Discussion: St. Louis Cardinals

They probably should add another bat, but the question is where. The best spot seems to be second base. Maybe if they go after Sanchez who will only be making 8 million that would be the best move, but unfortunatley what they need is anther big hitter/run producer and every team who thinks they have a shot are going to be going after players like a Holliday. Whether they should is not the question, its whether they can offer enough good prospect talent along with the money, while other temas like the Giants and about ten other teams will be looking for the same thing.

True. Kelly Johnson is a great glove man, but will the Braves be partying with anyone knowing that they are still clearly in the race. They're only 5 games back in a pretty rocky divsion that changes every week. I would take a chance on Johnson, but will Johnson in the end be able to protect Albert Pujols in the lineup, probably not. Kelly Johnson is an extremely good player when he is on, but then again to is every player when they're on.

The braves could trade kelly johnson to the cards. When he is on his game, he scores a lot of runs, walks a lot, steal bases, and he does have some pop to his bat. HE also makes the pitcher throw him what he wants. spaneli, he is also a gold glove calibar 2B man

Posted by: BrentWt34 | July 11, 2009 at 07:11 PM

He doesn't "make the pitcher throw him what he wants", he's not gold glove caliber, and he's injured. On top of that, the Braves would be lucky to get more than minor league filler for him.

"The braves could trade kelly johnson to the cards."

Doesnt work, even if Johnson was that special of a player to target.

Right now they have to remember that Glaus is going to come back. And between Glaus, DeRosa, Thurston and Schumaker, they have enough bats for 2nd and 3rd with bench depth added otherwise.

But then again, between Duncan, Rasmus, Ludwick, Ankiel, and sometimes DeRosa, they have enough bats for the OF too.

Since 2 of the 4.5 OF bats are struggling, I would say maybe deal one or two of them and bring a true solid bat in return. Or trade them for a pitcher, and trade someone else for a OF bat. But they really dont have any glaring holes, and the team always seems to get buy on a 'team effort' instead of the play of individuals so it is hard to argue any change needs to take place.

In the end, I would say pitching is the place they are most likely to have problems with going forward. They have tons of depth for the field, and because of that, I cant imagine they do something drastic with the position players.

P.S. God I hate this team! (Cubs fan, so it is in my blood)

I think another pitcher is needed. I think with Luddy coming back around that is your protection to Pujols. If you add the fact Rasmus is playing very well in the 2 hole and you hope DeRosa comes back and contributes and hits well in the 5 hole. This offense should be OK for the stretch run. The pitching with Welly and Thompson is lost past the first 3 starters. Lohse coming back will help but I think adding a #4 or #5 starter would be the best boost to the squad. If we want to go big we can add an ace type pitcher (say Halladay) but I feel that is unlikely to happen.

"God I hate this team! (Cubs fan, so it is in my blood)"

I feel yeah.

Trade Ludwick, some prospects, and Thurston for Holliday. That deal probably would not fly, but if they could include the right prospect then that trade would clear a spot in the outfield for Holliday and a spot on the infield for DeRosa and Glaus to play. If you're short a bench player then call one up or trade for one.

Javier Vasquez has been a .500 pitcher his whole career. His career numbers have always been great in every category except in the one that counts. Wins. He almost never get the job done when the big moment comes. Ask the White Sox.

"Trade Ludwick, some prospects, and Thurston for Holliday."

Ludwick has outperformed Holliday this year. I don't think the swap makes sense. Holliday has never been the same hitter away from Coors, which makes him an overpriced, underperforming player.

Which makes him a great fit for the Cubs, I think.

"The only real stud Atlanta trots out there everyday is McCann. Jones, Escobar, and McClouth are all above average..."

In sixteen big league seasons Jones has a .310/.408/.545 line, and you don't consider him a stud? Even this year as old as he is, he's still got a .410 OBP

Javier Vasquez has been a .500 pitcher his whole career. His career numbers have always been great in every category except in the one that counts. Wins. He almost never get the job done when the big moment comes. Ask the White Sox.

Posted by: Spaneli | July 11, 2009 at 07:49 PM

How can you say the record of a pitcher is what counts the most? There are so many factors that the pitcher cant control that contribute to if a pitcher wins or not.

1. Bad Run Support
2. Bad Defense
3. Bad Bullpen
4. Weather Delay

You can say that w/ a pitcher almost any time when looking at a single season, but with Vasquez its been a whole career and with his stellar numbers in almost every category, the one that sticks out is the won loss record. You can't be a bad luck pitcher for your whole career.

