GatewayRedbirds.com

Socnorb11 wrote:

skmsw wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:

ConeBone69 wrote:If the Cards got some middle infield help along with getting Westbrook I would be elated with or without Ludwick being on the team. It just hurts we didn't get that.

Yeah, I agree. Could be that there just wasn't anyone out there that was really available.

I find it really hard to believe that there was no one available that would improve on what we have in some of our current roster spots.

Mike Lowell playing third base for free, and moving Flip to second, would be an improvement. And that was available. I know there was more out there.

Would Lowell being an upgrade over Freese?

Well, Freese is a 27-year old rookie who hasn't played in a month and hasn't had an extra base hit in two months. Lowell just spent 5 games in AAA on a "rehab," and hit four homers while going .500/.500/1.227 = 1.727 in ~25 plate appearances. With his hip problems, his defense may be less than optimal --- but with Freese currently ranking 25th in +/- among third baseman, we probably don't need to be all that choosy there.

Lowell would be a significant improvement in our starting lineup at third base, and allow Flip to slide over to one of our even bigger problem spots. Or heck, Lowell could be power off the bench (MAJOR upgrade over Stavinoha -- my approach to this deadline) and spot-start at first or third. Point is, he was one tiny example of a free upgrade -- a way to get better at the margins without giving up too much in the way of players or money.

Put another way -- Yadi (630 OPS) batted fifth today. In the NL, Lowell would hit significantly better than everyone in the lineup except Albert, Holliday, and Rasmus. He'd probably replace Ludwick's offensive production, and be no worse defensively than Freese.

Mike Lowell has been hurt most of the year, and when he's played hasn't been all that impressive - .213/.308/.350. He may be toast, and that (plus his salary) explains in large part why Texas backed off (twice) on possibly trading for him, and nobody else has expressed any sort of interest.

BTW, Yadi was up to .241 before today's game, having gone 17-for-50 (.340) since the all-star break.

Ludwick singles off Josh Johnson in his first at bat.

WE LOST THE TRADE ALL READY!!!!!!!!!!!

Magneto2.0 wrote:Ludwick singles off Josh Johnson in his first at bat.

WE LOST THE TRADE ALL READY!!!!!!!!!!!

He looks good in the Padres Sunday unis

You read it first here: Cardinals and Reds will tie with 94 victories. Jake Westbrook wins the playoff game.

slide_into_first wrote:You read it first here: Cardinals and Reds will tie with 94 victories. Jake Westbrook wins the playoff game.

Except that if the two teams are tied for the NL Central/Wild Card lead, MLB policy is to seed the playoffs with the team having won the season series as the "division winner" and the other team as the "wild card".

This is what happened to us in 2001; the Astros and Cards tied with 93 wins (tops in the NL; Arizona had 92 wins and Atlanta had 88) but since Houston won the season series, they were seeded #1 and we were seeded #4.

So far, we're leading the season series with the Reds, 7-5, with (I think) six more to go, so we need to win at least 3 of those games to clinch the series and avoid the playoff.

Jmodene wrote:

slide_into_first wrote:You read it first here: Cardinals and Reds will tie with 94 victories. Jake Westbrook wins the playoff game.

Except that if the two teams are tied for the NL Central/Wild Card lead, MLB policy is to seed the playoffs with the team having won the season series as the "division winner" and the other team as the "wild card".

This is what happened to us in 2001; the Astros and Cards tied with 93 wins (tops in the NL; Arizona had 92 wins and Atlanta had 88) but since Houston won the season series, they were seeded #1 and we were seeded #4.

So far, we're leading the season series with the Reds, 7-5, with (I think) six more to go, so we need to win at least 3 of those games to clinch the series and avoid the playoff.

I think wildcard will come from another division. Ok, 92 victories apiece then.

slide_into_first wrote:

Jmodene wrote:

slide_into_first wrote:You read it first here: Cardinals and Reds will tie with 94 victories. Jake Westbrook wins the playoff game.

Except that if the two teams are tied for the NL Central/Wild Card lead, MLB policy is to seed the playoffs with the team having won the season series as the "division winner" and the other team as the "wild card".

This is what happened to us in 2001; the Astros and Cards tied with 93 wins (tops in the NL; Arizona had 92 wins and Atlanta had 88) but since Houston won the season series, they were seeded #1 and we were seeded #4.

So far, we're leading the season series with the Reds, 7-5, with (I think) six more to go, so we need to win at least 3 of those games to clinch the series and avoid the playoff.

I think wildcard will come from another division. Ok, 92 victories apiece then.

No team in the NL is winning that many games. I don't see how..maybe the Padres..but..

Allen Craig with another home run today.

http://www.foxsportsmidwest.com/08/01/1 ... eedID=3708

Offense doing just fine without Ludwick

By B.J. Rains
FOXSportsMidwest.com
August 1, 2010

ST. LOUIS – When outfielder Ryan Ludwick was traded to the San Diego Padres Saturday, some wondered why the Cardinals would subtract a bat from their inconsistent offense instead of adding one.

Two games and 20 runs later, the Cardinals offense appears to be just fine.

sports writers are dumb