FanGraphs Baseball


RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. As a Cards’ fan, this is disappointing. We do upgrade the rotation today but at the cost of probably half a win in RF the rest of this year. Plus, we lose the surplus value we would have gained from Ludwick next year. Trading Ludwick to get younger and cheaper would have been a good move this offseason, but we didn’t get enough from Ludwick.

    In a sense, this reminds me of when the Phillies traded Cliff Lee. Neither team really needed to trade that player when they did and, by doing so, made themselves worse. All that said, the upgrade from Suppan to Westbrook will be slightly greater than the downgrade from Ludwick to Jay/Craig in 2010.

    Comment by chuckb — July 31, 2010 @ 1:31 pm

  2. Cards fan.

    Initial reaction, not happy. Ludwick seems to be a player that really cares and tries hard. I side with Bernie Miklasz that we need more offense and I now think we really need more offense. Awesome defensive player, very fun to watch. Wonder when his contract is up.

    Comment by Andy Brandt — July 31, 2010 @ 1:39 pm

  3. Ludwick was way more valuable than this. Cardinals did not get enough in return. Ludwick is highly underrated and will hit a ton of doubles in petco.

    Comment by gino — July 31, 2010 @ 1:39 pm

  4. I don’t see how this is anything but a negative for the Cards. Ludwick has had at least 2 WAR the past four seasons, including half a season in 2007. He’s already totaled 2.6 this year (although his UZR/150 should be coming down soon). Westbrook had .4 WAR in 08, didn’t pitch in 09, and has 1.0 WAR this year. Unless another deal is coming to add an outfielder, I don’t see the reason to trade Ludwick here.

    Comment by skippyballer486 — July 31, 2010 @ 2:41 pm

  5. Me no likey.

    [1] I’m not convinced Jay and Craig are good enough to stick. I get a little tired of the constant call up, send down, the Cardinals do with Stavinoha, Mather, Craig, Jay, Thurston, Robinson, etc.
    [2] Ludwick is good, and has been good.
    [3] I don’t want to open 2011 with a 1WAR RF.

    Wasn’t Mitchell Boggs supposed to be a SP prospect?

    Comment by CircleChange11 — July 31, 2010 @ 3:41 pm

  6. Maybe this will force Tony to play Rasmus every day finally; that should have been Mozeliak’s deadline deal. Not defending the deal, but if Jay was displacing Rasmus, getting Rasmus back in the lineup is a net gain as Rasmus > Ludwick. That said, Ludwick > a Jay / Craig platoon.

    If those two differences can wash, this could be worth a half win to a full win for the Cards with the Westbrook upgrade over Hwaksworth.

    Comment by JH — July 31, 2010 @ 4:19 pm

  7. “All that said, the upgrade from Suppan to Westbrook will be slightly greater than the downgrade from Ludwick to Jay/Craig in 2010.”

    I think this is the best rationale for this trade. Hopefully it turns out to be true.

    Comment by WY — July 31, 2010 @ 4:20 pm

  8. It doesn’t make sense to compare Westbrook’s WAR to Ludwick’s. It makes more sense to compare Westbrook to the SP he will be replacing and Ludwick to the OFs who will be replacing him. Unfortunately, they were not able to start four OF in their everyday lineup or use a three-man starting rotation (and unfortunately, Ludwick is not qualified to take one of those spots in the starting rotation…).

    Comment by WY — July 31, 2010 @ 4:23 pm

  9. Boggs has pitched so well in the pen I doubt he moves to the rotation any time soon.

    Comment by vivaelpujols — July 31, 2010 @ 5:04 pm

  10. How exactly do the Padres turn two garbage prospects into Ryan Ludwick?

    Comment by cpebbles — July 31, 2010 @ 5:18 pm

  11. I agree somewhat about Boggs, but they could likely acquire a good middle reliever for less than Ryan Ludwick.

    But they may also feel that Boggs isn’t ready for the rotation or that pitching in relief is part of his development … that strategy has worked well for some other pitchers.