You can say that w/ a pitcher almost any time when looking at a single season, but with Vasquez its been a whole career and with his stellar numbers in almost every category, the one that sticks out is the won loss record. You can't be a bad luck pitcher for your whole career.

Posted by: Spaneli | July 11, 2009 at 08:06 PM

Uhh, yea you can be a bad luck pitcher for your whole career. Except for 05, the sox have never had an awsome offensive attack, and that is the same way with the braves.

you are right 86 mets, but you have to admit, Javy is the best of the best when it comes to damage control, you will hardly never see him give up more than 3 or 4 runs in a game.

"Uhh, yea you can be a bad luck pitcher for your whole career. Except for 05, the sox have never had an awsome offensive attack, and that is the same way with the braves."

And what kind of offensive attack can you call the 04 Yankees. Also in 05 Vasquez was only 11-14 and last year didn't the White Sox score 811 runs while Vasquez only wnet 12-16. Stop making excuses for Vasquez as to why he's not as good as he shopuld be. Enough people have been doing that for him for his entire career.

"The Cardinals have two real choices: Deal a combination of prospects/spare parts for more immediate help now (even a Kelly Johnson could help if it meant more depth in the lineup, there are very few players that will truly "protect" Pujols, but if the rest of the lineup can score more consistently, that will fix what ails the Cardinals) OR to be done making any major moves and to hold on to prospects like Wallace, Daryl Jones and Pete Kozma in order to potentially have cheap cost-controlled players that can perform well in the coming years when we'll need more space in the budget to re-sign Pujols."

Sounds about right to me.

I'd hardly call win-loss the most important stat in a pitcher's line. By that logic, Johan Santana is a terribly overrated pitcher -- and we know that just isn't true. His offensive and defensive support stink. It has little or nothing to do with Santana's collective skill level. And that logic carries to someone like Javier Vazquez.

And what kind of offensive attack can you call the 04 Yankees. Also in 05 Vasquez was only 11-14 and last year didn't the White Sox score 811 runs while Vasquez only wnet 12-16. Stop making excuses for Vasquez as to why he's not as good as he shopuld be. Enough people have been doing that for him for his entire career.

Posted by: Spaneli | July 11, 2009 at 08:17 PM

That is f'ing ridiculous, your argument. That's team runs scored, not runs scored for Vazquez. How does it help him any if the team scores 10 runs in a game pitched by mark beuhrle? He has a career FIP of 3.86 which is pretty good. He has struggled mightily with poor defense behind him, bad team situations (Yankees, Ozzie Guillen), and run support. In 2007 when he got 5.2 runs per game he had a record of 15-8. Look i don't think Ludwick for Vazquez makes sense for either team and the cardinals should do it but just off talent alone that's selling Vazquez well short

Vazquez seems to have issues pitching out of the stretch. He'll put up plenty of 1-2-3 innings, but when someone gets on the opponent bunches all of their hits. His numbers for the game look very good, but he still comes away with a loss. Brent, I'm sure you've noticed that opponents seem to do all their damage in one inning, and he looks very good for the rest of the game. He'd put up lines like that in Mtl, Arizona, and Chicago as well.

Posted by: 86 Mets | July 11, 2009 at 08:12 PM

There's really no defineable correlation between giving up all your runs at once or spreading them out and winning, so what was your point?

There's really no defineable correlation between giving up all your runs at once or spreading them out and winning, so what was your point?

Posted by: bravesfan22193 | July 11, 2009 at 08:50 PM

My point was that when runs come in bunches, pitcher can still maintain very good peripheral stats while still giving up runs. Judging by his peripherals throughout his career, his ERA should be around 3.00. It sits at 4.25 for his career. I saw a writeup when he was in MTL suggesting that he couldn't pitch well out of the stretch, and he's done nothing to prove otherwise. When he gives up runs in bunches because he struggles from the stretch, it gives good reason to his outstanding peripherals, but average ERA and W/L records. I was simply restating a theory I read about how he maintains such excellent peripherals, while having an average ERA and W/L record.

I think the Cards have made their move for the year and they got unlucky for the short term.

