Edmonds heading to San Diego

Classic threads for your viewing pleasure.
Locked
User avatar
Richie Allen
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 6908
Joined: December 22 06, 1:06 am

Re: Edmonds heading to San Diego

Post by Richie Allen »

GatewaySnayke wrote:Tell me what the starting lineup and rotation is and I'll tell you if things are indeed going well.
You'll tell me. You really get it, don't you.

User avatar
GatewaySnayke
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 11941
Joined: July 23 06, 11:54 pm
Location: GatewaySnaykebird

Re: Edmonds heading to San Diego

Post by GatewaySnayke »

Richie Allen wrote:
GatewaySnayke wrote:Tell me what the starting lineup and rotation is and I'll tell you if things are indeed going well.
You'll tell me. You really get it, don't you.
I guess I don't, but at last check it was Wainwright/Pineiro/lol/omg/wtf.

User avatar
New Pagodi
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 4222
Joined: April 18 06, 11:30 pm
Location: St. Louis
Contact:

Re: Edmonds heading to San Diego

Post by New Pagodi »

Richie Allen wrote:The problem arises when the optimistic, who at this point are pinning their hopes that good things are going to happen around the corner, are arguing with those that are (supposedly) relying on "facts" and objective reasoning.
No, it's not typical that a 25 year old class A third baseman will ever fill Scott Rolen's shoes adequately. But I don't think those of us that are trying to stay open-minded are under the impression that the future of the St. Louis Cardinal hinges on the pending success of David Freese. Or that the signing of Cesar Izturis is going to set this franchise back any.
But we don't have the "I'm simply interpreting the facts" card to play and I think it's frustrating when you're discussing such unknown commodities with folks that are arguing that they are in possession of all of the facts.
I suppose I try to stay open minded, partially because of the number of times I've been completely wrong about these types of things in the past.
I think you're right on here. I'm as negative as anyone around here, but even I think this thread was way over the top.

User avatar
jdk82
All-Star
Posts: 2886
Joined: April 4 07, 8:58 pm
Location: Iowa

Re: Edmonds heading to San Diego

Post by jdk82 »

GatewaySnayke wrote:
Richie Allen wrote:
GatewaySnayke wrote:Tell me what the starting lineup and rotation is and I'll tell you if things are indeed going well.
You'll tell me. You really get it, don't you.
I guess I don't, but at last check it was Wainwright/Pineiro/lol/omg/wtf.
Pineiro doesnt make me feel comfortable either

User avatar
skmsw
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 6344
Joined: April 18 06, 7:12 pm
Location: The Hub

Re: Edmonds heading to San Diego

Post by skmsw »

Richie Allen wrote:
skmsw wrote:Discussing Cardinal baseball that is not going particularly well is not necessarily creating a neative environment unless the goal is to feel good about everything the team is doing, warranted or not.
I think this point, which you pass off nonchalantly, is part of the issue some of us have.
"Not going particularly well"
I don't think everyone necessarily feels that way. But you continually frame it as though it's a fact.
We won 78 games last year, have won at about a 70-win pace since around July of 2006, and had the worst run differential in the league last year. Our nominal two best starting pitchers both start the season on the DL. Our theoretical second and third best position players have been shown to have minimal trade value, one of whom was just traded for a prospect that requires a lot of rationalization in order to get around what usually is reasonably predictive of a cup of coffee career. We've added arguably the worst everyday player in baseball, and our most easily-defended move of the off-season so far involves Brain Barton. We've added marginal, "try to compete now" players like Piniero and Izturis, but traded a reasonable bounce-back candidate for . . . well, you know, and I'd hate to be repetitive.

Would I be out of line if I suggested it is a fact that we won 78 games, it is a fact that our run differential actually projects us to be worse than that, and it is a fact that we have not added players that would seem to suggest much improvement so far?

Anyhow, I do not mean to imply that my opinion is "fact" -- I'm usually pretty careful to disclaim pretty much everything I write as my opinion -- but tell me which part of my suggestion that things are not going "particularly well" is so far outside of mainstream thinking.
Last edited by skmsw on December 16 07, 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fat Strat
Official GRB Sponsor of Larry Bigbie
Posts: 27982
Joined: April 17 06, 9:16 pm
Location: No. 16 on the Cards Top 15 Prospect List

Re: Edmonds heading to San Diego

Post by Fat Strat »

I also find it hard to believe that there's not a single team out there that is not interested in Chris Duncan or Rick Ankiel and would offer up a pitcher better than Joel Pineiro.
I'm sure they are interested in Duncan or Ankiel, but we would be giving up some pretty big and cheap offensive cogs for the future in doing so. You can rob from Peter to pay Paul, or you can stick with Peter and try to find a way to get Paul too. That's what they're doing now, and it's the smart approach. They're trying to find a way to get some pitching without having to give up their offense... because if they give up their offense to get pitching they'll just have to turn around and try to find some offense.

