Edmonds heading to San Diego

Classic threads for your viewing pleasure.
Locked
Fat Strat
Official GRB Sponsor of Larry Bigbie
Posts: 27928
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 »

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.

...

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.


I'm on record as wanting to trade Duncan or Edmonds. After watching the offseason market for OF'ers, I think that we made the right choice. I wanted to sign a FA OF'er to replace Duncan, but I don't see that now. I'm not sure there was one out there that was really worth getting. That means putting it off till next season when trading Duncan might still be an option.

Hate to continue to use this, but I'm in a wait and see on Duncan. Trade him when we can get someone for LF that can post a 850+ OPS, whether through FA or another trade. I don't see that happening now, so we might as well wait until it becomes a possibility.

Right now I would only move Duncan for Bedard or someone similar.

Tejada... Glad to hear that you take that sentiment. I agree about him. There isn't a large contingent on here upset about not getting Tejada, but there has been some discussion that we could have matched the Stro's offer and that he would be an upgrade at a position of need. In that discussion is the implication that we should have done it because it would have helped us win now. Mostly, I wanted to point out that trades aren't as simple as team X got player Y for players A, B, & C. We should have been able to get player Y for players D, E, & F. It doesn't work that way. Sure, the value might be the same or more, but it still doesn't mean that we'll win the trade sweepstakes.

Same with Everett. Same with Guillen. Same thing might happen with Colon, Bedard, or whoever. Same thing might happen with Duncan. Teams and players value different things and just because a player is avialable doesn't mean that player was available to us or that we can get the value we want in return for a player. (I know that you, Haltz, aren't really talking about this, but it's part of the overall discussion).
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 »

TimeForGuinness wrote:
jim wrote:Weirder things have happened, but I'd have to really dig deep to find some some optimism for this year.


I'm excited to see the kids play much like I was last year...so this is nothing new. When Suppan, Weaver, and Marquis were let go for nothing...I knew we were in for tough times. Winning the World Series came at the worst time for the future of the team.

...but it is still December...there is still some time for additional moves

Baseball is relative to your expectations, and anyone expecting the Cardinals to win more than 82 games last year and this year are on some sweet drugs that I hope gets passed around the forum.

I think '09 will be better and '010 will be competitive...IMHO


My disagreement with how to go after '08 won't dampen my excitement about seeing the younger players.

But I don't like your timeline - I say lets spend our way out of this mess in '09 and put another flag up!
Socnorb11
The Last Word
Posts: 19915
Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am

Re: Edmonds heading to San Diego

Post by Socnorb11 »

haltz wrote:
TimeForGuinness wrote:I'm not saying we can't compete, but a healthy Jimmy won't be giving us an additional 15 wins with all the other holes on the team.

I keep coming back to this, but I think he would give some people a reason to show up, and on the flip side, his unceremonious dumping will give some people a reason to not show up. Mo was left with a mess because the two-year deal was unwarranted, but I think that this fix amounts to a PR disaster. It's at least a very loud admission of rebuilding, which would be easier to swallow with a verbal admission (either one will probably have an impact at the gate). Probably not to the tune of $6M, so whatever analysis was done here was probably correct from a bottom line standpoint. That just sounds really cold. Colder than I would be (which I think is pretty cold), so I disagree.

I also think that the team could've competed in 2008 without sacrificing the future if they'd gotten creative and with a little luck (like a bounce back from a Hall of Very Very Good guy), but that ship seems to have sailed. Which is OK, but this puts me in the extreme minority (as far as I can tell) of thinking letting Edmonds go in a year where you won't compete being a bad move. So maybe I'm wrong and being out-of-character overly sentimental.


"PR disaster" seems like a bit of an overreaction. I also think it's misleading to say that he was "unceremoniously dumped". All indications are that he requested a trade, and the Cardinals were able to comply. What would have been worse (from a PR standpoint and from pride standpoint for Edmonds) would have been to pay him the $8 mil only to discover that he's simply out of gas, and can't do it anymore. THAT would have been sad to watch........ much more painful than granting his wish and hoping that he can find some success on a pretty good team close to his home.
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 »

I know this is ghost's post, but Fat quoted it, so:

Fat Strat wrote: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.


Nobody has suggested that he's junk. What they have suggested is that his age is a very real concern and is probably going to limit him. Why in the world would we NOT dwell on his age? He's 25 and just beginning AA -- if he doesn't hit well this season, he's probably headed to purgatory.

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.


The farm system is not bolstered because of Freese. Barton doesn't bolster the system because he has to be on the team or else he goes back to Cleveland. They did good by purging some of those guys, but adding a marginal prospect in no way "bolsters" the system.

We have dumped payroll.


They dumped approximately $10 million...and added $21 million. That's not really dumping 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.


Again, they have said before the money is there to add a player.
TimeForGuinness
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 20035
Joined: April 18 06, 7:38 pm

Re: Edmonds heading to San Diego

Post by TimeForGuinness »

jim wrote:
TimeForGuinness wrote:
jim wrote:Weirder things have happened, but I'd have to really dig deep to find some some optimism for this year.


I'm excited to see the kids play much like I was last year...so this is nothing new. When Suppan, Weaver, and Marquis were let go for nothing...I knew we were in for tough times. Winning the World Series came at the worst time for the future of the team.

