GatewayRedbirds.com

cardsfansince82 wrote:

Vidor wrote:

jim wrote:I sure as hell hope this wasn't some TLR/Ludwick conflict that had an influence on this trade.

Where do people get this?

Trying to figure out why such a dumb trade was made, I guess.

Maybe it's because Pujols hates Ludwick. I heard Pujols is hard to get along with.

Vidor wrote:

jim wrote:I sure as hell hope this wasn't some TLR/Ludwick conflict that had an influence on this trade.

Where do people get this?

I've been wondering the same thing. Jim, not to pick on you, because it's been mentioned several times and I have no clue where it's coming from.

JL21 wrote:

Vidor wrote:

jim wrote:I sure as hell hope this wasn't some TLR/Ludwick conflict that had an influence on this trade.

Where do people get this?

I've been wondering the same thing. Jim, not to pick on you, because it's been mentioned several times and I have no clue where it's coming from.

This has been discussed before. I don't see the point in a thorough re-hashing, but he's been making noises about trading Ludwick since 2008. He hasn't been afraid to take playing time away from Ludwick for the likes of Jon Jay and Nick Stavinoha. Then there's goofy stuff like taking Ludwick out late in the game at the end of the season when he was chasing .300 or 100 RBIs.

La Russa is an adult, so he's not going to do anything ridiculous over the long haul. But it was pretty clear to me that he thought a lot less of Ludwick than most other folks did.

I'm not crazy about the trade...... just because I thought the Cards could have gotten a little more for Ludwick. But it's not like the trade has much real impact on the team anyway. Will Jay/Craig perform as well as Ludwick would have? Possibly. Or maybe not. Will Westbrook perform better than Suppan? Almost guaranteed. Based on that, I think the team is slightly improved for the remainder of this year. They may well be in better financial shape as it turns out. And they haven't lost a single prospect.

There's no real reason to be excited about the trade, but there's also not much reason for the overreaction in the other direction either. It's basically "meh".

cpebbles wrote: You're not getting it. Suppan pitching below replacement level does not negate the concept of replacement level. By definition, replacement-level starters were freely available, and thus that is what Westbrook should be compared against.

But I am. This trade, at least for 2010, will be judged on two things:

1) How much better Westbrook is than Suppworth,
2) How close Jay or Jay/Craig comes to duplicating Ludwick's ~.830 OPS for the rest of the season.

Concepts of what a replacement player is aren't relevant. Will Westbrook be a significant upgrade for the rotation? (Almost certainly yes.) Will Jay fill in adequately for Ludwick? (Hopefully.)

greenback44 wrote:

JL21 wrote:

Vidor wrote:

jim wrote:I sure as hell hope this wasn't some TLR/Ludwick conflict that had an influence on this trade.

Where do people get this?

I've been wondering the same thing. Jim, not to pick on you, because it's been mentioned several times and I have no clue where it's coming from.

This has been discussed before. I don't see the point in a thorough re-hashing, but he's been making noises about trading Ludwick since 2008. He hasn't been afraid to take playing time away from Ludwick for the likes of Jon Jay and Nick Stavinoha. Then there's goofy stuff like taking Ludwick out late in the game at the end of the season when he was chasing .300 or 100 RBIs.

La Russa is an adult, so he's not going to do anything ridiculous over the long haul. But it was pretty clear to me that he thought a lot less of Ludwick than most other folks did.

That's pretty much the way Larussa rotates ALL of his players though.

I've never once heard Larussa make noise about trading Ludwick.

JL21 wrote:

Vidor wrote:

jim wrote:I sure as hell hope this wasn't some TLR/Ludwick conflict that had an influence on this trade.

Where do people get this?

I've been wondering the same thing. Jim, not to pick on you, because it's been mentioned several times and I have no clue where it's coming from.

I imagine it initially got started with Rolen's benching in '06 and trade a year later, all the while the rampant stories about how Rolen and TLR didn't get along, suggesting that their feud was what instigated Scott's leaving.

Socnorb11 wrote: That's pretty much the way Larussa rotates ALL of his players though.

I've never once heard Larussa make noise about trading Ludwick.

You see this get conjured out of thin air quite often. Player X gets benched one game, doesn't get called on to pinch-hit in another game, and soon enough it's "LaRussa hates him."

Today made me actually think for the first time about what it would be like if Albert signed somewhere else.

planet pujolsian wrote:Today made me actually think for the first time about what it would be like if Albert signed somewhere else.

This more or less insignificant trade makes you ponder whether one of the greatest players of all time will re-sign with the Cardinals?

I don't see the connection.