GatewayRedbirds.com

That would be a bad move on the Cardinals part, its not like they are over loaded on 3B talent.

Unless he really can't play there. It would be a good move if it's obvious he can't handle the position defensively. Better to move him now before he gets MLB ready and doesn't have a position (see Duncan, Chris).

If the Cards sign guys for just one year (which I'm a big proponent of for this offseason), let it be someone that has a chance at succeeding that will either help the team make the playoffs or, more likely, bring some talent back in July.

jim wrote:Actually a Rolen trade made much more sense than this one, unless this 5 year college B rated prospect is better than I think. Edmonds doesn't hold you back for '08, Rolen could if he isn't healthy. I have zero problem playing for the future, but I think there was an opportunity to at least be on the fringes of competing in '07 as well. Obviously, Mo didn't.

Edmonds was 1 year, 8M. No infringement on '09, just a 1 year gamble on '08. How many times have we said "There are no such things as bad one year contracts"? A border line HOF'er, a fan favorite, and a 1 year contract. But we dump that, and sign what might actually be the definition of a bad 1 year contract (Izturis)?

The big difference is that with Edmonds we have other options. If Rolen goes we have a big hole at 3rd base. Same with Izturis/Eckstein (not that I'm defending the Izturis signing, but we need some insurance against Brendan Ryan [and the possible departure of Rolen]).

I really don't see this as a salary dump. I see it as moving an expendible piece of the roster that probably wasn't going to deliver all that much in return that we couldn't get from much cheaper Ankiel/Ludwick/Rasmus (and maybe even Taguchi, he could still be re-signed). I see it as freeing up a little cash to make trades that take on more salary. I won't be surprised if we still move one of Ankiel/Ludwick/Duncan. I'm thinking we'll be dealing at least one of our relief pitchers in future deals. And I think there's a good bet that Scott Rolen will still be wearing a Cardinal uniform come ST.

I'm actually impressed by Mozeliak overall. He's making some really unpopular decisions but his strategy seems right. Make moves that will put a team on the field in 2008 that probably will not win the division, but still has a chance to be competitive if a lot of things turn the right way. And at the same time, hold on to the future.

What if Edmonds did come back in 2008 and had a good year for the Cardinals? Then what? Do you think it's a given that he would retire at 38? He might want to come back for another year (or two). Do the Cardinals ensure that he retires in a Cardinal uniform? I doubt it. Every deal carries risk, but I think the risk that Edmonds will put up a healthy >100 OPS+ season is pretty low and worth shifting parts to the starting rotation when we have a crowded outfield.

I guess I still have the same question... Let's say Edmonds was a free agent, and we had the opportunity to sign him now for $6 million. Would you do it, given all of the other people we have in the outfield and the other needs we have? With sentiment in the equation, I might. Without sentiment in the equation, I definitely would not. And that's completely leaving Freese out of the decision, which he probably won't amount to much, but there's always the chance.

clement wrote: I guess I still have the same question... Let's say Edmonds was a free agent, and we had the opportunity to sign him now for $6 million. Would you do it, given all of the other people we have in the outfield and the other needs we have? With sentiment in the equation, I might. Without sentiment in the equation, I definitely would not. And that's completely leaving Freese out of the decision, which he probably won't amount to much, but there's always the chance.

Having slept on it, I'm coming around to it. We traded from relative strength to address a weakness. And we did it while we could still get something in return for Edmonds. I'm surprised we didn't get just a little more in return, but maybe that's my sentiment kicking in. It would've been nice to see him retire a Cardinal, but as you say there's no guarantee he would do that anyway.

I agree with the rest of your post, too. I'm generally impressed with Mo, and his willingness to part ways with some of the old standbys. I don't get the Izturis thing, but I'll grant him the mulligan there.

I guess I still have the same question... Let's say Edmonds was a free agent, and we had the opportunity to sign him now for $6 million. Would you do it, given all of the other people we have in the outfield and the other needs we have?

That isn't the question though. The question is whether you would dump a prior performance reward contract with a Cardinals hero/legend/fan favorite going into his retirement year. This hypothetical doesn't have a whole lot to do with the actual situation. This is how I can say that the extension was dumb, but understandable, and this just seems like a big mess.

Let him play out his contract and retire a Cardinal. You got back junk in the trade, as was to be expected, ate money, created ill will and made the Dollar Bill DeWitt people right for once. It makes zero sense. Like I said earlier, trade AJ Van Slyke for Dallas McPherson a couple of days ago if you want a cost controlled third baseman with upside. At least he's a legit talent.

And no offense to anyone intended, but if they think this "frees up cash" or allows DeWitt to do anything that wasn't an option before yesterday, I'd say you are fooling yourselves.

