forsberg_us wrote:

But I thought the issue we were debating was whether or not Moz has done a good job.

Not exactly, although that comes up from time to time, too.  But in this particular case, as TK succinctly put it, it's more about the sausage making process Moz goes through to bolster the argument that he is doing a good job, with specific reference to Westbrook.

TK's take seems to be that the trade was a good one, the signing was a good one, and Westbrook unexpectedly fell to pieces.

Mine is more observational and interpretive: the trade was debated (fact).  we didn't make the playoffs (fact).  After another season of not making the playoffs, Moz was probably feeling pressure to defend his actions, midseason actions included: (my interpretation of the version Moz tries to sell, or hopes will be believed--purely speculative, of course) it wasn't so much the case that he tried a midseason fix that failed to produce, rather he cleverly traded for a veteran pitcher (and you can add here the part about 'who his manager and pitching coach had coveted) who would fall in love with St. Louis, sign with us for a discount, and pay dividends for multiple years after the trade.  The problem being that the way contracts played out for back of the rotation starters this past offseason did not give Moz (or that hypothesis, if you prefer) much ammo for any inference that Westbrook signed for a discount, and Westbrook's on field performance is not helping things any.  Thus, even the signing is now looking debatable, which therefore re-raises the question of the trade.  Thus, an alternative hypothesis of events, and one that I think has merit, is that Moz tried a midseason fix that did not get us to the playoffs, and rather than having it look like he traded Ludwick for a two-month rental he felt pressure to sign Westbrook, and under duress signed him at terms favorable to Westbrook.  Now, whether you or I believe hypothesis A, B, or some other hypothesis C, Moz will have to deal with all of these in his office politics, and if Westbrook does not recover, and they must cut-bait, it will look bad for him and shore up the faction inside the Cardinals who favor hypothesis B, or some other anti-Moz argument.

Last edited by Max (7/10/2011 11:38 am)

I think you're over-simplifying TK's argument.

A trade for a starting pitcher was necessary. There weren't that many available. Ted Lilly was moved, but no reason to believe that the Cubs would have traded him to StL. They were never in the Lee conversation and Houston wasn't willing to move Oswalt to StL. I'm sure I'm missing some pitchers who moved, but of the players available, Westbrook was the one they targeted.

The debate over the trade wasn't as much who they acquired, rather who they gave up. Put another way, it was the suggestion that we didn't have anything desireable (who they were willing to make available) in the minors to make the deal happen without trading Ludwick.  There was also a lot of speculation that after Ludwick was move a second move to bolster the offense was coming. That move either never materialized or was never given serious contention. In any event, the offense fell flat and the team fell out of contention.

You aren't in St. Louis, but I can tell you that there weren't a lot of people lamenting the trade around October. After Ludwick fell on his face and Westbrook had performed well, sentiment favored the trade.

Also, let me take the opportunity to clear up something you have been mistakenly saying I said. I said that I didn't think Ludwick would be moved in-season. I did not say that his trade value would be higher in the off-season. To the contrary, I think I have said several times that I don't think Ludwick has/had anywhere near the value you have suggested (for example when you thought the Mariners might consider Ludwick for Lee).  Between age, injury history and declining performance, I don't think you get that much in return for Ludwick. I don't know this, but it wouldn't surprise me if SD tried to dump his in the off-season and couldn't. It also wouldn't surprise me if he moves before the deadline, and I doubt he'll bring much in return. He's a good ballplayer, but he isn't an exceptional talent.

Turning back to the decision to re-sign Westbrook, I'm sure the trade played a factor, but I don't believe it was as significant a factor as you suggest. If Westbrook had pitched poorly last season, I don't think they re-sign him. But he seemed to gel with Duncan's philosophy and there was reason to expect that to continue. They already had a major question mark in the rotation in Lohse and I suspect some questions lingered (rightly or wrongly) about Garcia and his endurance. So they signed a player they felt very comfortable with. They didn't over-expose themselves by signing him long-term and the money was in line with what comparable pitchers received. I know you suggested a number of guys with injury histories or a recent lack of success as options, but decided that wasn't the better option. Also, none of us know, but maybe they had suspicions about Wainwright and felt an established innings eater was a better decision as opposed to taking a gamble that could have left the team with 3/5 of the rotation exposed.

Westbrook's inconsistency has been maddening. When he takes the mound I feel like I used to feel about Wellemeyer, and that's not good. But I don't think the decision to re-sign him was a bad decision, and I think it was done for less nefarious reasons than to try to justify a trade that in hindsight the Cardinals had the better of.

forsberg_us wrote:

I think you're over-simplifying TK's argument.

Intentionally, but not maliciously.  He makes a good case and it has merit.  It's similar to your take.

As I recall it at the time, one of the PD writers, or someone besides me, alluded to the fact that Cleveland might have been happy to let him go for less after the trade deadline.  They weren't going to the playoffs, he wasn't signed past the end of the year, and they could save the prorated portion of his $11 million for another day.  Why not let him go?

So when debating the question of, 'did we give to much', it shouldn't be focused solely on debating Ludwick's worth, but also on what Westbrook should have or could have been had for.  That's where the salary dump argument came in in the first days of last August, as I remember it.  They were getting rid of Ludwick.  The emergence of Jay helped, but I did not have the opinion that they intended to keep Ludwick around, or considered him a core player, anyhow.  So, the 'trade' killed two birds with one stone. 