I'm saying he has to pitch a shut out, but you can't be a hard luck pitcher for your whole career. You give me a pitcher who was hard luck pitcher for his whole career and i'll concede my argument. Also you've watched for half a season I saw him for 3 years in Chicago. I think I have my facts straight. Also every pitcher has to "man-up" You can name a ton of pitchers who have been on worse teams than Vasquez and have done better. Also last time time I checked in that team defense stat, he's part of the defense too. Cliff Lee, Aaron Harang, and Carlos Zambrano all lead the league in wins at one point in another in their careers while pitching for bad teams. Of course a pitchers' wins depends on his team, but its not like Vasquez has not been on good team. He just has not gotten it done. No matter where he's been.

"That's only true if you strike out 27 batters and hit a home run in every start. And how many pitchers do that?"

You're taking things as absolutes and over blowing statements. I've heard not facts come from you. With pitchers their fate is always in their hands. A man gets on because of an error, you still have a chance to get out of the inninngs. If a man is on base and someone commits an error and that man comes in, you were still the one who put that man on in the first place. Pitchers give up runs that's a fact, but a pitcher always has a chance to get out of it. So, yes his fate will always be in his hands.

If a fielder commits an error and that allows a run to score that is not the pitcher's fault, you can't always be expected to have the bases clear and an error insinuates that the play should have been made, thus the defense (and not pitcher) is at fault for the run

As for a "tough luck" candidate here's one: Nolan Ryan with a career record of 324-292. That's a .525 winning percentage, hardly great and certainly not elite, right? Yet he had an FIP of 2.97, in line with the other all time greats.

"Once again just because a certain team is bad over the course of a season doesn't mean they don't perform better or worse when certain pitcher's play. The Braves have scored a lot for Tommy Hanson but haven't scored for Kawakami and Vazquez. Hanson is not the better pitcher (right now) but his record is very good. Give me the run support numbers for those pitchers instead of their team records, because yet again it doesn't matter one bit how they perform when the pitcher we're talking about is sitting in the dugout on his off day"

you are talking about a perfect storm of a pitcher who sees eveyone else getting runs and great defense while he doesn't for an entire career. That's not possible. Harang ranked 25th in run support in 2007 for men who pitched at least 108 innings, that year Vasquez was ranked 12th and was only 11-12, in 2007 Cliff Lee was ranked 22nd, while Vasquez was ranked 18th only going 12-16. Vasquez has gotten run support through his career actualy, but still has never come up with the goods.

the last comment I have to correct the stat was for men who pitched at least 180 inninngs.

My problem is that's the only counterpoint I've ever gotten from the Vazquez detractors. Because it can't be simply explained, he's just an average pitcher that seems to be the consensus. Until someone wants to actually provide facts such as run support numbers I contend that his W-L struggles can be attributed namely to dumb luck

Posted by: bravesfan22193 | July 11, 2009 at 09:34 PM

I've read several articles by sabermetricians trying to figure out Mr. Vazquez. He has a WHIP of 1.2, BB/9 under 3, and K/9 of almost 9 for his career. Yet his ERA and W/L both suggest he is nothing more than league average. The reasoning that the article came up with was that Vazquez's peripherals from the stretch were well below league average, while pitching from the windup his numbers were HOF worthy. This allowed him to give up runs in bunches, while still having outstanding peripheral stats. I've actually seen several sites come to this conclusion, I know the hardball times and baseball prospectus were two of them (apologies for not linking, I read these articles quite a while ago). Bottom line is, Vazquez is a sabermetricians nightmare...a guy who's peripherals don't actually represent his production over a huge sample size.

You can see, he should have somewhere between 10 and 14 wins on the season with some breaks and only has 4 real solid losses. To go 14 games giving up 3 or fewer runs and coming away with only 6 wins is extreme. He has been very, very, very unlucky in at least 2009.

Posted by: SuzysMan | July 11, 2009 at 09:56 PM

2009 yes, but he's putting up career bests in ERA, K/9, BB/9, HR/9, and WHIP so far this season. Tough luck only explains this season, which happens to be the best of his career by quite a bit.

And it's obvious who Doug Davis will be replacing The Brothers Grimm combo of Thompson/Wellemeyer

Fine…

Here is back to 2003. And honestly, I had no clue what to expect. I can tell you though, this might be the unluckiest guy ever! He has definitely made a fan today, I really, really feel bad he takes crud for W% when he should have a much better record.

