Page 43 of 59
Re: P.6 Ludwick to SD; Westbrook and Pads prospect to STL
Posted: July 31 10, 8:54 pm
by jim
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've wondered what was going on since 2009. Coming off an AS year, he should have been pretty much an everyday player imo. In April, Luddy sits 6 times but Duncan is in the lineup everyday but 3. Unless he was hurt, which I didn't hear any report of, he should have been in the lineup everyday.
Didn't make sense to me.
Re: P.6 Ludwick to SD; Westbrook and Pads prospect to STL
Posted: July 31 10, 8:55 pm
by JL21
What bugs me is this- the Tribe made the deal for Kubler. Did they not like any of the Cardinals' copious amounts of Kublerian prospects? Are we back to the whole dumb Fabregé egg thing where there's an organizational reluctance to part with middling prospects? The whole thing is just weird and whatever the answer is, it doesn't paint the organization in a good light. Because in 3 months, all they're going to have for a reasonable last arb. year of Ludwick is a sloppy A-ball LHP named Mick Fleetwood or whatever.
Re: P.6 Ludwick to SD; Westbrook and Pads prospect to STL
Posted: July 31 10, 8:56 pm
by ConeBone69
Vidor wrote:jagtrader wrote:This winter. When the return isn't [expletive] Jake Westbrook for 10 games.
Well, if we can get the rest of baseball to agree to suspend the 2010 season until the winter and pick it up after we trade for Westbrook, so we don't finish behind the Reds thanks to Suppworth dragging down the rotation, that would work.
The thing is the Indians just got a fringe prospect and they saved a little bit of money that they would have owed Westbrook. I find it pretty unlikely that the Cardinals could not have found a way to get that deal done without sending Ludwick to the Padres.
Re: P.6 Ludwick to SD; Westbrook and Pads prospect to STL
Posted: July 31 10, 8:57 pm
by jim
Socnorb11 wrote:greenback44 wrote:Socnorb11 wrote: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.
You don't see Matt Holliday getting playing time reduced by the likes of Skip Schumaker or Jon Jay.
I've never once heard Larussa make noise about trading Ludwick.
It wasn't subtle in 2008. When Ludwick was second in the league in SLG behind Pujols, La Russa still was talking about the need to go get another bat and simultaneous rumors of a Ludwick-Holliday trade were floating around.
Rumor may have been floating around, but I guarantee you Larussa didn't start them. GUARANTEE.
Concerning your first statement - Albert Pujols and Matt Holliday are pretty much the only players that don't get "shuffled". So should we assume that Larussa hates everyone else on the team except those 2?
Freese played almost everyday this year until he got hurt. Duncan played almost everyday in 2008 over Ludwick who got sat about every 3rd day the first month or so of the season.
Re: P.6 Ludwick to SD; Westbrook and Pads prospect to STL
Posted: July 31 10, 8:58 pm
by obucard
ConeBone69 wrote:Vidor wrote:jagtrader wrote:This winter. When the return isn't [expletive] Jake Westbrook for 10 games.
Well, if we can get the rest of baseball to agree to suspend the 2010 season until the winter and pick it up after we trade for Westbrook, so we don't finish behind the Reds thanks to Suppworth dragging down the rotation, that would work.
The thing is the Indians just got a fringe prospect and they saved a little bit of money that they would have owed Westbrook. I find it pretty unlikely that the Cardinals could not have found a way to get that deal done without sending Ludwick to the Padres.
Which is ultimately what bugs me the most about the deal.
Re: P.6 Ludwick to SD; Westbrook and Pads prospect to STL
Posted: July 31 10, 9:00 pm
by Socnorb11
ConeBone69 wrote:Vidor wrote:jagtrader wrote:This winter. When the return isn't [expletive] Jake Westbrook for 10 games.
Well, if we can get the rest of baseball to agree to suspend the 2010 season until the winter and pick it up after we trade for Westbrook, so we don't finish behind the Reds thanks to Suppworth dragging down the rotation, that would work.
The thing is the Indians just got a fringe prospect and they saved a little bit of money that they would have owed Westbrook. I find it pretty unlikely that the Cardinals could not have found a way to get that deal done without sending Ludwick to the Padres.
That's the only odd thing to me, also.
I'm not sure it's fair to say that what the Indians got is a "fringe" prospect though. Did I read somewhere that he leads Double-A in strikeouts, or am I making that up? He looks like better than anything that the Cardinals have at the AA or AAA level.
Re: P.6 Ludwick to SD; Westbrook and Pads prospect to STL
Posted: July 31 10, 9:01 pm
by JS04
JL21 wrote:What bugs me is this- the Tribe made the deal for Kubler. Did they not like any of the Cardinals' copious amounts of Kublerian prospects? Are we back to the whole dumb Fabregé egg thing where there's an organizational reluctance to part with middling prospects? The whole thing is just weird and whatever the answer is, it doesn't paint the organization in a good light. Because in 3 months, all they're going to have for a reasonable last arb. year of Ludwick is a sloppy A-ball LHP named Mick Fleetwood or whatever.
I'm just speculating here, but maybe we don't get the payroll relief if we trade a prospect straight up for Westbrook..
Maybe that's ultimately what they were looking for, is the Indians to kick the money in that they did....and the only way to do that was to do the three way with the Pads..
Re: P.6 Ludwick to SD; Westbrook and Pads prospect to STL
Posted: July 31 10, 9:02 pm
by Socnorb11
jim wrote:Socnorb11 wrote:greenback44 wrote:Socnorb11 wrote: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.
You don't see Matt Holliday getting playing time reduced by the likes of Skip Schumaker or Jon Jay.
I've never once heard Larussa make noise about trading Ludwick.
It wasn't subtle in 2008. When Ludwick was second in the league in SLG behind Pujols, La Russa still was talking about the need to go get another bat and simultaneous rumors of a Ludwick-Holliday trade were floating around.
Rumor may have been floating around, but I guarantee you Larussa didn't start them. GUARANTEE.
Concerning your first statement - Albert Pujols and Matt Holliday are pretty much the only players that don't get "shuffled". So should we assume that Larussa hates everyone else on the team except those 2?
Freese played almost everyday this year until he got hurt. Duncan played almost everyday in 2008 over Ludwick who got sat about every 3rd day the first month or so of the season.
The Duncan thing probably had more to do with Dave than it did with Ryan Ludwick.
But Ludwick has played "almost every day" when healthy, just like Freese has.
Re: P.6 Ludwick to SD; Westbrook and Pads prospect to STL
Posted: July 31 10, 9:03 pm
by JL21
Eh, but the Indians got the same thing either way- a middling prospect. It's not like they got something more by the Padres being involved.
Re: P.6 Ludwick to SD; Westbrook and Pads prospect to STL
Posted: July 31 10, 9:04 pm
by cardsfansince82
JL21 wrote:What bugs me is this- the Tribe made the deal for Kubler. Did they not like any of the Cardinals' copious amounts of Kublerian prospects? Are we back to the whole dumb Fabregé egg thing where there's an organizational reluctance to part with middling prospects? The whole thing is just weird and whatever the answer is, it doesn't paint the organization in a good light. Because in 3 months, all they're going to have for a reasonable last arb. year of Ludwick is a sloppy A-ball LHP named Mick Fleetwood or whatever.
The only obvious answer is that the Cardinals were unwilling to provide the salary relief in the deal, thus the need for a third team. Mo is one of the few guys in all of baseball who believed in Ludwick. I can't believe he would give him up to save some hypothetical middling overvalued prospect.