    Comment by CircleChange11 — July 31, 2010 @ 5:31 pm

  12. Jed Hoyer is, apparently, good at his job.

    Comment by maestro876 — July 31, 2010 @ 5:43 pm

  13. Plus I wouldn’t call them garbage prospects. Not top guys, no, but guys who have a decent chance at being something.

    Comment by maestro876 — July 31, 2010 @ 5:43 pm

  14. It’s not like Ludwick is making peanuts. As it stands, Ludwick would be one of the most highly paid Padres next year. In the long term this is a slight help to the Cardinals in terms of payroll flexibility. We’re talking Pujols extension. Jay gives the Cards less total wins, but is an upgrade over Ludwick when considering WAR / $$$. If it ends up being an even trade over 2010 (which it may not be) this deal is a win. At any rate, you have to weigh the future flex vs. the initial year impact.

    Comment by intricatenick — July 31, 2010 @ 6:38 pm

  15. They might have been able to get a useful starter for “less than Ryan Ludwick,” but I am unconvinced that they could have got one for something less DISPENSABLE than Ryan Ludwick, particularly when salary is taken into account. I like this move for the Cardinals. (The team that gives me the “what were they thinking?” reaction out of the three is Cleveland; San Diego also looks to have profited by getting Luddy, because he patches a weakness.)

    Comment by Bad Bill — July 31, 2010 @ 7:52 pm

  16. If you just consider WAR / $$$ for some reason, any pre-arbitration player who is at all better than replacement-level is a better buy than anyone who is into his arbitration years. Ludwick is not making negligible money, but he’s probably a true-talent 3 win player making $5.45 million this year and likely due to make around $8 million in 2011. He’s got a surplus value of around $8 million.

    I’m pretty skeptical that a 24 year old having his breakout year repeating AA and an unimpressive A-baller who was taken in the 14th round last year has that much value.

    Comment by cpebbles — July 31, 2010 @ 7:56 pm

  17. Problem is, knowing the Cardinals front office, it’ll be Suppan staying in the rotation and Hawksworth getting bumped.

    Comment by gnomez — July 31, 2010 @ 8:36 pm

  18. Well, Westbrook’s WAR for the rest of the season will probably be, at best, about .5. So unless Ludwick is being replaced by the recently-cloned Matt Holliday, I still don’t see how this helps the Cardinals.

    Comment by skippyballer486 — July 31, 2010 @ 9:23 pm

  19. Cleveland simply needs to move as much money as they can off of the books. They have the lowest attendance of any team this year. Any salary they move is helpful to them at this point. They would like Westbrook to come back next year, but there is no guarantee that he will re-sign. So they dump the salary now, take the AA pitcher, and talk to Westbrook in the off season.

    I am a Pads fan, so I’m incredibly happy to have Ryan Ludwick aboard, and even happier because we didn’t have to lose someone we couldn’t replace.

    Comment by jirish — July 31, 2010 @ 11:07 pm

  20. Help me out here, does a player like Ludwick truly have any trade value gong into his third arbitration contract?

    My thinking is a team would have to have Ludwick’s contract figured out first so wouldn’t you have to tender him to be able to trade him? Aren’t you looking at him signing a one-year contract for $8M then finding a team that will take that contract as well as agreeing on return players?

    Am I missing that he has minimal trade value this winter? Are there any other examples of players getting traded being an arbitration 3 with an $8M contract or even trading for a similar tenured player then signing that player to an extension?

    Comment by miamidon — July 31, 2010 @ 11:49 pm

  21. Ludwick still provides surplus value over a likely $8M arbitration award, so there definitely is some value there. Also, it’s likely he’ll be a Type A free agent, or at least a Type B, so that’s even more value if you get him for next year as, barring any kind of catastrophic injury, you’ll be getting draft picks back in return, as well.

    The deal for Westbrook was salary neutral for the Cardinals, supposedly, so they got a lot of the surplus value back in cash from the Indians since Westbrook was owed a lot more than Ludwick for the rest of the season.

    Comment by Samuel — August 1, 2010 @ 1:38 am

  22. I hope they give lots of playing time to Jon Jay. He needs a nickname, and it should be “The Federalist”. Help me out people, spread the news. This must stick.

    Comment by Rally — August 2, 2010 @ 9:50 am

  23. I’m down with The Federalist, but apparently he’s already got The Chief Justice. I’m fine with that, too.

    Comment by Joe Pawlikowski — August 2, 2010 @ 9:51 am

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Close this window.

0.258 Powered by WordPress