You can't have it both ways when you don't have depth in the farm system and talent to deal from at the top end. That's the stated reason why Tejada isn't a Cardinal. Some have maintained that the Cards had the prospects to match the Stro's offer. Well, the O's didn't see it that way, apparently, since the Cards weren't able to work a deal with them, despite obvious attempts to get a match.

jim
Red Lobster for the seafood lover in you
Posts: 50681
Joined: May 1 06, 2:41 pm

Re: Edmonds heading to San Diego

Post by jim »

Fat Strat wrote:The negativity is getting to me as well, just because I think some on this board aren't being objective or consistent in their views at all when normally they are quite objective and quite consistent. No reason to stop discussing, but still, somewhat annoying.
I couldn't agree more. I have to admit to really scratching my head at some posts that have come from posters that I have the highest regards for.

User avatar
ghostrunner
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 25464
Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm

Re: Edmonds heading to San Diego

Post by ghostrunner »

Richie Allen wrote: But we don't have the "I'm simply interpreting the facts" card to play and I think it's frustrating when you're discussing such unknown commodities with folks that are arguing that they are in possession of all of the facts.
Exactly. Objective analysis doesn't point to anything in particular here. Edmonds could bounce back but after two subpar seasons, but what is more likely? That he bounces back or stays the same? To me, the objective answer is he stays the same and perhaps gets worse with the advanced age. Body type aside, that would be supported with facts based on other players over the years. Nor is it the "managerially incorrect" move to move Edmonds to allow younger players to get in there. I have no problem with that approach and am looking forward to seeing Barton and Rasmus whenever they're available to play, in addition to seeing Ankiel.

Freese may be nothing, or he may be something. He's more than we would have gotten if Edmonds retired. Others may not agree, but there's nothing stupid about it. Suggesting he's junk doesn't seem supported by either his statistics or the scouting reports on him. I don't understand dwelling on his age when he's had only a season and a half in the minors in total, and top prospects are in front of him. That's not reaching for excuses, those are facts.

And again, I don't see a whole lot of inconsistency in the moves thus far. Nearly every one is in line the stated goal of getting younger and bolstering the farm system. Taguchi is gone. Edmonds is gone. Eckstein is gone. Miles is gone. We have Brian Barton and Freese in the system now, and both those moves appear to have made the system better. Piniero - two year deal. I know Izturis is the Antichrist, but he's also only one year. We have dumped payroll. If somehow a player becomes available that isn't now - just use Clemens as an example - we could take advantage of it. And it's not like 6 million is some magic number. If a $12 million player becomes available on a team looking to dump payroll when they fall out of contention, then DeWitt has 6 million off the books already and only has to come up with another 6 million if it's needed. I don't believe they're trying to go cheap. We just spent 8 million on Isringhausen. That doesn't look like a team that is giving up to me.
Last edited by ghostrunner on December 16 07, 7:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jim
Red Lobster for the seafood lover in you
Posts: 50681
Joined: May 1 06, 2:41 pm

Re: Edmonds heading to San Diego

Post by jim »

planet pujolsian wrote:Would this be a bad time to start a thread about the state in which Walt left this team?
Boooooo.....


I've actually enjoyed this discussion, which is why I keep coming back. Most fun I've had on here in months.

Which goes to show that computer bulletin boards are not the greatest way to communicate, because apparently alot of people aren't having that much fun.

User avatar
haltz
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 20019
Joined: November 9 06, 6:45 am
Location: a proud midwestern metropolis

Re: Edmonds heading to San Diego

Post by haltz »

Fat Strat wrote:I'm sure they are interested in Duncan or Ankiel, but we would be giving up some pretty big and cheap offensive cogs for the future in doing so. You can rob from Peter to pay Paul, or you can stick with Peter and try to find a way to get Paul too. That's what they're doing now, and it's the smart approach. They're trying to find a way to get some pitching without having to give up their offense... because if they give up their offense to get pitching they'll just have to turn around and try to find some offense.
Ankiel is one thing, but Duncan may have more value to an AL team than to us. If he's giving back twelve runs on defense in LF, then we are looking at Ryan Ludwick without the trade value. This is a good candidate for a trade, in my opinion. The fact that he's seen as "untouchable" leaves me scratching my head.
You can't have it both ways when you don't have depth in the farm system and talent to deal from at the top end. That's the stated reason why Tejada isn't a Cardinal. Some have maintained that the Cards had the prospects to match the Stro's offer. Well, the O's didn't see it that way, apparently, since the Cards weren't able to work a deal with them, despite obvious attempts to get a match.
I didn't know there was a prevailing sentiment that we should've obtained Tejada. I think it would've been a bad move personally. On top of the other reasons, he can request a trade next year as a traded five-year player. Considering how fashionable that seems to be, and our chances of competing, that's a variable I could do without.

Locked