Yawn.

This is why the term "rosterbation" was coined.

Ugh this article is a waste.
This guys entire thesis is that if the Cardinals want to win the world series in the next five years they have to trade Pujols? heck it's within the realm of possibility that the Cardinals could win the World Series this year. And considering the what the Cardinals have developed and what they need there is no major need to overhaul the team.

I mean the Cardinals have three outfielders that are tearing it up this year, and could have a fourth with Rasmus, have Glaus next season, Have reasons to believe that Carpenter and Wainwright will both be starting next season, so they are a couple of pitchers and a bullpen short of having a solid team, which outside of Glaus is locked up until 2010 or longer. Yep smart move tear a team apart to get bit pieces. (sorry but Pujols for Beckett, Youkilis and Papelbon isn't a good trade)

I hate fantasy trade proposals.

You know it's a ridiculous fake trade when there are people in the comments section arguing that both teams are getting ripped off.

My favorite one is: "There is one player in baseball I wouldn’t trade even up for Albert Pujols, and its Mark Teixeira."

"There is one player in baseball I wouldn’t trade even up for Albert Pujols, and its Mark Teixeira."

That's gold, Jerry! Gold!

At least please save cr@p like this for the OFFseason... what, the heat of 5 divisional races and 2 wild cards involving 13 teams is not enough for you people?

Albert Pujols to Kansas City for Ross Gload, Tony Pena Jr, Brian Bannister, Kyle Davies, and Mark Teahen

Make it happen!

To follow-up on why I hate fantasy trade proposals so much:

It’s one thing to discuss actual trade rumours or speculate about roster moves in general terms, such as whether this player should be sent to the minors, that player may be movable, etc. What I don’t understand is the appeal of dreaming up very a specific trade idea like this and then proposing it to a bunch of people in some sort of discussion forum, none of whom are likely to be associated with a major league organization. Is the person making the proposal actually expecting someone to jump up and sign on the dotted line? What’s the point?

I mean the Cardinals have three outfielders that are tearing it up this year,

Yeah Skip Schumaker is ####### tearing the cover off of it.

It's an exaggeration for Skippy, but he does have a 900 OPS against RHP this year.

Ignoring the obvious, Springer's with the Cardinals because he likes a certain school in St. Louis for his autistic son. He's not going anywhere either.

maybe an exaggeration, but for a guy projected to be a fourth outfielder at best, who's going to post back-to-back ops+ around 110 is impressive, especially for a guy who is going to be locked into the team for a while.

Albert Pujols to Kansas City for Ross Gload, Tony Pena Jr, Brian Bannister, Kyle Davies, and Mark Teahen

And Mike Crudale.

Pujols for Melky

(I mean, if they throw in Ankiel and a first round pick, of course)

Pujols for Luis Castillo! He seems like a LaRussa type player.

Russ Springer?

I mean, that's just weird. Weirder than Springer having, by far, the two best seasons of his life at ages 38 and 39.

I understand there wasn't a lot of thought that went into this but what demented process leads you to say "Pujols for Youkilis, Beckett and Papelbon ... hmmmm, the Red Sox aren't getting enough in return. Russ Springer will even that up."

Now, who here realizes that Pujols is nearly a year younger than Youk, less than a year older than Papelbon and only 2 months older than Beckett?

Pujols is a god. I hate that he is a Cardinal.

I think the dude thought that Springer would be someone to give Boston a good arm to replace Pap's pen innings this year without making STL give up someone with long-term potential.

Dugout Central: Jensen: It’s Time for the Cardinals to Trade Pujols

#### you.

#### your dog.

#### your editor who greenlit this piece of #### article.

#### everyone around you for not having the ####### sense to #####-slap you for even thinking about writing that article.

#### your mother for not abandoning you on the side of the highway to be raised by wolves so we wouldn't have to read this article.

#### the world for allowing someone as stupid as you for existing.

Dumb ############# #######.

Tell us how you really feel, Craig.

I feel the need to second Craig here. Well said.

This trade idea is completely idiotic. From the Red Sox point of view, they'd be improving at 1B (though Youkilis is an all-star, and is very cheap, so it isn't as if they have a 1B hole). They'd be giving up one of the best closers and SPs in the game, so they'd create 2 big "holes". Theo wouldn't do this deal in a 100 years. As for the Cardinals, it makes no sense to trade away Pujols either. They can "solve" their closer problem if they can sign someone like K-Rod (who'll be a FA this winter, but will be quite expensive), and if Carpenter is ready by 2009, they'll have a #1 starter.

I'd love to have Pujols in Fenway. Eventually one of his 400 foot line drives would hit the Green Monster and rebound all of the way back to the pitcher. That would be awesome to see.

They'd be giving up one of the best closers and SPs in the game

Josh Beckett, frankly, isn't one of the best pitchers in the game, though last year he was and in the future he *may* be. He's unarguably a good pitcher, and when he's on his game he can dominate anybody, but he also gets torched more often than "one of the best pitchers in the game" should. He looks a lot like Andy Pettitte around his age.

Theo wouldn't do this deal in a 100 years.

Theo would spend months meticulously constructing a four team deal to bring Pujols to Boston without giving up anything, and then walk away when Albert asked for a 12 year, $400M extension.

I feel the need to second Craig here. Well said.