I recall a post by you explaining why a midseason trade for Ludwick was so unlikely, and among those reasons was that his value would be higher, but if I am not recalling that correctly, then let's leave it lie.

As for Lee, who I coveted, I applauded Texas for acting fast, and reasoned that if we had been that proactive that we might have gotten him, but my suggestion, as I recall it was Rasmus for Lee.  And that was well before the brouhaha about his asking for a trade was made known to the public.  Afterwards, I would not be surprised if I mentioned something about Ludwick for Lee, but that obviously would have taken a lot of work to make it palatable to the Mariners.  Rasmus for Lee, however sounded doable, but whether wise is another matter.

Big picture: whether Moz made a bad decisions for good reasons, or a bad decision for bad reasons, or maybe whether it all will turn around and he'll look like a genius who made a good decision for whatever reason, will remain debatable.  My hunch is that the lynchpin to his legacy is how things turn out with Pujols.  If that goes sour, then he will become a scape goat, and people will dump onto him all of the failures and failings of his era.

forsberg_us wrote:

1) Is the current roster better/worse than the roster that finished 2007?  Explain

2) Do you believe that Jocketty re-signed Mulder after the 2006 season as an attempt to justify/bolster his trade of Haren?  If no, explain?

3) Do you consider re-signing Westbrook to a 2 year, $16.5M contract following the 2010 season a better/worse decision than re-signing Mulder to a 2 year, $13M (guaranteed) after the 2006 season?  Explain.

1. Dunno.  Got better things to think about at this moment.  Am I supposed to say better now because Mozeliak improved things?

2. Could have been, but not quite the same because it wasn't a mid-season rental, we got Mulder for two years I recall, and he performed will enough during the first year to make it seem like he was more than a fair trade.  But on the other side, I'm still not convinced that we did not receive damaged goods, and Jocketty may well have been trying to counter that claim.  Yeah Mulder went 16-8 in 2005, but that was on a team that won 62% of their games, and starting five that won 80 games!

3. Resigning Mulder was not a good idea.  Toward the end there, Jocketty was behaving as though he was spending someone else's money.

forsberg_us wrote:

On October 3, 2007, Jocketty was fired as Cardinals General Manager.  On October 30, 2007, John Mozeliak was hired as the new General Manager, but only after a couple of candidates, including the favorite to replace Jocketty, Chris Antonetti declined invitations to interview for the job.

That should tell us all we need to know.

forsberg_us wrote:

Blaming Mozeliak for the team not having had more playoff success the last 3 seasons is like blaming the Titanic's chef.

Well, realizing that my respect for Mozeliak has grown, but that it was quite low to begin with, I would say my initial comment, back in 2007-2008, and prior to the trades to get DeRosa and Holliday, was that it would be like blaming a bad Zsa Zsa Gabor movie on that stupid little dog that sat in her lap.  My respect for Mozeliak's ability has grown, but then as now I blame the bad Zsa Zsa Gabor movie on Zsa Zsa Gabor, and I think it was back around 2009 when I posted something to the effect that I finally saw what KC had been posting, and that DeWitt and the owners were the real problem.  Now maybe they were only caretakers of the larger problem, that St. Louis simply isn't large enough to compete with the big boys.  But I think that the current payroll supportd the hypothesis that they were being too frugal for a few years there. 

YAHOO! My homework's all done.  Now i can go out and play!

Max wrote:

Maybe it was genius, and maybe missing the playoffs three years out of four is fabulous performance, and if we had still had Jocketty--or any other GM in MLB--we would have missed the playoffs all four of those years.

forsberg_us wrote:

So let's say the Cardinals wait until after the deadline, Cleveland decides to pass Westbrook through waivers and Cincinnatti block the claim. Or suppose Westbrook clears waivers, but the player(s) Cleveland wants doesn't. Then what?

We wait until November and negotiate with him as a FA and still have Ludwick, who is worth at least, say, Mikael Cleto. 

But, I think that we can all see that funny things happen with post trade deadline deals, and deals get done that seemingly could have been blocked.  I, for one, suspect a bit of collusion among the owners to allow post-deadline deals to go through.

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

So let's say the Cardinals wait until after the deadline, Cleveland decides to pass Westbrook through waivers and Cincinnatti block the claim. Or suppose Westbrook clears waivers, but the player(s) Cleveland wants doesn't. Then what?

We wait until November and negotiate with him as a FA and still have Ludwick, who is worth at least, say, Mikael Cleto.

In which case doesn't this debate became how ineffective Moz is because he played the fiddle while the 2010 team burned to the ground.

In hindsight you can make a case for inaction. But how do you make that case to the fans in August of last season?  Or for that matter to the players/coaches in the clubhouse?

But while we're on this, I was a HUGE critic of the Mulder trade from day one.  While I greatly respect what Jocketty did for the Cardinals, I believe I am on record as mentioning that that trade deserves to be discussed among the most lopsided in history.  Maybe it only makes honorable mention, but its part of the article, if we're talking 3000 or thereabout.