- 2008 -

12-16 record

Tough Luck games
8.0 IP, 1 R, 1 ER – ND, Should have won - left ahead 1
7.2 IP, 1 R, 1 ER – Loss, Should have won - left down 1
6.2 IP, 3 R, 2 ER – ND, Should have won – left ahead 1
9.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – Loss, should have won – lost 3-2
7.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – Loss, probably should have won – left down 2
6.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – Loss, probably should have won – left down 2

Other possible wins
7.0 IP, 4 R, 4 ER – Loss - left ahead 2
7.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – Loss - left down 2

That is up to 8 more games he probably should have won, and 6 loses he probably didn’t deserve. Unlucky

- 2007 -

15 – 8 record

Tough Luck games
7.0 IP, 1 R, 1 ER – ND, should have won – left tied
7.0 IP, 1 R, 1 ER – ND, should have won – left ahead 3
6.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – ND, possibly should have won – left ahead 1

probably an expected tough luck total, great record anyway

- 2006 -

11 – 12 record

Tough Luck games
8.0 IP, 1 R, 1 ER – Loss, should have won – left down 1
7.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – ND, should have won – left tie
7.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – ND, should have won – left down 1
6.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – ND, probably should have won – left down 1
5.2 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – ND, probably should have won – left ahead 2
6.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – ND, possibly should have won – left ahead 1
5.2 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – ND, possibly should have won – left ahead 1

Up to 7 more wins, 1 very unearned loss

- 2005 -

11 – 15 record

8.0 IP, 1 R, 1 ER – ND, should have won – left tie
7.0 IP, 1 R, 1 ER – Loss, should have won – left down 1
9.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – Loss, should have won – left down 1
7.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – Loss, should have won – left down 2
7.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – ND, should have won – left down 1
7.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – ND, should have won – left down 1
6.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – ND, should have won – left down 1
7.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – ND, probably should have won – left down 1
7.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – Loss, probably should have won – left down 2

up to 9 more wins, and 3-4 really tough luck losses

- 2004 -

14 – 10 record

7.0 IP, 0 R, 0 ER – ND, should have won – left tie
8.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – ND, should have won – left down 2
7.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – ND, probably should have won – left tie
6.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – Loss, probably should have won – left down 2
6.1 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – ND, probably should have won – left ahead 1

up to 5 more wins – especially playing for the Yankees!

- 2003 -

13 – 12 record

9.0 IP, 0 R, 0 ER – ND, OMG how didn’t he win this – left tie
7.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – ND, should have won – left ahead 2
5.0 IP, 1 R, 1 ER – ND, should have won – left ahead 1
7.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – ND, should have won – left tie
7.2 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – Loss, should have won – left down 2
7.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – ND, should have won – left ahead 1
7.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – ND, should have won – left tie
7.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – Loss, should have won – left down 2
6.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – ND, probably should have won – left tie
6.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – Loss, probably should have won – left down 3
6.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – Loss, probably should have won – left down 2
6.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – Loss, probably should have won – left down 2

up to 12 more wins and possibly 5 losses should be removed.

Here are the reasons why the Cardinals WILL NOT trade Ryan Ludwick for your anointed savior Vasquez

1.) Ryan Ludwick is the second best hitter for the Cardinals. We'll need offense in return if we trade him.

2.) Vasquez, at best, will be the Cardinals #4 starter. You do not trade your offensive force for a #4 starter. Period.

3.) I'm under the impression from baseball-refrence that Vasquez's salary is +10 million. We already have an overpayed starter in Lohse.

4.) If we, the Cardinals, were to trade Ludwick we could get much more back from a another team. He's productive and cheap for a couple years.

Look if you actually went back and read instead of skimming you would have seen I've already said the deal would be dumb for both sides, a lose-lose. You actually think he'd be your fourth starter? That's funny, he'd instantly be your second best pitcher behind carpenter. Just because you make more than 10 million doesn't mean you're overpayed. Vazquez has already reached 4 WAR which translates to roughly 18 million, at the halfway mark. You're not getting more than a No. 2 Starter for Ludwick simple as that

I really think that Sanchez from the Pirates is the best bet. They will really be looking to unload him before the deadline as he will most certainly get the AB's needed for his bonus, and as they are already out of playoff contention in the very tallented Central, they really need to free up that payroll. For whom is the question, but I really think that Mather, Barden, and the like could get the trade done.

Thank you brent, you turned what was supposed to be a cardinals disscusion into one of your horrible trade proposals leading to you arguing with a bunch of braves fans. Way to go!