Hell, I'm a Cubs fan and I'll second what Craig said. I think this guy is bouncing potential deals in his roto league off the unsuspecting public.

Hell, I'm a Cubs fan and I'll second what Craig said.

Thirded. Ridiculous.

It'd be a fun experiment to see if I'd hate that little punkass Beckett more than I already do if he were a Cardinal, but that's not a reason for the Cards to do this from their perspective.

What’s the point?

Clicks is the point.

Well, in 2000 Paul White suggested the Astros should trade both Jeff Bagwell and Lance Berkman to the Red Sox for something like Dernell Stenson and Tomo Ohka. So this isn't the worst trade suggestion ever to make it to print.

OK. So the Red Sox would gain about 30 runs a year of production at first base. Youkilis will probably take down about $4 million next year in arbitration/settling before the hearing. Beckett's making about $7 million, and Papelbon's at league minimum, but soon to enter arbitration year. Between Beckett and Pujols, you're talking about guys that save you a lot more than 30 runs a year relative to the guys you can get for free. Pujols is soon to become a free agent - before any of the Red Sox guys hit the market again and is making about $12 million now. The money's about even, but will go up on Pujols faster than the Red Sox guys. While Pujols is a singular talent, he's not as valuable on the field as the guys the Red Sox would give up and is more expensive. The only reason the Sox would make this trade is if they were happy to go out and spend whatever it would take to replace Beckett and Papelbon. They could do that, and then getting the ultra-premium player would essentially mean that they free up some extra roster spots to fill with frontline talent. Anyways, the Cardinals can't make that trade anyways, since it would cause a revolt among their fans.

Although the evil part of me would love to see the chaos this guy would unleash as a GM on a major league league team by justifying every mad trade he makes with:

"I love boldness."

Well, in 2000 Paul White suggested the Astros should trade both Jeff Bagwell and Lance Berkman to the Red Sox for something like Dernell Stenson and Tomo Ohka. So this isn't the worst trade suggestion ever to make it to print.

I miss reading Paul White's playoff odds feature which invariably had there being like a 50% chance that no team in a division would make the playoffs.

#29, Pujols is signed through 2011 at $16 million a year (one's a club option, but I have a feeling it'll be picked up). That's not a soon to be free agent.

So I'll be on the lookout for this guy's next article on who this year's Cardinal MVP is. Now that Eckstein is in another uniform, somebody has to figure this out.

And no, it's not Ludwick, sillies. I'm thinking Yadier Molina, about whose leadership we can randomly assert that Wellemeyer, Lohse and Looper would be giving up 2.5 more runs per game.

I'll have to catch John Kruk's analysis.

And no, it's not Ludwick, sillies. I'm thinking Yadier Molina, about whose leadership we can randomly assert that Wellemeyer, Lohse and Looper would be giving up 2.5 more runs per game.

Not Ludwick, not Pujols, not Molina, but...

SouthSideRyan, take it away!

If the Cardinals traded Pujols, who will one day overtake Ozzie as my favorite player ever, then I'd lead the rioting in the streets. If they traded him for Youkilis, Beckett, and Papelbon--three of my most disliked players--then I'd take a multitude of hostages. This idea is untenable, thunderously stupid, and self-immolating. No thanks.

The only reason the Sox would make this trade is if they were happy to go out and spend whatever it would take to replace Beckett and Papelbon.

I think the presumed replacement for Papelbon is included in the deal. Beckett could be replaced by a young up-and-comer, saving money. Of course, I don't know if the Red Sox have any young up-and-comers.

Not Ludwick, not Pujols, not Molina, but...

SouthSideRyan, take it away!

That's "all star snub" Molina to you. But come on, it's gotta be Lord Skip.

But come on, it's gotta be Lord Skip.

That's my boy.

Dugout Central: Jensen: It’s Time for me to get some blog hits

#29, Pujols is signed through 2011 at $16 million a year (one's a club option, but I have a feeling it'll be picked up). That's not a soon to be free agent.

OK. My mistake. Anyways, it's still a bit more than the Red Sox would pay for the guys they'd keep.

Beckett could be replaced by a young up-and-comer, saving money. Of course, I don't know if the Red Sox have any young up-and-comers.

They do - Buchholz, Masterson and Bowden. Turning to those guys to replace someone like Beckett is an unnecessary risk. Any of them could turn out to be an excellent starter, but none of them is nearly as sure a thing to be at least league average as Beckett. Tim Wakefield might very well retire after this year, also.

I think the presumed replacement for Papelbon is included in the deal.

Yeah. Ummm. The Red Sox already have Mike Timlin. They don't need another relief pitcher who's shown flashes of brilliance the past few years, but who also has his incentives paid off in geriatric products, rather than cash.

If the Cardinals traded Pujols, who will one day overtake Ozzie as my favorite player ever, then I'd lead the rioting in the streets.

I think this has already been mentioned, but this seems to be a trade that would be hated by fans of both teams.

This trade proposal is almost as dumb as proposing, say, Scott Kazmir straight up for Victor Zambrano.

Oh, wait a minute......

At least please save cr@p like this for the OFFseason

You were afraid the nanny would object to "crap"?

Oh, now THAT was gratuitous. No Mets' fan was hanging around here to hijack this, or anything. And somebody had to bring up Scott ####### Kazmir. It's not enough that other teams' ###### up trades exist only in someone's too-rich imagination, and ours had to happen in real-####### life. Oh, no -- it also has to be brought up every goddamned day. Great. Just great.

