GatewayRedbirds.com

Socnorb11 wrote:

skmsw wrote:

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.

(chuckle) actually, by definition I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it means. We received less in value than we paid, thus we have less net value than we had, ergo, worse off ...

By definition of what? What do you mean "received less in value than we paid"?

seriously?

the definition of "worse off"

we received less than we paid, as in gave up more in the trade than we got back

ergo, the organization has less value now than it did before, e.g. by definition worse off

Socnorb11 wrote:

JS04 wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:

JS04 wrote:With discussing Jay/Craig + 8 million > Ludwick, aren't we missing the point?

The goal is to win the WS, right? Would Ludwick + Westbrook - a fringe prospect or a bullpen guy like Boggs have given us a better opportunity then Westbrook + fringe prospect/Boggs - Ludwick? Abso-freaking-lutely

So what if we got a low level prospect for Ludwick? Are we that much better off then just letting him walk next year without getting anything for him? I don't see much of a difference between the guy we got and zilch..

And, I agree that Jay/Craig + 8 million > Ludwick....but this year, if your goal is to win the whole kit n caboodle, it's an absolutely ignorant deal, which I think is why people are p'd about it

The Cardinals currently have a better rotation than they did yesterday, and not much (hopefully) worse in right field. Overall, probably a wash, and better off financially.

But wouldn't they have a better rotation then they did yesterday if they traded prospects to get Westbrook?

And I'm sorry, but until Jay/Craig sustain it for a little longer then what they (at least Jay) has, I'll take the guy whose had a little more success in the majors and arguably our 3rd most productive hitter over the last 3 years. (and 2nd at times).

You're right, the owners saved some money...but I just can't see how this improves the team this year if you could have done this deal without Ludwick...because it doesn't

We don't know that the Cardinals have any prospects that the Indians wanted. If they did, then the Padres likely wouldn't have been involved (obviously).

That's not really true either, as I mentioned, maybe it was a case of the Indians interested in a Cards prospect but refusing to pay any of the Westbrook money, or more interested in the Pads prospect and willing to pay money..

We just don't know

skmsw wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:

skmsw wrote:

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.

(chuckle) actually, by definition I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it means. We received less in value than we paid, thus we have less net value than we had, ergo, worse off ...

By definition of what? What do you mean "received less in value than we paid"?

seriously?

the definition of "worse off"

received less than we paid, as in gave up more in the trade than we got back

ergo, the organization has less value now than it did before, e.g. worse off

All of these terms are fairly arbitrary. It's not that simple. If it was, anybody could do Mo's job.

Best trade not involving a star: Jake Westbrook..

This according to what Kurkjian just said...said as a sinkerballer he's going to benefit from working with Dunc who is great with sinkerballers, has pitched in the post-season before and won't be spooked by a pennant race, and thinks he'll be a great addition

So we got that going for us!

If we HAD to include Ludwick to San Diego so Cleveland could get the guy they wanted, why the hell didn't we get a better prospect than Nick Greenwood? The Padres, from what I gathered, didn't give up a prospect from their top 30 to land Luddy.

Socnorb11 wrote:

phinstd wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:

phinstd wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:

ConeBone69 wrote:Lance Lynn + someone like Nick Addition (pretty similar numbers to Kluber besides Ks) could have gotten it done.

2 lesser pitchers probably doesn't hold as much value as Kluber. I'd rather have Kluber than those 2 guys, personally.

Why is that? Lynn is the higher rated player of the two, similar age, at a higher level.

Higher rated by whom?

Baseball America...if you're going to tell me that Indians management is all excited over the guy they got, and no one else, then I'll tell you that's probably a bit naive.

By Baseball America........... when? Last November? Or December?

Kluber seems to have come into his own this year. Baseall America will rate him higher than Lynn next year, I'll bet.

I doubt it...it's all about projection with prospects. His stuff isn't going to play any better than Lynn's will. You seem to really like a guy who looks like a 5th starter/middle reliever one day if he's lucky.

ConeBone69 wrote:If we HAD to include Ludwick to San Diego so Cleveland could get the guy they wanted, why the hell didn't we get a better prospect than Nick Greenwood? The Padres, from what I gathered, didn't give up a prospect from their top 30 to land Luddy.

You're correct. They gave up Lance Lynn and Daniel Bibona for Ludwick. A Ludwick under control for next year as well.

phinstd wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:

phinstd wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:

phinstd wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:

ConeBone69 wrote:Lance Lynn + someone like Nick Addition (pretty similar numbers to Kluber besides Ks) could have gotten it done.

2 lesser pitchers probably doesn't hold as much value as Kluber. I'd rather have Kluber than those 2 guys, personally.

Why is that? Lynn is the higher rated player of the two, similar age, at a higher level.

Higher rated by whom?

Baseball America...if you're going to tell me that Indians management is all excited over the guy they got, and no one else, then I'll tell you that's probably a bit naive.

By Baseball America........... when? Last November? Or December?

Kluber seems to have come into his own this year. Baseall America will rate him higher than Lynn next year, I'll bet.

I doubt it...it's all about projection with prospects. His stuff isn't going to play any better than Lynn's will. You seem to really like a guy who looks like a 5th starter/middle reliever one day if he's lucky.

What is it about him that you don't like this year? He's striking out more than a batter an inning. WHIP is good. ERA is good. Reasonably high draft pick.......... so somebody thought there was something there. Where are you getting the information on his "stuff"? I'm strictly going by thte numbers.

skmsw wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:

skmsw wrote:

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.

(chuckle) actually, by definition I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it means. We received less in value than we paid, thus we have less net value than we had, ergo, worse off ...

By definition of what? What do you mean "received less in value than we paid"?

seriously?

the definition of "worse off"

we received less than we paid, as in gave up more in the trade than we got back

ergo, the organization has less value now than it did before, e.g. by definition worse off

If everyone played the same position or could contribute the same regardless of position, perhaps. On the other hand, if we added more "value" at a position we were weak in, and lost less at another position, we won't necessarily see the loss of value as your definition suggests. For example, if we added another catcher as valuable as Yadi at a cost that was much less, we might look like a stronger team but we wouldn't necessarily reap the value of having an additional catcher on the roster. A more extreme example, if a football team that had a great placekicker made a lopsided trade in their favor for another highly valuable placekicker, they might appear to be more valuable team on paper but the benefit on the field would be minimal (barring injury). Back to baseball, we're a better team if Westbrook pitches well down the stretch (better than what we've been getting out of 4 & 5) and we are able to fill RF suitably between Jay and Craig. Perhaps not more value as far as WAR (etc.) is concerned, but because a vital position was filled by someone we didn't have readily available to us before the deal.

Goold has a pretty good article showing how close the two pitchers (Lynn and Kluber) actually are.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball ... 2bc8b.html

Kluber's 2010 AA (age 24): 6-6, 3.45 ERA ... 22 games/21 starts ... 122 2/3 innings ... 121 Hits allowed ... 40 walks/136 strikeouts ... .259 BA against ... 3.07 FIP ... .349 BABIP

Lynn's 2009 AA (age 22): 11-4, 2.92 ERA ... 22 games/22 starts ... 126 1/3 innings ... 117 hits allowed ... 51 walks/98 strikeouts ... .251 BA against ... 3.63 FIP ... .315 BABIP