I'm curious what Cards fans think about this. Let's forget about everything but Halladay for a moment. It seems like he's probably not going anywhere. And really, even if the Cards offered up a package of something like Wallace/Jones/Lynn/Kozma, I'm thinking the Jays probably don't bite (as much as it pains me to say it, the Phillies, among others rumored to be really interested, could top that). But let's say that were the offer, Wallace/Jones/Lynn/Kozma and someone like Reifer or Samuel...would you do that? It's an interesting point to ponder. The money handcuffs the team next year (though admittedly, STL has a good bit coming off the books) and sends the farm system back to square 1, but...it's Roy Halladay.
I'm a big fan of player development, love cost-controlled guys, building a core of players from the draft, etc. But part of me is really excited to even hear STL is considered a possible player were Halladay to be dealt, and that part of me wants to scrap all the aforementioned disciplined approach and sell the farm. Watching the Cards these days, I often get this sinking feeling that Pujols is being, to an extent, wasted. He's in his prime, two years+ left on the contract...I feel like they have to make this team better. I think Halladay makes them the NL favorite. And for all the talk about getting some offensive help for Albert, there's not much out there, really. Ludwick's BABIP will come around and his numbers will improve a bit, and I think DeRosa will help some once he comes back. Halladay would replace Thompson/Wellemeyer with Lohse as the 5th guy when he returns. That's a huge 1-5, and in the playoffs you're looking at Halladay/Carpenter/Wainright. I'll take my chances with those guys.
It's probably academic, as I think, as I mentioned earlier, if Halladay is going to be dealt, the Phils or maybe Texas would put together a more attractive package; but if Ricciardi said he'd send Halladay for x 5 guys in STL's system (save Rasmus or other guys on the ML roster), I'd go for it, and just deal with having one of the very worst farm systems around.

Fine…

Here is back to 2003. And honestly, I had no clue what to expect. I can tell you though, this might be the unluckiest guy ever! He has definitely made a fan today, I really, really feel bad he takes crud for W% when he should have a much better record.

- 2008 -

12-16 record

Tough Luck games
8.0 IP, 1 R, 1 ER – ND, Should have won - left ahead 1
7.2 IP, 1 R, 1 ER – Loss, Should have won - left down 1
6.2 IP, 3 R, 2 ER – ND, Should have won – left ahead 1
9.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – Loss, should have won – lost 3-2
7.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – Loss, probably should have won – left down 2
6.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – Loss, probably should have won – left down 2

Other possible wins
7.0 IP, 4 R, 4 ER – Loss - left ahead 2
7.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – Loss - left down 2

That is up to 8 more games he probably should have won, and 6 loses he probably didn’t deserve. Unlucky

- 2007 -

15 – 8 record

Tough Luck games
7.0 IP, 1 R, 1 ER – ND, should have won – left tied
7.0 IP, 1 R, 1 ER – ND, should have won – left ahead 3
6.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – ND, possibly should have won – left ahead 1

probably an expected tough luck total, great record anyway

- 2006 -

11 – 12 record

Tough Luck games
8.0 IP, 1 R, 1 ER – Loss, should have won – left down 1
7.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – ND, should have won – left tie
7.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – ND, should have won – left down 1
6.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – ND, probably should have won – left down 1
5.2 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – ND, probably should have won – left ahead 2
6.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – ND, possibly should have won – left ahead 1
5.2 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – ND, possibly should have won – left ahead 1

Up to 7 more wins, 1 very unearned loss

- 2005 -

11 – 15 record

8.0 IP, 1 R, 1 ER – ND, should have won – left tie
7.0 IP, 1 R, 1 ER – Loss, should have won – left down 1
9.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – Loss, should have won – left down 1
7.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – Loss, should have won – left down 2
7.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – ND, should have won – left down 1
7.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – ND, should have won – left down 1
6.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – ND, should have won – left down 1
7.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – ND, probably should have won – left down 1
7.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – Loss, probably should have won – left down 2

up to 9 more wins, and 3-4 really tough luck losses

- 2004 -

14 – 10 record

7.0 IP, 0 R, 0 ER – ND, should have won – left tie
8.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – ND, should have won – left down 2
7.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – ND, probably should have won – left tie
6.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – Loss, probably should have won – left down 2
6.1 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – ND, probably should have won – left ahead 1

up to 5 more wins – especially playing for the Yankees!

