Edmonds heading to San Diego

[jdk82]

Are some of you suggesting that the trading of Edmonds will result in a permanent decrease of the team's payroll?

Permanent? No, I just dont think we will see it till 2009 unless they make a big trade

[TimeForGuinness]

...it's december

[haltz]

I really dont see anyone out on the market that they should go for anyways. Trades? not sure on.

I agree on the market (part of why trading Edmonds was silly), and would hope they wouldn't let $6 million stop them from making a quality trade.

Why does it have to mean that? Couldn't it just mean they felt overpaying for Edmonds was a better move than committing to Cameron for 3+ years for x amount of $? I think it's safe to say Edmonds was worth more to the Padres than 30 other teams. The CF market had dwindled severely and they needed one, it was a good fit.

You are talking about his worth to the Padres here, which I was as well. How much is that desperation worth on Dec 15th? Kevin Towers still has a value on Edmonds, whether that value is a recognized overpayment or not. Unless that value is much over the $8M he was owed last year, then Freese is a throw in. This is the same team that recently lost Milton Bradley to the Rangers because they offered him $4M and Texas offered him $5M.

[maddash]

A number of you have outlined continuously why you think this trade was a bad one, concentrating primarily on Freese's weak potential. But what were the positives that would have come from doing nothing with Edmonds at this point? Farewell tour? Getting nothing for him when he retires at the end of '08? Keeping his salary tied up until the end of next year, a year that most have conceded will be much like this year, if not worse?

We could hope he rebounds and move him mid season for possibly a greater value - e.g. the plan we likely already have in place for Izzy. If the risk pays off, we get maximum return on JEd, if not, he probably finishes his career as a Cardinal - a win/win if you ask me. Instead we took the path we should be taking with Rolen. Scott is much more of an uncertainty than Jimmy was, IMO, and moving his contract not only benefits you in '08 but '09 as well.... yet he's the guy we're taking a risk on.

What purpose does freeing up Jim's salary for '08 really serve?

[jim]

Its really unfair to evaluate the trade until we find out what the Cardinals do with the $6 million.

Not if you think that the perfect way to spend that $6M was on a player like Edmonds.

[Richie Allen]

What purpose does freeing up Jim's salary for '08 really serve?

I'm hoping that it can go toward someone that can help us beyond next year.

[jim]

A number of you have outlined continuously why you think this trade was a bad one, concentrating primarily on Freese's weak potential. But what were the positives that would have come from doing nothing with Edmonds at this point? Farewell tour? Getting nothing for him when he retires at the end of '08? Keeping his salary tied up until the end of next year, a year that most have conceded will be much like this year, if not worse?

I've been quite surprised by the response from this forum. Not so much by the argument that we didn't get enough for him (which is a valid contention) but by the negativity surrounding moving him at this point in his career. This, the forum that was almost universal in it's cynical view of the Cardinals basing their second half chances on one good series against Milwaukee. Wanting then to dump anyone of any value, outside of Albert, to begin the rebuilding that was so evidently necessary. I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, and I'm obviously not calling out everyone but I was under the impression that most of you here felt it was time to starting thinking about the future, as opposed to continually making decisions based on trying to win now.

Again, if there are complaints about the deal itself, being uncertain of Freeze's ability (although without ever seeing him play once, I'll certainly hold off judgment), that's understandable. But the overwhelming support of keeping Jimmy and his multi-million dollar contract, primarily for putting people in the seats for his final season, doesn't seem like the kind of decision-making that would be embraced warmly on this forum. I'm not upset by it, just surprised.

Almost nothing in this post has anything to do with my thoughts or those that think like I do on this trade. I want Edmonds because there is a chance he can put up an .850 OPS in 130 games or so on a team that is going to struggle to score runs. It's a good risk, because it doesn't hurt '09 and beyond.

[Richie Allen]

Not if you think that the perfect way to spend that $6M was on a player like Edmonds.

The plan, as far as I understand, is that Rasmus will be our everyday CFer by the beginning of 2009, if not sooner. Why then wouldn't a more perfect allocation of that money be towards someone that can fill a more pressing need? And possibly fill that need well beyond 2008?

[jdk82]

I would rather take the risk on Rolen

Hurt his shoulder in 2005, bounce back and had a good year in 2006 who says he cant do it again? Also, his defense isnt declining like Edmonds.

[maddash]

What purpose does freeing up Jim's salary for '08 really serve?

I'm hoping that it can go toward someone that can help us beyond next year.

How likely do you really think that is? Considering the FA market and that we'll now be even more unwilling to trade from our OF surplus.

Personally, I'd say very unlikely.