...but it is still December...there is still some time for additional moves

Baseball is relative to your expectations, and anyone expecting the Cardinals to win more than 82 games last year and this year are on some sweet drugs that I hope gets passed around the forum.

I think '09 will be better and '010 will be competitive...IMHO


My disagreement with how to go after '08 won't dampen my excitement about seeing the younger players.

But I don't like your timeline - I say lets spend our way out of this mess in '09 and put another flag up!


I'm not disagreeing with your timeline at all! I'm all for a great '09...but I really think there are too many holes and questions right now especially in the starting rotation. IMHO.

Really all we have is a bullpen, Wainwright, and Pujols. Everyone else is "wait and see" or "please God, come back healthy"
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 »

Well folks, I've enjoyed the Edmonds discussion. I really have. I think I've said my peace, made my case, and now it's time to move on for yours truly.

I'll be keeping an eye on Freese. Guy looks like he can hit some, and we are getting some good reports. Most important hing now is he's a Cardinal. I'll also be looking foreward to Mo's next move, seeing if some of the master plan was unveiled. It's definitely been an interesting hot stove league for me so far.

If I've left any loose ends or said something that needs some clarification let me know, otherwise I think I've had my fill.

Great discussion folks!
Fat Strat
Official GRB Sponsor of Larry Bigbie
Posts: 27928
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 »

When Suppan, Weaver, and Marquis were let go for nothing


This is the main reason why I'm not upset about Edmonds leaving. We've let too many players stick around when we could have gotten valuable returns for them that would have helped us longterm. It's one of Jocketty's biggest failings as a GM, imo. He rarely moved veterans for prospects and simply let the cupboard get too bare. I'm not saying we should have traded Suppan, Weaver, or Marquis, because that wasn't practical. But, we definitley should have been more aggressive with offering arbitration in the '05, 06 offseasons, and there have been many other players in the last two years that many of us felt could have been moved, including Franklin, Izzy possibly, Springer, Edmonds (deadline), Eckstein, and probably some in '06 that I'm forgetting.

If we would have made even just one or two of those trades in the last two years we would probably have just enough prospect depth to make this offseason a little more feasible for the Cards and for Mo.
Socnorb11
The Last Word
Posts: 19915
Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am

Re: Edmonds heading to San Diego

Post by Socnorb11 »

GatewaySnayke wrote:I know this is ghost's post, but Fat quoted it, so:

Fat Strat wrote: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.


Nobody has suggested that he's junk. What they have suggested is that his age is a very real concern and is probably going to limit him. Why in the world would we NOT dwell on his age? He's 25 and just beginning AA -- if he doesn't hit well this season, he's probably headed to purgatory.




Well, obviously if he was hitting that well as a 21 year old at AAA, we wouldn't have gotten him in exchange for an 8 million dollar 37 year old centerfielder. There was no chance of getting a "blue chip" for Edmonds, so I don't think we should be too disappointed.
User avatar
haltz
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 19992
Joined: November 9 06, 6:45 am
Location: a proud midwestern metropolis

Re: Edmonds heading to San Diego

Post by haltz »

Socnorb11 wrote:"PR disaster" seems like a bit of an overreaction.

If it actually effects the bottom line, then it isn't for me. I'm usually of the opinion that these things don't matter much at all.

I also think it's misleading to say that he was "unceremoniously dumped". All indications are that he requested a trade, and the Cardinals were able to comply.

He would have to want to go either way, and the Cardinals would have to want to trade him. So this is basically not an altogether interesting tidbit to me. I don't know how much the hoi polloi care about the details, here, or if they'll know he requested the trade. Maybe so, and they'll still just decide that DeWitt is being cheap.

I don't think it'd be a disaster to have him retire a Cardinal no matter how he performs, but whatever. I'm about done with discussing this as well.
Fat Strat
Official GRB Sponsor of Larry Bigbie
Posts: 27928
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 »

Nobody has suggested that he's junk. What they have suggested is that his age is a very real concern and is probably going to limit him. Why in the world would we NOT dwell on his age? He's 25 and just beginning AA -- if he doesn't hit well this season, he's probably headed to purgatory.


He has been called junk in this thread; those exact words were used.

The farm system is not bolstered because of Freese. Barton doesn't bolster the system because he has to be on the team or else he goes back to Cleveland. They did good by purging some of those guys, but adding a marginal prospect in no way "bolsters" the system.


I disagree completely. 2 guys added to the system means that there are 2 more guys who can be added into a trade without destroying what little depth we have in the system. Adding Barton and Freese make it easier to move guys like Mather, Craig, and Hamilton... all players who have relatively decent trade value when included in the right package. They're not cornerstone trade peices, and they were tradable before those moves, but trading them now wouldn't leave such a gaping hole in the organization's depth chart.

They dumped approximately $10 million...and added $21 million. That's not really dumping payroll.


This is completely wrong. Our projected payroll right now is about $3-5 million lower than it was last year. Last year we finished up around $100-105. Right now we're sitting at around $97-102. See here for more info.

But, as you say, the money's irrelevant since we have plenty available to move on a player or two.
Locked