Edmonds wanted to leave, so we obliged him.

clement wrote:
The big difference is that with Edmonds we have other options. If Rolen goes we have a big hole at 3rd base. Same with Izturis/Eckstein (not that I'm defending the Izturis signing, but we need some insurance against Brendan Ryan [and the possible departure of Rolen]).

The only option I see in competing in '08 is to catch lightening in a bottle with guys just like Edmonds. So what other option do we have to compete in '08? To me, Edmonds was *the* guy. He was the one guy that had a pretty big upside that didn't have a contract that went into those magical Colby Rasmus years.

Eckstein was a reasonable choice at SS. Trading for Uribe even, in my opinion, would have been reasonable and consistent with my "catch lightening in a bottle but don't screw up '09" strategy. Everett was a better choice as well. At this point, with Edmonds gone, Ryan should be the everyday SS. 500 AB's, 140 games.

I really don't see this as a salary dump. I see it as moving an expendible piece of the roster that probably wasn't going to deliver all that much in return that we couldn't get from much cheaper Ankiel/Ludwick/Rasmus (and maybe even Taguchi, he could still be re-signed). I see it as freeing up a little cash to make trades that take on more salary. I won't be surprised if we still move one of Ankiel/Ludwick/Duncan. I'm thinking we'll be dealing at least one of our relief pitchers in future deals. And I think there's a good bet that Scott Rolen will still be wearing a Cardinal uniform come ST.

At this point freeing up salary to make trades that allow us to take on more salary is pointless. Take the saved money, and go sit in a room with Albert and come out with a deal that runs until 2014 or something.

I'm actually impressed by Mozeliak overall. He's making some really unpopular decisions but his strategy seems right. Make moves that will put a team on the field in 2008 that probably will not win the division, but still has a chance to be competitive if a lot of things turn the right way. And at the same time, hold on to the future.

I give Mo a "D" so far. An "F" would be to screw this year up AND screw up the future, that he hasn't done.

What if Edmonds did come back in 2008 and had a good year for the Cardinals? Then what? Do you think it's a given that he would retire at 38? He might want to come back for another year (or two). Do the Cardinals ensure that he retires in a Cardinal uniform? I doubt it. Every deal carries risk, but I think the risk that Edmonds will put up a healthy >100 OPS+ season is pretty low and worth shifting parts to the starting rotation when we have a crowded outfield.

You let him test the FA waters. This would be a problem I would like to have.

I guess I still have the same question... Let's say Edmonds was a free agent, and we had the opportunity to sign him now for $6 million. Would you do it, given all of the other people we have in the outfield and the other needs we have? With sentiment in the equation, I might. Without sentiment in the equation, I definitely would not. And that's completely leaving Freese out of the decision, which he probably won't amount to much, but there's always the chance.

A player like Edmonds, on a ONE YEAR $N contract, is EXACTLY the type of player I want for my Cardinal team this year. Probably pi$$ing in the wind, but just maybe you get one more year out of them in what is still a weak division.

We were down, no doubt. But it wasn't Mt. Everest we were looking to climb. You only get one crack at 2008, and it appears that we have decided to pass. I think it's a mistake, because I think there was a way to take a reasonable shot at it without sacrificing the future.


**EDIT** - THIS WAS 'jim' AND NOT PAINTITRED. He's nowhere as near as cynical as his old man.

PaintItRed wrote: At this point freeing up salary to make trades that allow us to take on more salary is pointless. Take the saved money, and go sit in a room with Albert and come out with a deal that runs until 2014 or something.

Several people have suggested this in this thread. Why would Albert sign another extension right now?
1. The team is in disarray at this moment.
2. The future of the club is uncertain/unclear.
3. His favorite manager is gone in two years.
4. Any extension would certainly be for less than his fair market value.

I would think Albert would wait to see what we do next offseason before he makes any decision like that.

cardsfansince82 wrote:

PaintItRed wrote: At this point freeing up salary to make trades that allow us to take on more salary is pointless. Take the saved money, and go sit in a room with Albert and come out with a deal that runs until 2014 or something.

Several people have suggested this in this thread. Why would Albert sign another extension right now?
1. The team is in disarray at this moment.
2. The future of the club is uncertain/unclear.
3. His favorite manager is gone in two years.
4. Any extension would certainly be for less than his fair market value.

I would think Albert would wait to see what we do next offseason before he makes any decision like that.

1. No it isn't
2. Ahh, again, not it isn't, imo. It's pretty clear to me what the idea/plan is. If you want to be technical, every team's future is "uncertain".
3. True, but if he left, he'd be playing for another manager anyway...so....
4. Only good point.

First, we have control over Albert through 2011. That's 4 seasons from now. I think any talk of extending Albert is preposterously premature. Look what happened to Juan E or even Carpenter. If we extended Pujols now and he got hurt we would be on the hook for the entire contract, 7-10 years of $15-$20 million per. There's no reason to extend him before 2010.