- 2003 -

13 – 12 record

9.0 IP, 0 R, 0 ER – ND, OMG how didn’t he win this – left tie
7.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – ND, should have won – left ahead 2
5.0 IP, 1 R, 1 ER – ND, should have won – left ahead 1
7.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – ND, should have won – left tie
7.2 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – Loss, should have won – left down 2
7.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – ND, should have won – left ahead 1
7.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – ND, should have won – left tie
7.0 IP, 2 R, 2 ER – Loss, should have won – left down 2
6.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – ND, probably should have won – left tie
6.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – Loss, probably should have won – left down 3
6.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – Loss, probably should have won – left down 2
6.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER – Loss, probably should have won – left down 2

up to 12 more wins and possibly 5 losses should be removed.

Look Vasquez is a decent pitcher and this arguement is dumb. W% isn't the best way to determine if a pitcher is good or not as a starter. However, you can't say these should be wins at any given time. You gave stats but what you didn't include was who he was pitching against. Saying he was down by 2 and pitched 8 innings doesn't mean he automatically should have won. He could have been going against Carp, Santana, Halladay, or Lee to name a few. All these guys where tough draws. But the point is, he got out pitched in most of these ND's. Its not bad luck, he just got out pitched. Your opinion is biased on his performances. Saying he pitched 7 innings, was up 2, while giving up 2, and that he should have won, but then saying he pitched 7 innings, was done by 2 while gaving up 2 and should have won is BIASED.. Why does he get the benefit of doubt in every game that he was close? Your arguement on his luck doesn't work since your theory can go for the opposing pitcher as well. New theory in baseball, if you lose you are unlucky???

SERIOUSLY?! you guys are arguing over a braves pitcher on a CARDINALS DISCUSSION! get over it, post it elsewhere. While Vasquez might be a good pitcher on our staff should the Cards persue him, thank God he'd get rid of Wellemeyer-he's AWFUL right now. But dealing any 3 of
Brett Wallace, Daryl Jones and Pete Kozma is a bad move for the Cards. we are in a good position to win right now-especially with Loshe coming back and Luddy starting to find his groove. Wallace to me should be untouchable-at least until we see what he's capable of at the Major League level. I saw we hold on to what we have-maybe call up a pitcher to replace Wellemeyer in the rotation until he finds himself, and we'll be fine. Glaus will return and help in the short term, as well as DeRosa. when they get healthy, watch out! Shumaker, Rasmus, Pujols, Ludwick, DeRosa, Glaus, Molina (Ankiel if he finds his groove again)...when healthy and working together, this team can be and SHOULD BE unstoppable! I say NO TRADES unless we give up just a couple of our lesser prospects or even Ankiel (as much as I liked him...his arm just isn't good enough to keep him here...he needs to hit!)

Why should the Cardinals sell their farm to aquire another #1 starter? They have one of the lowest team E.R.A.'s in baseball. Sure, if they could get Halladay for not too much that would be great, but that is not going to happen. What they need is a capable 5th starter, which they could look in house for, like a Mitchell Boggs. Maybe go after someone like a Doug Davis in Arizona. What they really need is another bat. There is not certainty Glaus will be able to play third this year, and there is still no timetable for DeRosa's return. A right-handed hitting corner outfielder would be ideal.

"I think that I speak for ALL Cards fans that Wellemyer is a bum and Thompson should be grateful he is in the majors. They both suck. And so does the other horrible combo of Duncan and Ankiel. Duncan is only still here because the organization fears Dave Duncan would leave if we traded Chris. Ankiel is only still here because LaRussa like him (though I don't see it)."

You hit it right on Motley14. we need to go in-house with the starter if nothing can be had without trading our best pieces (I like Mott for sure as well). and i think that we definitely have the pieces to stay in contention or add another bat without giving up too much (IE: Wallace, Kozma, Jone) to help us. then we'll be good. Pujols will always be good, so with him in there, Luddy, the other guys...i think we are set.

roy halladay and vernon wells for ryan ludwick or rick ankiel, Brett wallace( we already have glaus and derosa at third and pujols at first), and clay mortenson

Roy halladay
vernon wells
-traded for
Ryan ludwick or rick ankiel
Brett wallace
Clay Mortenson

one problem...Brett Wallace...too good. what about Tyler Greene and others. Maybe even Anderson

We couldn't afford both Wells and Halladay. (Wells' contract jumps tremendously the next two years and tops out at 23M in 2011). Basically, if we acquired both of them, we'd be saying goodbye to Pujols.

And as far as that trade package anyway, if you look at other comparable trades (Sabathia last year, the Santana trade), it's going to take at least 2 top tier prospects, which would be Wallace for sure, and after that, either Kozma or Daryl Jones and maybe both of them would be definitely included.

I'm pretty split on this idea, simply because it will gut the system, but that's what it will take.