GatewayRedbirds.com

My whole premise for this year's trade deadline being such a huge opportunity for us was that, we had so many low performers that it presented so many ways to improve affordably -- small, easily-obtained additions in any number of slots could make a difference, without having to pay too much or give up too much.

Well, Mo saw a different angle, I guess. Mysteriously, with all the low performers to replace, he moved one of the relatively high ones.

I like getting Westbrook, and I don't mind trading Ludwick. It's just that it seems so crazy that those two completely separate concepts somehow ended up in the same trade, essentially straight up for each other.

I like the addition of Westbrook -- he's a decent pitcher who is pretty likely to do better for us than he was doing in the AL, and he definitely does fill a need, one of the ones on my list of 1,001 Ways To Improve By Adding Almost Anyone Other Than Who We Currently Have.

I'm not as high on Ludwick as some on this forum. He's 32 years old, about to get a pretty big pay raise, and I don't love his defense as much as some do. That said, he's a useful if not valuable player, and I'm really surprised we'd be willing to give up a player like him without it being something big. The idea this time of year is usually to obtain something useful now in exchange for something you do not need today ... but like I said, guess Mo has some different angle.

It certainly seems like we really could have -- and should have -- been able to obtain Westbrook for a lot less than Ludwick. Or else been able to get a lot more back than Westbrook. Seems to me that Ludwick is at least the everyday-player equivalent of Joe Saunders, who fetched Dan Haren.

I was hoping we'd be active; but I had something else in mind. I figured we'd add two or three players that would improve us at the margins ... a few runs here, a few there, a few terrible players sent to the waiver wire replaced by better choices.

We did improve our #4 slot in the rotation, and we improved it by about the amount I would have liked. But with only a $50 bill in our pocket, we bought a $30 item probably only worth $20 -- and told them to keep the change. Meanwhile, all the places we could have improved for just a few bucks, we left alone (or maybe even worsened; Stavvy's back, Jay is now in RF without a net, and looming is Craig with his OPS+ of 28 and lack of quality defense).

I'm gonna hafta chalk this Trade Deadline up in the Missed Opportunity category.

skmsw wrote:I'm gonna hafta chalk this Trade Deadline up in the Missed Opportunity category.

All things considered, I'd say it's tough to argue with that.

Richie Allen wrote: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.

I understand that. My issue is, we could have upgraded from Suppan more cheaply (heck, we probably could have gotten Westbrook himself more cheaply).

when you pay more than you have to, AND you get less than you give, you're probably worse off ... even granting the improvement in the rotation (although we're left to wonder if that improvement will offset what we lose moving from Ludwick to Jay et al).

I don't think it's fair to simply categorize Ludwick as an average corner outfielder. He plays above average defense in RF, which isn't the same as hiding a guy that can hit in LF. He's also going to provide league average offense at a minimum, with potential for much higher when he can avoid his nagging injuries. And that's an established track record, unlike speculating what a Jay/Craig platoon would yield. A guy like that has a lot of value and any mid market or better team would love to have him and would be more than willing to keep him next year as well. Except the Cardinals, who in their quest to make sure they can afford Albert might just strip the roster down to the point where he won't even want to sign here.

Also, you can argue all you want about our prospects vs. SD, or what the Indians preferred. The point that is being missed is it didn't have to be Westbrook. There were a lot of pitchers out there that were available and the Cardinals were in a strong position (supposedly) where they could take on salary. Haren was the guy, then Oswalt was the guy and then Westbrook was the guy, when all we needed was a guy who could upgrade that spot. From the reports we heard, it sounded like the Cardinals had feelers out on several pitchers, but obviously not enough since they ended up panicking and overpaying for one at the last minute.

edit: or what steve said

I'm still irked.

This trade had as much to do with saving money as it did with upgrading the rotation.

I still maintain that championship teams *keep* their good players.

Just got the news after a long day and night at an amusement park. I'm definitely with the side that this trade sucks. I'd rather have stood pat than this.

Socnorb11 wrote: I can kinda agree with that. But we, as Cardinal fans, probably give Ludwick more value because of sentimental purposes than we should. As Fat said, he's probably a league-average outfielder. "Major asset" is probably stretching it just a bit. But I do wish we could have gotten more for him.

Who would you rather see in the five hole? Ludwick or Yadi?

I don't hate this trade. I think that we probably could have signed Luddy under arbitration value for 2011, and I would have been happy about it. I like the guy a lot as our third-best outfielder. Now he gets to be the Padres' best outfielder. I hope they embrace him out there! Go Luddy!

As per Westbrook: I think he'll give us 8-10 more starts this season. Realistically, he'll do alright with Duncan's input, and put up some nice numbers as a 4th starter. I hope we manage to go 5-3, 5-4, or 6-4 in his starts. Any of that would be a big improvement, I think, over Suppan or Hawksworth. Hopefully Lohse can come back and pitch some decent outings. It sucks that Penny looked so good early on and got screwed over.

I am still upset in that I feel like we should have kept Ludwick, and just directly given some of our weak prospects to Cleveland, instead of this 3-team garbage. But that's over, we can't look back. Here's to Westbrook getting a few lucky wins for us in the next two months.

Maclowery wrote:I don't hate this trade. I think that we probably could have signed Luddy under arbitration value for 2011, and I would have been happy about it. I like the guy a lot as our third-best outfielder. Now he gets to be the Padres' best outfielder. I hope they embrace him out there! Go Luddy!

As per Westbrook: I think he'll give us 8-10 more starts this season. Realistically, he'll do alright with Duncan's input, and put up some nice numbers as a 4th starter. I hope we manage to go 5-3, 5-4, or 6-4 in his starts. Any of that would be a big improvement, I think, over Suppan or Hawksworth. Hopefully Lohse can come back and pitch some decent outings. It sucks that Penny looked so good early on and got screwed over.

I am still upset in that I feel like we should have kept Ludwick, and just directly given some of our weak prospects to Cleveland, instead of this 3-team garbage. But that's over, we can't look back. Here's to Westbrook getting a few lucky wins for us in the next two months.

This is my attitude towards the trade. We can sit here and analyze the numbers of the Padres' AA scrub against our AA scrubs, but it doesn't change the fact that the trade happened and Westbrook is a Cardinal. We've been wanting to get Westbrook for years and we've been predicting for years that Ludwick would get traded for pitching. Didn't expect it to happen in the same deal, but I have faith that the Cardinals front office knows what they are doing.

Mo is a smart GM and he loved having Ludwick on the team. If this is how it panned out, I'm sure there was a reason to it.

Next time the offense goes into Make You Wanna Hang Yourself mode I may actually do it. Thanks Mo.