OK. My mistake. Anyways, it's still a bit more than the Red Sox would pay for the guys they'd keep.

Really? you don't think Youkilis, Papelbon and Beckett is going to be making a combined 16 mil in 2011? Beckett is a free agent by that time.(makes 12mil in 2010) Youkilis is arby eligible in that time, and is already making 3mil this season, only papelbon is cheap next year. Next year Youkilis and Beckett combined will make more than Pujols most likely.

This is an insanely stupid proposal. Papelbon only pitches 60 innings a year, and yes the Cardinals need relief pitching, but the difference between him and a developing Chris Perez or anybody else isn't worthy of bringing into this discussion, And Beckett has three years of note(one all star injury season, one all star quality season, and a solid number two quality season with a minor injury issue. After that he's not been anything special, and that is over 8 seasons. The guy is a good number two at best. )

The Cardinals smart moves is to see which of their young players, and pitchers has value in the majors to other clubs. (Mather, Duncan--none until he recovers, Barton, Barden, Craig, Schumaker, Freese, Stavinoha, Tod, Garcia, Boggs, Worrell, Thompson, etc) Then focus on receiving a player at a position that they seem to have problems developing. (second base and shortstop) Heck I can see a fairly decent team being composed of 1b Pujols, 2b Lopez/miles ss Barden 3b Glaus/Freese OF Ankiel, Ludwick, Schumaker, Rasmus (Barton/Mather in the wings) C Molina, Rotation Carpenter, Wainwright, and three others (Wellemeyer??, Tod, McKellen, Garcia, Thompson, Boggs etc) With Perez closing it out and a group of relievers from wherever.

this year our achilles heel has been our relief corps, and it could be improved by dumping Villone completly, making Perez the closer, Mckellen and Springer the 8th and 7th inning guys, and Franklin as mop up. instead of the order that we had much of the season with Franklin getting the high leverage appearances.

Oh, no -- it also has to be brought up every goddamned day. Great. Just great.

I prefer the case known as Seaver vs. Zachry, Flynn, Norman, and Henderson.

St. Louis trades

1B Albert Pujols
RP Russ Springer

to the Boston Red Sox for

1B Kevin Youkilis
SP Josh Beckett
RP Jonathan Papelbon


That's italic.

I prefer the case known as Seaver vs. Zachry, Flynn, Norman, and Henderson.

David Cone. Ed Hearn.

Keith Hernandez. Neil Allen.

And the hell with all of you.

I think Sam just declared war on the entire state of Missouri there.

Here's a fun exercise: How many current teams are there in major league baseball for whom the Cardinals wouldn't trade Albert Pujols for their entire organization?

Just in their division, there's the Pirates and Astros.

I prefer the case known as Seaver vs. Zachry, Flynn, Norman, and Henderson.

Seaver with the Reds: 75-46, 1086 IP, 116 ERA+


Zachary with the Mets: 41-46, 742 IP, 98 ERA+
Henderson with the Mets: 2029 PAs, 120 OPS+
Flynn with the Mets: 2269 PAs, 57 OPS+
Norman with the Mets: 307 PAs, 82 OPS+

The Cone and Hernandez trades turned out to be FAR more lopsided.

You're not seriously suggesting that trading one great player for 3 is a stupid idea, are you?

yes, it's a stupid idea. one is a closer, 60 innings which can be replaced with any pitcher. Maybe not at the same level, but smart signing or bringing up the right guy and you should have little trouble getting a 140-160 era+ closer during the off season if you really tried. the other is Beckett, a guy who is signed shorter time than Albert, would probably be the third best pitcher in the rotation for 2009 (nothing wrong with Beckett as a number three, and he has similar health concerns as Wainwright so bringing up Wainwrights injury does nothing to improve Beckett) and it gives us a first baseman that is noticeably inferior to the guy he is being replaced by. It's a dumb trade no matter how either side looks at it, but from the Cardinals point of view it's extremely stupid. Anyone that trades Pujols and the best that you get back is a closer? sorry.

This guys theory is that the Cardinals can't compete now and must make a trade to compete, and trade pujols for a bunch of players that doesn't really shore up the weakness's of the upcoming seasons. Cardinals flaws this season is bullpen, back end of the rotation and middle infield, this helps there, but their flaws over the next season is just up the middle, even if they get rid of Pujols, first base is probably still not a weakness, if you swap out Pedroia for Youkilis then the deal is making a little bit of sense. Then forget Beckett and give us Lester and it now resembles a long term trade.

I don't think it's a perfect deal for either side, but no way does winning over the next five years indicate that the cardinals should acquire soon to be overpriced players, and an overrated pitcher.

Cardinals flaws this season is bullpen, back end of the rotation and middle infield, this helps there, but their flaws over the next season is just up the middle, even if they get rid of Pujols, first base is probably still not a weakness, if you swap out Pedroia for Youkilis then the deal is making a little bit of sense. Then forget Beckett and give us Lester and it now resembles a long term trade.

Wow. I didn't think it was possible to overrate the best player in the game, but I think this does it.

I wonder who overrates his favorite team's players more, Kevin or Cardsfanboy. Right now, my money is on Cardsfanboy.

