forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

Who is being the whiny douchebag?

The guy who went 9 pages deep to dig up a thread that had been dormant for four months and used 6 month old quotes in an attempt to pat himself on the back while seeking sympathy.

Really?  IMHO it's the guy who calls someone else a douchebag on an otherwise friendly board,

. . . particularly when the key to the whole thing seems to be an aversion to admitting that he maybe shouldn't have ridiculed an argument, especially one that turned out to have merit . . . repeatedly.

Garcia is outperforming Westbrook for less money.

APRTW wrote:

Max wrote:

Garcia is outperforming Westbrook for less money.

Garcia has outperformed alot of pitchers in the league for less money. 

I think the idea that Westbrook was signed to justify the Ludwick trade leaves out one basic aspect that you refuse to address.  Who should the Cardinals have signed, for how much and why would their outlook have been better then Westbrook's.

That's a better argument than calling me a douchebag.

My response, with 20/20 hindsight, is Garcia.  But seriously, my point has been that, as with Batista and Snell, quantity can become quality, and when dumpster diving you need to pick a few.  But instead of going after a few of the pitchers like Capuano ($1.5), Garcia ($1.5), Garland (?), we signed up Westbrook before even allowing him to test the waters, and then waited, not for low hanging fruit, but went picking up rotting fruit off the ground, grabbing two guys who, as TK noted, we unlikely to provide any real help.

"we signed up Westbrook before even allowing him to test the waters"

Wrong.  The Cardinals signed Westbrook after the exclusive period for negotiating with free agents expired.   At one point it looked like he wouldn't re-sign because the Cardinals wouldn't throw in a third year.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/jake_westbrook/

Last edited by forsberg_us (7/21/2011 8:19 pm)

APRTW wrote:

They didnt really throw in a third year.  It is a 8.5 million mutual option with a 1 million buyout for the third year.

Correct.  What I was trying to say was that according to the rumor page I linked Westbrook wanted a guaranteed third year, the Cardinals wouldn't give it to him, and for a few days there was thought that might lead him to sign elsewhere.

I had to check that out for myself and sure enough, that's right.

Still, he hasn't pitched that well. Today was just the third time in the past two months he's pitched seven innings or more. That's just unacceptable.

tkihshbt wrote:

I had to check that out for myself and sure enough, that's right.

Still, he hasn't pitched that well. Today was just the third time in the past two months he's pitched seven innings or more. That's just unacceptable.

I think we have got used to the idea of having highly average team and exceptional starting pitching.  True our starters have been lacking but every once in a while the lineup needs to score ten runs and put the game out of reach.  this lineup is far to good to completely lack high scoring games. 

BTW: I love Jim Beam.

"Michael: Chatmeister,

I'm glad to see the Westbrook deal done and think it makes the Cards rotation the best in the division. However, I was curious about all the talk from both sides about how a better deal was out there than the one signed. Does the player's union have any reaction to those kind of statements, or is Westbrook not a big enough name to draw much pressure from them? Or is it just spin from both parties to make the fan base feel good about being the so-called "best fans in baseball"?


Joe Strauss: None of the above. If Westbrook had ramained on the market, he likely would have commanded three years guaranteed at a higher AAV. This is a very poor market for starting pitching. Westbrook is durable and proved himself a factor last season, at least in the NL. The Cardinals made out well. As noted here several weeks ago, Westbrook's agent, Ron Shapiro, is most interested in finding a place that suits his clients' personality. Westbrook acknowledged that as a consideration. To me, it appears a win-win."


Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/article_156806be-f28a-11df-8c24-0017a4a78c22.html#ixzz1Snc3HlOE

Max wrote:

tkihshbt wrote:

I had to check that out for myself and sure enough, that's right.

Still, he hasn't pitched that well. Today was just the third time in the past two months he's pitched seven innings or more. That's just unacceptable.

Exactly, TK.  How do you get a guy with an ERA over 5 to allow 4 or fewer runs per game?  Only allow him 5.1 IP/game!

In that period he's pitched 4.1 innings as often as he's pitched 7 (well, not counting today).

Bottom line: there are pitchers performing better than he is, who were FA and who signed for less.  So, in the best case scenario Moz made the wrong call for all the right reasons.  Like when you choose the shorter line at the grocery store, but then some idiot needs a price check, and so you wait longer.  That's best case scenario.  Mine is a bit darker, Moz was pressured into signing Westbrook to make the Ludwick signing look better.  I think that played a role in what we are looking at now.

You are using hindsight again.  I asked you this before now but what led you to believe that the other pitchers would have offered more then Westbrook at the time of the Westbrook signing?  If you believe there is reasoning now then why didnt you bring it up then?

APRTW wrote:

Max wrote:

tkihshbt wrote:

I had to check that out for myself and sure enough, that's right.

Still, he hasn't pitched that well. Today was just the third time in the past two months he's pitched seven innings or more. That's just unacceptable.

Exactly, TK.  How do you get a guy with an ERA over 5 to allow 4 or fewer runs per game?  Only allow him 5.1 IP/game!

In that period he's pitched 4.1 innings as often as he's pitched 7 (well, not counting today).

Bottom line: there are pitchers performing better than he is, who were FA and who signed for less.  So, in the best case scenario Moz made the wrong call for all the right reasons.  Like when you choose the shorter line at the grocery store, but then some idiot needs a price check, and so you wait longer.  That's best case scenario.  Mine is a bit darker, Moz was pressured into signing Westbrook to make the Ludwick signing look better.  I think that played a role in what we are looking at now.

You are using hindsight again.  I asked you this before now but what led you to believe that the other pitchers would have offered more then Westbrook at the time of the Westbrook signing?  If you believe there is reasoning now then why didnt you bring it up then?

First off, let's be clear that these extended arguments are much more about being called a douche bag and ridiculed for my posts than they are about anything of baseball substance.  But there was this . . .

Max wrote:

My point has been that it has been surprising to me to see veteran SP go so cheaply this year, and in such quantity.  Every year, one or more of those guys will experience a come back, and the GM who picks correctly this year wins the lottery, because he will have paid maybe 0.75 - 5 million.

"In signing Westbrook, the Cardinals successfully avoided the three-year, $33 million guarantee that the Los Angeles Dodgers gave Ted Lilly before the lefthander could reach the free agent market."

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/cardinal-beat/article_96f8513e-f1d6-11df-9c00-0017a4a78c22.html#ixzz1Snp2U22y

"The Cardinals became pessimistic about Westbrook's return last month, but talks regained momentum last week. The rebuilding Indians attempted to get involved earlier this month but were eventually rebuffed by a veteran now intent on competing in a pennant race.

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/article_a85a9809-c596-504f-8fbf-41042cc842fe.html#ixzz1SnmB4CNC

Last edited by forsberg_us (7/21/2011 10:51 pm)

"First off, let's be clear that these extended arguments are much more about being called a douche bag and ridiculed for my posts."

(cry) (cry) (cry) (cry) (cry)

"Probably the Raiders."

Now that's just a gratuitous cheap shot.
Did you see the owners' vote to ratify the agreement with the players was 31-0, with an abstention from a certain team in the East Bay?
What do you bet Davis couldn't make it to the meeting because those damn kids were on his lawn again.