Edmonds heading to San Diego

[Magneto2.0]

Hopefully Moz has someone young and productive in mind for redeploying the payroll to.

Hopefully. But as we sit in the middle of the third consecutive terrible off-season, the Cards have lost the benefit of the doubt.

Until the fans stop coming to the games every year, I doubt management cares too much about some disgruntle fans on a message board.

I never said management cared. I just said we've reached the point where we can't expect them to do anything significant just because they've supposedly created "payroll flexibility."

Btw, this isn't a terrible off-season. It's hasn't accomplished much, but get a few aging players off the team (Eckstein, Edmonds, Taguchi). However, nothing that was done this off season has hurt this team for the long haul. With the lack of prospects we have, and the lack of good free agents, that's all you can ask for.

[skmsw]

Why I am confused:

I'm willing to "rebuild." I'm comfortable focusing on "developing players from within." I understand the cupboard is pretty bare right now, and there could be a lean year or two in the offing.

But knowing that a lean year or two might happen in the course of making smart moves is not the same thing as trying to be bad. "Freeing up payroll" is not the same thing as "saving money" if the freed up payroll does not find its way back into the product on the field.

If we're not trading Edmonds because of what we got (and I have a hard time buying, WHATEVER value Edmonds does or does not have on the trade market, that the 25-year old with no career AB above A ball is the prize), and we're not trading Edmonds so we have money for some impact player now (and how could that be the goal? we have nothing to trade and there are no other impact players out there to sign who "make us better in 2009") -- then why are we trading him?

We sign a veteran waste bag like Izturis because "we want to compete every year" and rebuild on the fly, not from the beginning. But we move Edmonds SEEMINGLY because on a team as limited as this one, he's a luxury that isn't going to change our fortunes enough to bother keeping.

I start to worry that players like Taguchisan and Miles are not gone because the organization wised up to their limited contributions and deceptive batting averages/fielding percentages, but because they want to keep the money. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad for the changes regardless of why, and replacing them with cheaper players is smart even if unintentional -- but it would have been nice to be able to view those changes as signs of some learning.

The series of decisions all seem to have no internal consistency. Which makes it look like there is no plan, or that the only plan is to cut costs.

[jim]

Here is BA's report on Freese last year:

(#15 in the Padres organization)

6-2/220. 2006 draft (9th round) out of South Alabama.

Freese and Blue Jays top prospect Adam Lind starred on the infield corners for South Alabama in 2003 and 2004. A fifth-year senior last year, Freese could have signed as a free agent before the draft, but the Jaguars qualified for the NCAA playoffs and shrunk his window to one day. The Sun Belt conference player of the year opted to take his chances in the draft and wound up with $6,000 as a ninth-round pick. Freese quickly established himself as one of the top value picks when he demolished the Northwest League and slugged 13 home runs on his way to playing at low Class A in his first half-season. Naturally, it is Freese's big-time bat that will be his ticket to the big leagues, as his strength, bat speed and strike zone judgement are all above average. in his short low Class A stint, he showed the ability to stay inside the ball and drive it the other way with authority. The Padres would like Freese to stand more upright at the plate to generate more lift to his pull side, and he needs to prove he can hit major league caliber breaking balls. Accounts of his defense vary, as area scouts regarded Freese as a first basemen coming out of college, but Padres officials saw the potential to become at least an average defender at third base. His infield actions, range and arm rate average at best, but his technique needs refinement. He did some catching in instructional league and flashed a few 1.9 second pop times, but at 24 a move to catcher probably isn't in the offing. It would surprise no one if he flourishes in high Class A and moves rapidly to Double-A this season.

[Magneto2.0]

On the Padres board, they hate this trade more then most of you guys on here. Seriously, getting ANYTHING for Edmonds at this point is amazing to me. He's 37, always injured, putting up weak numbers the last two seasons and making a lot of money to do it.

I'm thinking Rasmus might start the season with the big club.

[Fat Strat]

I've read through part of this thread and I agree with much of what Easton has said (in the posts that I've read).