I'm not overrating Albert, I'm overrating the concept of trading one player for three players, and basing that trade in a vacuum. When making a trade of three for one (no clue why Springer is on the list, there is no way this trade happens in season, and I'm not sure Springer is signed past this year) The primary reason to make a three for one trade is to improve in multiple areas where you are weak while sacrificing a great strength. Cardinals over the next five years are weak up the middle (first and foremost any Pujols trade that doesn't get a middle infielder would be a pretty stupid trade because we have zero coming up, Barden is possibly our best and two organizations says he can't play defense up the middle and can't hit to be a third baseman--Cardinals feel different about the first part) The guys the Cardinals are getting in this proposal aren't cheap, and aren't that great for the extra money the Cardinals will spend on them, while alienating their fan base.

Yeah, he's a #3. The guy who dominated 2 post-seasons is a #3.

and it's a total of 10 games. Sorry but making a trade because the guy pitched good in a couple of series is the definition of idiotic. Heck Bob Gibson pitched pretty good in the post season, let's re-up him. Beckett is a bad match in this trade. flip Beckett for Lester and I could see the Cardinals almost pretending to listen.

and you don't need a closer or Papelbons quality, you just need a reliable closer, a guy giving you 140 era+ over the course of the season with 5 or fewer blown saves. Papelbon is a waste as a closer, you are tying too much quality into one inning of pitching, and will overpay for it in the long run.

I'm not denying that Papelbon has been great, just the need that a team has to have someone at that level for the closers role.

The Cone and Hernandez trades turned out to be FAR more lopsided.

True or not, that is the attitude of someone who was NOT a teenaged Met fan in 1977 who had his heart ripped out and stomped on when his boyhood idol was sent to some podunk town in Ohio for no damned reason at all. There has never been, and to me there never can be, a more lopsided trade in basebally history. :-(

Wow. I didn't think it was possible to overrate the best player in the game, but I think this does it.

again, it's not about overrating the raw value of the players involved. I mean if you look at the raw players then the Red Sox are giving up more value. (although Papelbon would have more value if they stretched him out more, 60 innings is just that, 60 innings) When you look at the money involved there is no savings going the Cardinal way, in fact if the Cardinals keep all three guys from now until 2011 they probably lose out on the money side, so obviously this trade wouldn't be about getting cheaper valued players. As mentioned it's not about getting younger, as Albert is the almost the same age as Papelbon and younger than Beckett and Youkilis. So again it's a fantasy trade where you are looking at only the vorp/value of the players involved instead of pulling back and looking at the big picture.

1. The Cardinals will probably have at least 4 outfielders that are capable of producing 115 or higher ops+, any of them can slide into first to replace Albert, not at a Youkilis level I imagine but still at an above average clip. So getting a Youkilis over a Pedroia in a trade isn't really fixing much.
2. the closer role is overvalued, you need consistency sure, but get me a 140 era+ guy with a decent k rate and I'll be happy. There is plenty of reason to believe that Perez is going to be that guy for this team for the next few seasons.
3. Beckett is overrated, and overpaid. I would almost rather use the money that they would spend on Beckett on Lohse (ok not that much but the point is that Beckett is nothing exceptional, flashes of brilliance but inconsistency, health risks is always going to prevent him from being a legitimate ace and his post season success doesn't mean anything more to me than Livan Hernandez early post season success if I was to see someone saying we need to acquire him)
4. Fan reaction, this would be a disaster for a Cardinal fan base that is teetering on the way to despising the ownership group.

1. The Cardinals will probably have at least 4 outfielders that are capable of producing 115 or higher ops+,

???

1. The Cardinals will probably have at least 4 outfielders that are capable of producing 115 or higher ops+,


???

Rasmus, Ankiel, Ludwick, and at least a platoon of Mather/Schumaker (note next season) add in a healthy duncan if he returns. And future players include Barton. I know Cardinal fans and this board hates Duncan, but if his injury isn't career ending (debateable) he returns healthy he is a 120 ops+ hitter or better.

One phrase I see on this site fairly often is this: "Player X will not be part of the next winning Team Y."

This phase absolutely and utterly should not be applied to Albert Pujols. Assuming he remains a Cardinal, it is within the realm of possibility that he could be an important part of a winning team for which all (or nearly all) of the other important parts are players who are not even in the majors in 2008 (and maybe not even yet drafted or signed). He's that good and still that young. He'll likely still be going strong after Youkilis retires, and would you stake that kind of long term bet on any pitcher?

The Cone and Hernandez trades turned out to be FAR more lopsided.

I'm with Sam on this one. The Seaver trade ripped my heart out, and I'm not even a Mets' fan.

The Cardinals will probably have at least 4 outfielders that are capable of producing 115 or higher ops+, any of them can slide into first to replace Albert, not at a Youkilis level I imagine but still at an above average clip. So getting a Youkilis over a Pedroia in a trade isn't really fixing much.

This is giving the benefit of the doubt to a series of guys in their late 20's who have never had a good full season in the majors before this one.

the closer role is overvalued, you need consistency sure, but get me a 140 era+ guy with a decent k rate and I'll be happy.

I agree, but Papelbon is one of the best in the game at it, has pitched multiple innings when needed in the past.

