cpebbles wrote:Only because Mozeliak decided to trade a ~3 win player for a ~1.5 win player, rather than picking up some freely-available talent.
You can't say how much better he is than Suppworth (really Hawksworth for the moment, I guess, although for the long term that's still up in the air) is irrelevant. It's hugely relevant. We are taking starts from a pitcher that is godawful, whichever one of them that is, and giving them to one who is a LAIM at worst and possibly quite a bit better.
This is the corollary to the superstar factor. It’s far easier to replace truly execrable performers with adequate ones--Ponson, say, for Jeff Weaver--than it is to exchange average performers for blue-chip talent. The Cardinals didn’t make any big ticket acquisitions at the trade deadline, but they cut out a lot of fat.
cpebbles wrote:Only because Mozeliak decided to trade a ~3 win player for a ~1.5 win player, rather than picking up some freely-available talent.
You can't say how much better he is than Suppworth (really Hawksworth for the moment, I guess, although for the long term that's still up in the air) is irrelevant. It's hugely relevant. We are taking starts from a pitcher that is godawful, whichever one of them that is, and giving them to one who is a LAIM at worst and possibly quite a bit better.
I guess if Mozeliak wanted to stick my grandmother in the rotation to justify trading Rasmus for Livan Hernandez this would make sense too? The fact that he has stuck with a sub-replacement level pitcher for a month doesn't set a new baseline for replacement-level play.
cpebbles wrote:Only because Mozeliak decided to trade a ~3 win player for a ~1.5 win player, rather than picking up some freely-available talent.
You can't say how much better he is than Suppworth (really Hawksworth for the moment, I guess, although for the long term that's still up in the air) is irrelevant. It's hugely relevant. We are taking starts from a pitcher that is godawful, whichever one of them that is, and giving them to one who is a LAIM at worst and possibly quite a bit better.
This is the corollary to the superstar factor. It’s far easier to replace truly execrable performers with adequate ones--Ponson, say, for Jeff Weaver--than it is to exchange average performers for blue-chip talent. The Cardinals didn’t make any big ticket acquisitions at the trade deadline, but they cut out a lot of fat.
That's a funny quote. I'm guessing Nate Silver actually forgot to look at the numbers there.
TGantz wrote:I appreciate what Ludwick did for us over the years, but this team doesn't rely on Ludwick. Our offense has been inconsistent even with Ludwick because Pujols isn't playing as well as he usually does. We can always find a decent outfielder with similar production as Ludwick. The bottom line is that the success of this team lies in the difference between 1st half Pujols and 2nd half Pujols, not the difference between Ludwick and Jay.
The addition of Westbrook gives us a rotation of Wainwright, Carpenter, Garcia, Westbrook, and Lohse which is much better than what we've had the last couple of months.
This. All the [expletive] [expletive] talk is willfully ignoring how much better Westbrook is than Suppworth.
The main point of my post was to emphasize that Pujols is a much bigger factor for our success than Ludwick. I know it's an obvious point, but we're too busy trying to compare projections and how many more wins Ludwick is worth over Jay/Westbrook. Which is all assuming Ludwick would have stayed healthy and produced. And that Westbrook doesn't improve by coming here (which I think he will). The trade happened a few hours ago. There's a whole season, or even a couple seasons, before we can judge if it was a bad one.
I guess the best way to put it is that if Pujols rakes until the end of the season, which is what I'm sure the front office is banking on, we'll look back on trading Ludwick as a necessary move to improve our rotation to compliment our offense from Pujols and Holliday.
The La Russa conspiracy theory has legs I think. He never trusted-liked Ludwick as a player. I think his sitting Ludwick for often no apparent reason was evidence enough.
A. Kennedy, S. Rolen, R. Ludwick. All gone for one reason or another. I'm sure La Russa has more clout with Dewitt than Mo.
Mo had a sentimental attachment to Ludwick. Scouting him, tracked him down before he almost retired, etc. I think he would be selling high.
.jpg)
