Edmonds heading to San Diego

[Hungary Jack]

I'll nitpick DeWitt's statement. On the one hand, DeWitt cites the Cardinals outfield depth with guys like Ankiel, Ludwick, and Schumaker with Rasmus in the wings, but then he states that the trade market is tough because clubs want ML-ready prospects.

If Duncan, Ankiel, and Ludwick aren't young ML-ready players that might be offered in a trade, then who is?

[jim]

Comments from Dewitt, per the PD:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports ... enDocument

It was largely at DeWitt's urging that the Cardinals signed Edmonds to a two-year, $19 million deal after the 2006 World Series. Yet it was DeWitt who signed off on a deal that cost him $2 million to send Edmonds away.

"I was a strong advocate of a two-year deal, I admit," DeWitt said. "I thought it would be a great transition.

"I think Rick Ankiel has since emerged as a force. (Ryan) Ludwick had a good year. (Skip) Schumaker played well. Rasmus got another year's experience. We're deep there. Right now we're trying to do everything we can to maintain flexibility and give some younger players a chance to play."

Yet DeWitt acknowledges the Cardinals are short on major league-ready prospects, a hindrance in their pursuit of an impact trade. The Cardinals hoped to acquire Baltimore Orioles shortstop Miguel Tejada but quickly realized that they lacked the ammunition without putting Rasmus in play.

"Unfortunately, we had the financial resources but not the player resources to get a player like Tejada," DeWitt said. "Clubs aren't looking for prospects who are a year or two away. They want major league-ready players. We just don't have them right now. We don't. I think we will."

Insisting the club receive "value for value," DeWitt said it would not be trading young talent for "rental players."

"We have the resources to spend. That's not the issue," DeWitt said. "The issue is who's out there. If it's a trade, we have to get value for what we're giving up. If it's a signing, is it for someone who's truly going to help us or are we just picking up what's out there?

Ankiel, unproven. Schumacher, terrible. Ludwick - eh. Rasmus - green. I think what we are deep in if competing in '08 was even a minor thought, is wishful thinking.

[haltz]

I remember Jack Cassels being mentioned in Edmonds rumors. I wonder if the organizations were contemplating swapping pitchers, as well.

Mr. Cassel was non-tendered.

Along those same lines, getting somebody like Izturis pushes Ryan, and I think that TLR thinks that Ryan needs to be pushed. Of course that still leaves the question of why the Cardinals paid $3 million for a pace car.

Especially one that tops out at 20 mph and leaks oil.

[jim]

Comments from Dewitt, per the PD:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports ... enDocument

It was largely at DeWitt's urging that the Cardinals signed Edmonds to a two-year, $19 million deal after the 2006 World Series. Yet it was DeWitt who signed off on a deal that cost him $2 million to send Edmonds away.

"I was a strong advocate of a two-year deal, I admit," DeWitt said. "I thought it would be a great transition.

"I think Rick Ankiel has since emerged as a force. (Ryan) Ludwick had a good year. (Skip) Schumaker played well. Rasmus got another year's experience. We're deep there. Right now we're trying to do everything we can to maintain flexibility and give some younger players a chance to play."

Yet DeWitt acknowledges the Cardinals are short on major league-ready prospects, a hindrance in their pursuit of an impact trade. The Cardinals hoped to acquire Baltimore Orioles shortstop Miguel Tejada but quickly realized that they lacked the ammunition without putting Rasmus in play.

"Unfortunately, we had the financial resources but not the player resources to get a player like Tejada," DeWitt said. "Clubs aren't looking for prospects who are a year or two away. They want major league-ready players. We just don't have them right now. We don't. I think we will."

Insisting the club receive "value for value," DeWitt said it would not be trading young talent for "rental players."

"We have the resources to spend. That's not the issue," DeWitt said. "The issue is who's out there. If it's a trade, we have to get value for what we're giving up. If it's a signing, is it for someone who's truly going to help us or are we just picking up what's out there?