Beckett is nothing exceptional, flashes of brilliance but inconsistency, health risks is always going to prevent him from being a legitimate ace

Beckett had some problems with blisters a few years ago and a little back trouble this year. He's never had a serious arm injury, and the blister troubles seem to be a thing of the past. I don't think there's any real risk of injury with him.

again, it's not about overrating the raw value of the players involved. I mean if you look at the raw players then the Red Sox are giving up more value.

OK. I see now. We probably more or less agree on the value of the principals here, and on the idea that this is a bad trade for the Red Sox, unless they're either willing to step up big time in payroll to replace those pitchers, or are extremely confident about their younger pitchers's futures. It's the value of the Cardinals' other players on which we don't agree, in the sense that you seem to be reasonably certain that none of those outfielders is having a fluke season, while I am fairly convinced that at least one of those guys will have a Bob Hamelin type career at best. You seem to be a bit more optimistic about the Cardinals pitching prospects than I am about the Red Sox ones, even though the Red Sox pitching prospects are ranked higher by nearly everyone. For what it's worth, I also think this year will probably end up going down as Youkilis' best year ever. I think Beckett, like Curt Schilling and a few other pitchers, is a bit underrated because as a high strikeout, flyball pitcher, he gives up very few unearned runs. I agree that the postseason games, while indicative of past value, probably don't indicate much going forward.

Anyways, there's no way that the Red Sox are trading Pedroia. Also, the Red Sox are not going to trade for Pujols without including Youkilis or Lowell in the deal, or having some other deal set up to move one of those guys.

But:
Youkilis, Lowrie and Bowden for Pujols

That would be a deal that might actually get done (well, it might make sense - it won't get done). The Cardinals get a young middle infielder who's shown he can hit major league pitching and play decent defense. They get a first basemen who, while not nearly as good as Pujols, is more than solid. And they get a grade A pitching prospect. The Red Sox get stuck with Lugo playing every day again, but get the upgrade from Youkilis to Pujols at first base. Except for the way the Cardinals fans would react, this is a deal that might actually get serious consideration.

One phrase I see on this site fairly often is this: "Player X will not be part of the next winning Team Y."

This is a BPro motif. I don't know if they got it from here or people her took it from there.

1. The Cardinals will probably have at least 4 outfielders that are capable of producing 115 or higher ops+,

"Capable of" yeah, but I wouldn't bet on it. LaRussa and the Cadrinals have done a great job this year playing at max production. I think this is one of his best managerial jobs.

Nothing could be more insightful and impartial than a debate between kevin and cardsfanboy involving players from the Red Sox and Cardinals.

Nothing could be more insightful and impartial than a debate between kevin and cardsfanboy involving players from the Red Sox and Cardinals.

hey we aim to educate. :)

"Capable of" yeah, but I wouldn't bet on it. LaRussa and the Cadrinals have done a great job this year playing at max production. I think this is one of his best managerial jobs.

agree with a lot of that, I'm very confident (just like I was going into the season) with Ludwick and Ankiel being the real deal, Schumaker has surprised me, but he's done it enough that there is reason to believe he is better than advertised (still not 'good' but good enough) I'm bullish on Mather, I bad mouthed him to a friend last month who has been extoling the virtues of Mather, and Mather goes out and hits a few critical homeruns. I now feel he is going to be a very capable major leaguer. I probably should list .280 eqa instead of ops+, but ops+ is just faster to find.

And of course Dayn and cfb are right. Even IF the Cardinals could get value for Pujols, which would be almost impossible, the fans would hate it. This might be a fun "alternate-universe-messing-around-in-the-middle of-December" article. But that's it.

Except for the way the Cardinals fans would react, this is a deal that might actually get serious consideration.

Yeah . . . "except for" that. I refer you to # 58. Pujols is (I assume) everything to Cardinals fans of the '00s that Tom Seaver was to Mets' fans of the '70s, and that trade -- for Youkilis and a couple of guys 95% of Cards' fans have never heard of -- would be to them precisely what June 15, 1977 was to me. The worst day of their baseball fan lives. I never forgave the Mets' ownership & management of that era, and I believe I will stand uncontradicted in asserting that Cardinal fandom would never forgive their latter-day counterparts.

Nor, frankly, should they. You don't trade Albert Pujols. You just don't. Not if you can afford to keep him around, which the Cardinals can (amply). In today's game, Albert Pujols is the greatest positive force for a baseball team towards accomplishing the goal of getting from zero to 90 wins there is. If you need other things around him, you acquire those things separately -- you don't give him up. You keep the guy you can count on, year after year, to be an absolute force, no matter what pitchers go down with injuries or desperately in search of the strike zone, and no matter whether your once all-star third baseman decides he can't stand the manager. There are a handful of players -- and ONLY a handful -- you can be virtually certain will be among the truly elite. You just don't trade them.

If you do, you are dumb as ####.

Actually, cfb, I was thinking about the Cards as they were kicking the Reds' ass last weekend, and I think the performance of their OFs this year shows what a good organization STL is: they often find ways to help players succeed. Hats off to them. The Reds often find ways to help players to suck.

That said, I am not as confident about Ludwick/Ankiel/Schumaker going forward as you are. We shall see.

I agree with Sam. I actually think, as much respect as he gets, that Pujols is a little underrated, as Posnanski's article that was linked here a couple of weeks ago said.

