GatewayRedbirds.com

greenback44 wrote: Wait a minute, aren't you one of the payroll space people? With all the payroll "coming off the books" after 2008, why is shelling out $6-8 million a year for Edmonds such a concern? That doesn't even get to the point that we'll have a lot better idea of what Edmonds can do in 2009 a year from now.

I think you have me confused with someone else (easy to do, given the way this offseason has unfolded). I don't see a pressing need to shed payroll at all. In fact, I've argued several times that the Cards already have plenty of available payroll/revenues (enough to support a significant payroll increase)...and that I expect the Cards payroll to increase significantly in the next three years or so.

I'm the guy who looks to trade short-term vets who have no future with the club beyond next year for prospects who might help in 2009-2010 or beyond...only trading them for those pieces, not simply to dump payroll. (I've said this a lot...especially in the Rolen thread.) I would like to see the team translate some of it's "currently expendable" assets into assets with a potential future. I'm not big on clearing payroll, because I think the team has no need to. What they need to do is acquire talent, or cheap young serviceable parts...and the best way to do that is to trade useful short-term pieces (like, say, Izzy) for them.

EastonBlues22 wrote:Then I'm not sure why you took exception to my original post in the first place. All I did in the original post (the one you took exception to) was reference UK's remarks that he would be roughly equivalent to Kozma and perhaps just inside our top ten prospects...essentially implying the exact same things that I just said above.

You responded to my post calling him, "not a real prospect" by saying, "UK says he'd crack our top ten." I basically have been saying that falling anywhere among our prospects doesn't make him more or less of one. I think we agree here, but you did reply to my point with that one (which I guess I could've misinterpreted incorrectly -- it sucks that it's taken us 937 posts to hash this out).

He has publicly stated his rationale for it...he said he wanted to sign someone early to eliminate the possibility that he would come away empty handed. The plan was to make sure they signed somebody...and that's exactly what he did. He signed the first guy who would commit to the team.

I don't buy that people make million dollar decisions this way, but if he actually said that then I'm worried in another way. Not the first time this offseason.

this is an excellent way to view this...if we had picked up his option last year and not signed him to the extension, and he played the way he played, there's no freaking way I'd pay him 6 million to come back...

It's really not. Paying him six million on the free agent market, and dumping his contract don't have equally positive and negative consequences or value.

haltz wrote:You responded to my post calling him, "not a real prospect" by saying, "UK says he'd crack our top ten." I basically have been saying that falling anywhere among our prospects doesn't make him more or less of one. I think we agree here, but you did reply to my point with that one (which I guess I could've misinterpreted incorrectly -- it sucks that it's taken us 937 posts to hash this out).

If that's what I said, then it's my fault...I didn't convey my thoughts well at all into the response. My bad.

I don't buy that people make million dollar decisions this way, but if he actually said that then I'm worried in another way. Not the first time this offseason.

He has said that, I'll try and dig up the quote for you.

EastonBlues22 wrote:

greenback44 wrote: Wait a minute, aren't you one of the payroll space people? With all the payroll "coming off the books" after 2008, why is shelling out $6-8 million a year for Edmonds such a concern? That doesn't even get to the point that we'll have a lot better idea of what Edmonds can do in 2009 a year from now.

I think you have me confused with someone else (easy to do, given the way this offseason has unfolded). I don't see a pressing need to shed payroll at all. In fact, I've argued several times that the Cards already have plenty of available payroll/revenues (enough to support a significant payroll increase)...and that I expect the Cards payroll to increase significantly in the next three years or so.

OK, so why bring up Edmonds' salary then?

This is a sig bet here, even if we have to wait three years. The Cardinals are headed down the same path as Cleveland six or seven years ago.

I'm the guy who looks to trade short-term vets who have no future with the club beyond next year for prospects who might help in 2009-2010 or beyond...only trading them for those pieces, not simply to dump payroll. (I've said this a lot...especially in the Rolen thread.) I would like to see the team translate some of it's "currently expendable" assets into assets with a potential future. I'm not big on clearing payroll, because I think the team has no need to. What they need to do is acquire talent, or cheap young serviceable parts...and the best way to do that is to trade useful short-term pieces (like, say, Izzy) for them.

Edmonds is more likely to help in 2009-10 than Freese is. What the Cardinals need are stars, and Edmonds, down as he is, is much more likely to attain that than Freese is. Spare parts and Pujols aren't winning 95 games.

haltz wrote:

this is an excellent way to view this...if we had picked up his option last year and not signed him to the extension, and he played the way he played, there's no freaking way I'd pay him 6 million to come back...

It's really not. Paying him six million on the free agent market, and dumping his contract don't have equally positive and negative consequences or value.

Why isn't it? You'd really pay him 6 million bucks to come back and play in '08 after his '07 season simply because he had a great career as a Cardinal? And you're worried about the decisions Mo is making? C'mon now...there's no way Edmonds is worth 6 million bucks right now...even in THIS market

JGant82 wrote:now...Mo needs to go out and over-spend for a decent pitcher (i have no idea who that is, but let's look into spending all this money we got)

This trade doesn't alter my opinion that none of the free agent starting pitchers are worthy of a multi-year investment. And the money was already there for us to get one (or two) of the few that I wouldn't mind seeing us sign for 1 year.

Defense pushed the Cardinals to choose Izturis, according to Mozeliak.

"Internally, we looked at some things that could be improved. We still rate him very high defensively," Mozeliak said. "When you look at what was available in the free agent market, we didn't want to lose out on Izturis and not get David back.

"Ultimately, we decided we couldn't keep waiting. If we didn't do something, we'd probably lose both."

Linky

Don't know if it has been posted in the thread yet, but erik over at future redbirds already has a pretty good analysis of Freese as a prospect. He gives him a C+ who is pretty good with the stick, but hits too many ground balls. Also mixed reports about his defensive ability.

Colbert Rasmols wrote:

JGant82 wrote:now...Mo needs to go out and over-spend for a decent pitcher (i have no idea who that is, but let's look into spending all this money we got)

This trade doesn't alter my opinion that none of the free agent starting pitchers are worthy of a multi-year investment. And the money was already there for us to get one (or two) of the few that I wouldn't mind seeing us sign for 1 year.

I agree with you to a point....

I think Silva would be a pretty decent option if you can get him to sign a 3 year deal because he'd be a decent #3 starter behind Carp and Wainwright..

I just wish they would spend this money on SOMEONE...