afford them.

Clearly, the goal of the Cards is to re-sign Pujols while keeping payroll under $100MM.

What irritates me about this whole thing, as I stated somewhere else already, is that we gave up a solid player in Ludwick to get a so-so innings-eater coming off a two-year injury. When you compare what we gave up compared to what other teams gave up to get the likes of Lee, Oswalt, Haren, et al, it's irritating. The difference, of course, is that those teams are willing to increase their payroll to win a championship. We, obviously, are not, and that's frustrating.

this is the same system that the Cards exploited to get McGwire when the A's couldnt afford him, Larry Walker when the Rockies couldnt afford him, Holliday when the A's couldnt afford him, etc... if the system is broke then it has always been broke. The Cards have been on the good side of it many more times than you can count.

And its not just salary that got Lee, Oswalt, Haren to those teams but also better prosects/players. Teams value even the JA Happs, Wallace, etc... of the world a lot more than a 30 something year old OF that is going to make $8M next year.

Someone mentioned the FO advertising payroll flexibility, isn't this a good reason to think we can still hope for a MI upgrade?

This really surprises me and my initial reaction was, "NOOOOoooo!!"

I remember when the Cards got Ludwick and Mo was saying he'd had his eye on him for a while - Luddy'd just had bad luck, injury-wise. I'm surprised Mo seemingly gave him up so easily (in other words seemingly undervalued) which makes me wonder what kind of reports Mo got on Greenwood?

Magneto2.0 wrote:The reason I hate the trade is because we downgraded offense for pitching, when if anything, our problem is lack of good offense. And while Westbrook is a major upgrade over Suppan, Ludwick's value is much better used trying to improve the infield.

++