For what it's worth, I also think this year will probably end up going down as Youkilis' best year ever.

and I agree here, but I didn't want to state that because I was afraid that some Red Sox fans would jump all over that. I'm not entirely sold on Youkilis being an elite player (which is what he has been this year) he's a good player, an all star contender probably each of the next 3 or so seasons, but he's not elite and this is probably a career year. Of course I'm saying that knowing full well that I don't feel the same about Ludwick and that most other observers will say the same thing about Ludwick. (by observers I mean people looking at stats and not actually watching him play, watching him play you know it's not fluke or peak or unrepeateable for him, it is his level)


With TLR no way do the Cardinals take a non-established major league pitcher, and yes Pedroia/Lester/someone else is probably too much, but it's the only type of deal I think the Cardinals seriously would consider.

Saying that this is Youkilis's "career year" but not Ludwick's has got to be the most hilarious thing anyone has said on this thread. And I'm on your side in general, cardsfanboy. But hey -- at least you admitted you're going to get hammered for it!

But hey -- at least you admitted you're going to get hammered for it!

He is going to get drunk after posting?

I have always liked cfb's handle. I sometimes think all our handles should be ________fanboy. You could be "dwrightfanboy" ; I could be "obamafanboy" etc. Truth in advertising.

I have always liked cfb's handle. I sometimes think all our handles should be ________fanboy. You could be "dwrightfanboy" ; I could be "obamafanboy" etc. Truth in advertising.

I got dibs on DwayneMurphyFanboy.

Nor, frankly, should they. You don't trade Albert Pujols. You just don't.

That's really the point I was trying to make in #62. Note for this evening when I get home: dig into the pile of 1980's Baseball Abstracts to find the "Mona Lisa" article - Bill James's reaction to the A's trading Rickey Henderson to the Yankees.

Saying that this is Youkilis's "career year" but not Ludwick's has got to be the most hilarious thing anyone has said on this thread. And I'm on your side in general, cardsfanboy. But hey -- at least you admitted you're going to get hammered for it!

I know.

my thought is that Ludwick is probably having a career year, just like Youkilis, but that people really think this is Youkilis new established level while it's a fluke with Ludwick, my true thought is that Ludwick is a true 130 ops+ player having a good year, and that Youkilis is a true 130 hitter having a good year. I put the edge offensively over the next 3+ seasons to Ludwick but it's such a small difference that it's not really worth talking about. My goal is to eliminate the thought that Ludwick is inferior as a hitter to Youkilis, I don't see it, Youkilis has better pitch recognition, but overall they are roughly equal.

Why would they trade three guys who could be stars just for an upgrade at firstbase, a position for which they have no problem?

"Three guys who could be stars." Because three guys who could be stars could also be one guy (Youkilis) who could be a
solid player for a long time, one guy (Lowrie) who could be a utility player, and a third who could blow out his arm or prove to be a bust even if he doesn't.

"Just for an upgrade." Sigh. Albert Pujols is NOBODY's "just an upgrade." He is an absolute wrecking ball of a hitter, and a Gold Glove first-baseman in the bargain. He is still young, and he gives you an anchor around which you can build with certainty and confidence. I have become increasingly convinced that teams should place a huge premium on having players around who have established track records of elite, consistent performance, combined with staying in the line-up. That is just an extraordinarily valuable commodity, and nobody embodies it more than Albert Pujols. The fact that you know what you are getting with him before the season begins, and that it is SO VERY GOOD, is tremendously valuable. You simply cannot say that about anyone in the proposed trade whom the Red Sox would be giving up.

I still love my prospects -- don't get me wrong. I wouldn't do a trade of young players/prospects for just anybody. But when the player involved is Albert Pujols . . . well, you make exceptions. Pujols is the guy you give up your "maybes" for, because he is nobody's "maybe."

He is going to get drunk after posting?

don't tell my girlfriend, but yes. (not until game time though so you still have me for a little while)

I have always liked cfb's handle. I sometimes think all our handles should be ________fanboy. You could be "dwrightfanboy" ; I could be "obamafanboy" etc. Truth in advertising.

Thanks, there are major drawbacks though. people see "boy" and think I'm young (I'm 37--crap 38 I mean) and also assume that I always see things overly in the Cardinals point of view, when it's my theory that I see things in the positive for the Cardinals but in a somewhat realistic manner. When it goes against convention everyone assumes I'm being too blinded by my loyalty (but for the life of me I don't see how anyone could have looked at this roster and concluded we were going to have problems winning 75 games) I know I err on the side of pro-cardinals, but I don't assume that everything great in the world is cardinal related and everything evil is cub related (in fact if the cardinals don't go to the world series I want the Cubs to win in 5 games against the Rays)

Note for this evening when I get home: dig into the pile of 1980's Baseball Abstracts to find the "Mona Lisa" article - Bill James's reaction to the A's trading Rickey Henderson to the Yankees.

I thought of that too. Off the top of my head, it goes something like: "If I were running the A's, my first priority would be to see that Rickey Henderson dies in an Oakland uniform. My second priority would be to see that he lives as long as possible."

Whey would they trade three guys who could be stars just for an upgrade at firstbase, a position for which they have no problem?

You forget that they would also get Russ Springer. RUSS SPRINGER!!!

in fact if the cardinals don't go to the world series I want the Cubs to win in 5 games against the Rays)

Hmmm. Friends who are Cub fans? Tired of hearing about the "curse?"

