Fat Strat wrote:More on what I was saying... Aren't we a better club next year with a $450k RH'er who is approximating Ludwick's production? A more reliable starter filling Penny's spot ($7.5-9 million)? And $8-$10 million in extra resources to put into another roster spot... say SS or 2nd?
We are better. That really doesn't have anything to do with the trade today, though, other than we get something for Ludwick rather than simply letting him go.
But, say we trade Boggs (as cpebbles mentioned, just going by that really) this year for Westbrook instead of Ludwick.
Now you have a better chance to win THIS year, and not much has changed for next year with losing Boggs (unless you think he's a future closer, which I don't subscribe to).
It certainly makes financial sense not to tender Luddy next year, but I just don't get the argument that you're getting something for him this year...you coulda got Westbrook for damn near anything from what it looks like...certainly nothing that would hurt your club going forward in the future
cpebbles wrote:Mitch Boggs. It's not like they were only willing to trade Jake Westbrook for a 24-25 year old RH starter with 0 years of service time, so we have to find the nearest match to Corey Kubler in our system.
Boggs' peripherals don't really match up well with Kluber's. And he's 26+, while Kluber is 24, and seems to have discovered something this year.
It's possible that there wasn't a high-level pitcher in our system that they liked. Heck, there's probably not a high-level pitcher in our system that I really like either.
Fat Strat wrote:More on what I was saying... Aren't we a better club next year with a $450k RH'er who is approximating Ludwick's production? A more reliable starter filling Penny's spot ($7.5-9 million)? And $8-$10 million in extra resources to put into another roster spot... say SS or 2nd?
We are better. That really doesn't have anything to do with the trade today, though, other than we get something for Ludwick rather than simply letting him go.
But, say we trade Boggs (as cpebbles mentioned, just going by that really) this year for Westbrook instead of Ludwick.
Now you have a better chance to win THIS year, and not much has changed for next year with losing Boggs (unless you think he's a future closer, which I don't subscribe to).
It certainly makes financial sense not to tender Luddy next year, but I just don't get the argument that you're getting something for him this year...you coulda got Westbrook for damn near anything from what it looks like...certainly nothing that would hurt your club going forward in the future
cpebbles wrote:Mitch Boggs. It's not like they were only willing to trade Jake Westbrook for a 24-25 year old RH starter with 0 years of service time, so we have to find the nearest match to Corey Kubler in our system.
Boggs' peripherals don't really match up well with Kluber's. And he's 26+, while Kluber is 24, and seems to have discovered something this year.
It's possible that there wasn't a high-level pitcher in our system that they liked. Heck, there's probably not a high-level pitcher in our system that I really like either.
What, you don't like Evan McClane? PJ Walters perhaps?
cpebbles wrote:Letting Ludwick go would have been a terrible move though. He's right around the top quartile of major league corner outfielders, and even the $8 million salary we're choking over is quite a bit less than he's worth in a rational market.
But it's quite a bit more than Craig/Jay. Will Craig/Jay give the same production? Probably not. But Craig/Jay plus $8 mil is probably better than Ludwick.
Fat Strat wrote:More on what I was saying... Aren't we a better club next year with a $450k RH'er who is approximating Ludwick's production? A more reliable starter filling Penny's spot ($7.5-9 million)? And $8-$10 million in extra resources to put into another roster spot... say SS or 2nd?
We are better. That really doesn't have anything to do with the trade today, though, other than we get something for Ludwick rather than simply letting him go.
But, say we trade Boggs (as cpebbles mentioned, just going by that really) this year for Westbrook instead of Ludwick.
Now you have a better chance to win THIS year, and not much has changed for next year with losing Boggs (unless you think he's a future closer, which I don't subscribe to).
It certainly makes financial sense not to tender Luddy next year, but I just don't get the argument that you're getting something for him this year...you coulda got Westbrook for damn near anything from what it looks like...certainly nothing that would hurt your club going forward in the future
Maybe they didn't want Boggs.
I'm not saying they did, just a name that was thrown out..
Change Boggs with fill in the blank fringe pitching prospect and it STILL doesn't hurt your team going forward, that's ultimately the point I was driving at
Fat Strat wrote:More on what I was saying... Aren't we a better club next year with a $450k RH'er who is approximating Ludwick's production? A more reliable starter filling Penny's spot ($7.5-9 million)? And $8-$10 million in extra resources to put into another roster spot... say SS or 2nd?
We are better. That really doesn't have anything to do with the trade today, though, other than we get something for Ludwick rather than simply letting him go.
But, say we trade Boggs (as cpebbles mentioned, just going by that really) this year for Westbrook instead of Ludwick.
Now you have a better chance to win THIS year, and not much has changed for next year with losing Boggs (unless you think he's a future closer, which I don't subscribe to).
It certainly makes financial sense not to tender Luddy next year, but I just don't get the argument that you're getting something for him this year...you coulda got Westbrook for damn near anything from what it looks like...certainly nothing that would hurt your club going forward in the future
Maybe they didn't want Boggs.
I'm not saying they did, just a name that was thrown out..
Change Boggs with fill in the blank fringe pitching prospect and it STILL doesn't hurt your team going forward, that's ultimately the point I was driving at
And my point is that we don't really have a fringe pitching prospect as good as Kluber (in my opinion, and very possibly in the opinion of the Indians).
cpebbles wrote:Letting Ludwick go would have been a terrible move though. He's right around the top quartile of major league corner outfielders, and even the $8 million salary we're choking over is quite a bit less than he's worth in a rational market.
You like to look at relative values. Sure, Ludwick is going to outproduce what he's worth (at least probably). In that sense Ludwick is very valuable. Isn't it better still to have a $450k player that can provide that same production? Likewise, if you can turn the $8 million that you were going to spend on Ludwick (who would have outperformed that salary) into a SS who can provide $8 million in production over the replacement level production of Ryan, isn't that a significant net gain?
Look, I'm not really trying to argue this too heavily, because I don't know if it's true. We also don't have any idea what will happen this offseason. I'm purely speculating on what they're thought process might have been, however flawed.
cpebbles wrote:Letting Ludwick go would have been a terrible move though. He's right around the top quartile of major league corner outfielders, and even the $8 million salary we're choking over is quite a bit less than he's worth in a rational market.
You like to look at relative values. Sure, Ludwick is going to outproduce what he's worth (at least probably). In that sense Ludwick is very valuable. Isn't it better still to have a $450k player that can provide that same production? Likewise, if you can turn the $8 million that you were going to spend on Ludwick (who would have outperformed that salary) into a SS who can provide $8 million in production over the replacement level production of Ryan, isn't that a significant net gain?
Look, I'm not really trying to argue this too heavily, because I don't know if it's true. We also don't have any idea what will happen this offseason. I'm purely speculating on what they're thought process might have been, however flawed.
FWIW, I see exactly where you're coming from, and it makes perfect sense.
I wish they had gotten more for Ludwick, but they didn't. That doesn't mean that the Cardinals are worse going forward than they were yesterday.
cpebbles wrote:Don't know that we have anybody, but that doesn't mean he can't be a "middling" prospect given the state of our high minors. We definitely do have assets of comparable value.
Like what? Assuming they were looking for young pitching.........
Lance Lynn is probably a better prospect than the guy they got, and this is coming from a guy who doesn't like Lynn. We had plenty of arms to offer up. Boggs and Walters for example. Two ML ready arms, with one having upside, and one giving innings or whatever.