I don't really have a problem with any of that, but it didn't seem to me like Baltimore got very much for Tejada. Were any of those players the equivalent of a Rasmus?

Not even close. I find it very hard to believe we couldn't have come up with a package for Tejada. RC came up with some interesting scenarios that seemed to beat the package Houston put together without doing anything to our long term goals.

[maddash]

Yeah, if we can't, or are unwilling to give up someone like Duncan... we're in bad shape.

[haltz]

As far as eating money, $2 million is nothing. I'm surprised that's all we had to kick in.

How much do you think Edmonds is worth? If you say five million that means that San Diego considers Freese to be essentially worthless.

Do you really find it likely that letting go of Edmonds was purely to put money back in the coffers?

Well, yes, I do. I don't really have that much of a problem with it, but it happens to be Jim Edmonds in what will either be a decent year, or probably his final year.

[Colbert Rasmols]

I'll nitpick DeWitt's statement. On the one hand, DeWitt cites the Cardinals outfield depth with guys like Ankiel, Ludwick, and Schumaker with Rasmus in the wings, but then he states that the trade market is tough because clubs want ML-ready prospects.

If Duncan, Ankiel, and Ludwick aren't young ML-ready players that might be offered in a trade, then who is?

Ankiel and Ludwick aren't really young, nor are they considered "ML-ready prospects." Neither is Duncan for that matter.

Now, if Duncan+ can get us an above average starting pitcher (who is under 30), and they refuse to trade Duncan (for whatever reason), I'd be pissed.

[ghostrunner]

As far as eating money, $2 million is nothing. I'm surprised that's all we had to kick in.

How much do you think Edmonds is worth? If you say five million that means that San Diego considers Freese to be essentially worthless.

They have two players ahead of Freese, and we have a few players ready or nearly ready behind Edmonds.

Re: Tejada - while that would have been an exciting pickup, I think there's two pertinent comments from Dewitt about that. Tejada would only be here two years, and he's yet another player in his 30's. So he's something of a rental. Why give up what Houston did if your odds of contending aren't great to begin with. IMO, losing Edmonds probably changes very little in terms of contention anyway. There's a chance we have a better offense as a result of this trade.

I also don't have a problem with Mo working around LaRussa, if that's even the case. La Russa is a skilled user of assets in many ways, but he has his prejudices and quirks. While I think it's ideal that the manager and GM would be on the same page, I'm not certain it's that common. If the GM wants to go young, and ownership wants to go young, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to pay a lot for older players you don't want the manager to use. I don't view that as disarray. The GM determines the roster. How the roster is used is determined by the manager. As it was, they're telling the manager "you have an $8 million center fielder at your disposal, but we'd rather you sit him in favor of these young guys."

[haltz]

They have two players ahead of Freese, and we have a few players ready or nearly ready behind Edmonds.

If he's a decent prospect, you don't just give him away.

[Hungary Jack]

I'll nitpick DeWitt's statement. On the one hand, DeWitt cites the Cardinals outfield depth with guys like Ankiel, Ludwick, and Schumaker with Rasmus in the wings, but then he states that the trade market is tough because clubs want ML-ready prospects.

If Duncan, Ankiel, and Ludwick aren't young ML-ready players that might be offered in a trade, then who is?

Ankiel and Ludwick aren't really young, nor are they considered "ML-ready prospects." Neither is Duncan for that matter.

Now, if Duncan+ can get us an above average starting pitcher (who is under 30), and they refuse to trade Duncan (for whatever reason), I'd be pissed.

I hear you. Ankiel is 27 with 3 years of service time. Ludwig is 28 with only 1 year. So perhaps their age suggests somewhat limited upside, but they are still relatively affordable with some proven success at the ML level. Do these guys compare that unfavorably with Carlos Quentin, for example, who is only 24 but really has not done much in 400 ML AB?

I am not disagreeing, but trying to understand how much more GMs value guys in their early-to-mid-20's vs. a guy who is 3-5 years older.