As I said the other day, I am down for Rays/Brewers.

The Reds often find ways to help players to suck.

No better remedy for that than hiring His Dustiness, Overlord of Player Development.

Youkilis has gotten better every year. Why? Because he works out like a demon in the off-season.

Now why would you expect a person who works so hard at it and is still in mid-career not to have the potential to get better? good lord, this is getting sillier and sillier.

Pujols is great. Very great. But he's just one player, plays an easy defensive position and he can't pitch.

because he's 29 years old. he's never had a season over 120 ops+ and he's posting a 143 at 29. Yes he doesn't have much of a career and was good the previous two seasons, but not this good. Again I think his level has obviously gone up, but he's not a true 140 hitter.

Whey would they trade three guys who could be stars just for an upgrade at firstbase, a position for which they have no problem?

Because when you can go from a guy who's an above average player, but not all that much above average to a guy who's both the best player in the game and younger than the guy you have, then you have to think about it. If you think Youkilis has gone from being a good but not great player at ages 27 and 28 to a perennial MVP candidate at age 29, then you obviously don't make this deal. If you think this is a career year from a good player, and that he'll revert to playing like he did last year, then you think about making a move for Pujols if a real opportunity presents itself.

I agree with a lot of that, I'm very confident (just like I was going into the season) with Ludwick and Ankiel being the real deal, Schumaker has surprised me, but he's done it enough that there is reason to believe he is better than advertised (still not 'good' but good enough) I'm bullish on Mather, I bad mouthed him to a friend last month who has been extoling the virtues of Mather, and Mather goes out and hits a few critical homeruns. I now feel he is going to be a very capable major leaguer. I probably should list .280 eqa instead of ops+, but ops+ is just faster to find.

Ankiel probably is the real deal. As for Ludwick, Schumaker, Duncan, Mather - they're basically the type of guy that almost every decent organization has one or two of. I don't think they're really any better than the Red Sox AAA outfield of Chris Carter, Jon Van Every and Jeff Bailey. One or even two of those guys might pan out, if given the chance, but they might not. It's a bit of a point in Ludwick's favor that he's had some success at the major league level, but plenty of guys like him flame out.

No better remedy for that than hiring His Dustiness.

Yeah, I was thinking the other day, "What would I do with the Reds now?"

I'd start by firing Baker. Not that he has cost them the pennant or anything, but Jocketty should get his own guy in there and the team is starting over. I don't see Baker bringing positives to that situation.

I thought of that too. Off the top of my head, it goes something like: "If I were running the A's, my first priority would be to see that Rickey Henderson dies in an Oakland uniform. My second priority would be to see that he lives as long as possible."

The part I remember is him saying something like, "you win pennants by getting guys like Rickey Henderson. Its a sad day when you have to trade one away."

Its the '85 Abstract, I believe.

One phrase I see on this site fairly often is this: "Player X will not be part of the next winning Team Y."

This phase absolutely and utterly should not be applied

as often as it is on this site and BPro and..........

This phrase which may have originated with Bill James now that I think of it, almost reflects a Fantasy Baseball state of mind rather than that of a simple fan's view. A veteran Fantasy player (keeper league) will think nothing of sacrificing the present (if he can't win) for the future- to the fan of a team- that approach really sucks.

I know I err on the side of pro-cardinals,

Well, you'd hardly be a "cardsfanboy" if you didn't.

but I don't assume that everything great in the world is cardinal related and everything evil is cub related (in fact if the cardinals don't go to the world series I want the Cubs to win in 5 games against the Rays)

Hear, hear re the "win in 5 games" part--I don't relish the idea of playing games 6 and 7 at the Trop, given the Cubs' performance there in June (and the Rays' performance there all year). Of course, we need to get there first. Pedal to the metal.

I appreciate your comments, but you're not quite on the level of the Cardinal fan whose secondary rooting interest is the Cubs, who posts here now and then and has Cubs season tickets in my section...

Hmmm. Friends who are Cub fans? Tired of hearing about the "curse?"

As I said the other day, I am down for Rays/Brewers.

just the story would be great, the Rays being there would be awesome, and they don't need to win to bank this into increased popularity, in fact I think them winning would hurt them overall. Defending world champions is nice but 'we'll get them next year' I think brings more fans to the stadium. I have the Rays on my simulation league and have had them for about 6 seasons now (my team made the playoffs last year but now we suck again) and so I've always been a fan of them. The Cubs winning would hopefully shut comments up about the curse and it could also be a good way to maybe convince them not to buy a team (don't mean new owner, I mean becoming the NL version of the Yankees) It's greed in a way if they win it all, their hunger may diminish some. I see the Cardinals, Astros(look at their record), Brewers and Cubs as all contenders next year. (no clue what the heck the Reds hope to compete for next year)

Dammit, Robin, you posted #91 before I could upgrade my handle for the WinBurglar (feel free to co-opt that nickname--it was a favorite of Cub game chatterers back in the day).

Damn--cardsfanboy's older than I am. That makes me feel a little younger, I guess...

The fact that you know what you are getting with him before the season begins, and that it is SO VERY GOOD, is tremendously valuable. You simply cannot say that about anyone in the proposed trade whom the Red Sox would be giving up.

Yes you can. Papelbon is as likely as any pitcher in baseball to be SO VERY GOOD next year and the year after, even if he pitches 60 (extremely high leverage) innings a year. Beckett you can count on to be good, and might be great, and at this point is probably less of a health risk than virtually any starting pitcher out there. Youkilis (who's also a terrific fielder, and can play third if you need him) can be counted on to be an above average player, even if you can't count on him to be as good as he was this year. That's a lot you can count on.

I wouldn't make the deal if I was the Red Sox, and I wouldn't make the deal if I was the Cardinals.

Damn--cardsfanboy's older than I am. That makes me feel a little younger, I guess...

The heck with all of you. You're all younger than me.

Thank God for Harvey's.

But:
Youkilis, Lowrie and Bowden for Pujols

Seriously, stop it.

Sure they would. Until the time it bacame apparent the Cards made out on the deal and were better for it. Then they would all love it.

I'll reiterate CFB's point about Papelbon's limited value (he's excellent at what he does, but the role is what it is). Beckett's good, not great. Talk about his stuff, talk about his post-season numbers, and throw all of that in the mix. He's not great by any objective standard. He should be, but, whether because of laziness or stupidity or something else, he's not. Youkilis is having what screams career year, and I seriously doubt whether he's going to come close to those power numbers again.

Pujols, meanwhile, is a 28-year-old who's ninth on the all-time OPS+ list, ridiculously clutch, a great defender, an intelligent and underrated baserunner, a tremendous leader by all accounts, a hitter whose worst season was .314/.394/.561, and a beloved figure among Cardinal fans.

Add up the VORPs in this trade (not counting Springer's), and it's 14 points going the way of the Red Sox's trio. But that's during a season in which Youkilis' numbers are significantly out of step with the rest of his career and in which Pujols spent time on the DL. And, of course, that doesn't account for defense and base running, two areas in which Pujols is better than Youkilis.

No way, no how do I make this trade.

Hear, hear re the "win in 5 games" part--I don't relish the idea of playing games 6 and 7 at the Trop, given the Cubs' performance there in June (and the Rays' performance there all year). Of course, we need to get there first. Pedal to the metal.

I want five games because Wrigley deserves it. I may make fun of the dump and all, but it's still a historic place and should be home to a hometeam winning world series.

of course the Cubs have improved their road performance somewhat haven't they? (when the cubs were sucking on the road I liked to mention it, and also point out at the same time, that no good team will continue playing that bad all year on the road, so if you think the cubs are good they are going to win on the road, if you thought they were a product of their homefield then they won't, I had the cubs as one of the three most talented teams in the nl this season so you see where I thought it was going, hope was the other way of course.)

Dizzypaco -- I wasn't talking about the Youkilis/Papelbon/Beckett proposal when I posted # 83. I was talking about the alternative that was raised later (# 64) -- Youkilis, Lowrie and Bowden. There's only a bunch of "maybes" in that deal: maybe Youkilis is going to consistently be the player he's shown in 2008. Maybe Lowrie and Bowden will pan out -- right now, they are prospects.

Damn--cardsfanboy's older than I am. That makes me feel a little younger, I guess...

Moses, you're up.

of course the Cubs have improved their road performance somewhat haven't they?

They've won 10 of their last 11 on the road, and are now 31-31 away from home on the season. (Amazingly, for all the complaining about their poor road performance earlier in the year, their road record's now the 5th best in baseball, behind only the Angels, Cards, Brewers and Phils.)

I still don't relish the idea of games 6 and 7 at the Trop. The Rays have the same home record as the Cubs this year.

one guy (Lowrie) who could be a utility player

I really doubt this. I think he's shown that he's a good enough fielder to stick at shortstop. The question with Lowrie has always been whether he had the range to play shortstop in the majors, and if not, did he have the bat to play third. I don't think anybody's questioned whether he can put up a .750 OPS or higher in the majors, and that, even with slightly below average defense at short makes an everyday player. He's probably a little better hitter than that, and at least average defensively. His feet don't look all that quick, but somehow the ball always seems to find him, and he's got a great arm. So I don't think he'll be a utility player, but I would say his ceiling is low-ish. He might make an all-star team or two, but there's no chance that this is Hanley Ramirez part II or anything.

Re the Rickey Henderson trade - the A's got a AAA outfielder and three pitching prospects in that deal, plus Jay Howell. They just made a stupid deal. I agree you don't normally trade players of that caliber unless you're back's against the wall, and you especially don't do that if they're guys who grew up in your city, but you really don't do it for a bunch of pitching prospects.

And, of course, that doesn't account for defense and base running, two areas in which Pujols is better than Youkilis.

I'm not sure about this. They are both tremendous defensive first basemen. They both can play third and the corner outfield positions in a pinch. Youkilis has done this many times in the past few years, while Pujols hasn't. I think that's managerial preference/wanting to make sure Pujols doesn't get hurt, rather than capability, though.

one guy (Lowrie) who could be a utility player

I really doubt this.

I think he's probably a starting shortstop, too. But if he falls a bit short of that both with the bat and the glove -- certainly possible -- he ends up being a solid reserve infielder because he can't quite handle short and he can't quite hit enough for third base. Nothing wrong with that; a guy almost good enough to start at both those positions is very valuable to have around. But if that's what he ends up as, you sure end up regretting that you made him a major part of the reason you gave up Albert Pujols.