1. Edmonds only value to us was sentimental. He had an 88 OPS+ last year. An 88! That's the same as Taguchi's.

2. Edmonds was in a steady and steep, measurable decline. 170, 137, 110, 88. That's a fall of about 30 OPS points per season for three years. That guy is done. I love Edmonds, but, honestly, I'm surprised we could move him at all.

3. Freese isn't a great prospect, but he is a good prospect. I'll take UK's word for it and say that he's a top 10'er for us. That's something.

4. We shed some salary which might enable us to do a couple things... a) make a move for someone like Bedard and lock him up longterm. b) Eat more of Rolen's salary in a trade for some more impact players and still maintain some flexibility in the FA market. c) Allow us to have a bank full of cash to restock this team after '08 when we'll have a lot more holes to fill and much healthier players.


What I DON'T understand is that a lot of you have been clamoring for youth and trading off old, expensive players for prospects. Well, we did it. And now you're freaking out about it. You can't keep your expensive veterans and get younger at the same time. Something has to give, and in this case it was Edmonds.

[Leroy]

My point is, if a guy has zero trade value...what is the point of trading him?

[Hungary Jack]

If we're not trading Edmonds because of what we got (and I have a hard time buying, WHATEVER value Edmonds does or does not have on the trade market, that the 25-year old with no career AB above A ball is the prize), and we're not trading Edmonds so we have money for some impact player now (and how could that be the goal? we have nothing to trade and there are no other impact players out there to sign who "make us better in 2009") -- then why are we trading him?

That's the key question, because at the moment the cost-benefit equation of this trade does not add up. It will only add up if the payroll space created can be re-deployed to a productive young player.

Blanton was just a wild-arsed guessed. He is arb-eligible (1st), and his numbers suggest a raise into the $3-$4M range, which might prompt Beane to move him like he did Haren.

Still, I don't think that Edmonds was going to produce much anymore. I just didn't have expectations of an .800 OPS given his declining numbers. And with Bardon, Ankiel, Duncan, and potentially Rasmus in the fold, I think there was a potential opportunity cost in giving him 500 AB in 2008.

I am still giving this club the benefit of the doubt. I think Moz was dealt a raw hand by Jocketty's moves over the past few years, and he's moving quickly to clean up the mess. It's not pretty, but I think its necessary.

Finally, the despair I sense on these forums is well understood by me. Things look pretty bleak right now. But I wonder if one trade, or non-trade, from a few years back would have dramatically changed the complexion of the 2008 offseason. I think it would have.

I am sure you can guess which deal I am talking about. I am not trying to rehash old wounds, but I think it illustrates how fortunes can suddenly shift, and how close to the inflexion point we might have been. Sometimes, the only difference between the bum on the street with his hand out and the guy who struts by him in an Armani suit is a simple twist of fate.

[jim]

If we're not trading Edmonds because of what we got (and I have a hard time buying, WHATEVER value Edmonds does or does not have on the trade market, that the 25-year old with no career AB above A ball is the prize), and we're not trading Edmonds so we have money for some impact player now (and how could that be the goal? we have nothing to trade and there are no other impact players out there to sign who "make us better in 2009") -- then why are we trading him?

This sums it up for me. Just what does the $8M in savings do? Add to it the money "saved" on our SS situation, and we have $10M to spend and nothing to spend it on.

I'm not a GM, and I know I don't understand this part of the game as well as I understand the part that happens between the white lines, but to me the goal should have been to make some attempts at competing in '08 without compromising '09 and beyond. How do you do that? Well, you take the guys with high risk, high reward and hope you catch lightening in a bottle. Edmonds fits the bill perfectly as a high risk, high reward guy. Rolen does as well, but with multiple years on the contract it could compromise '09 and beyond if he is not healthy. So as much as I love Rolen as a player, I understand that move. But Edmonds has ONE YEAR, ONE YEAR on his contract. If he is old and broken down, what is he going to do eating up $8M this year that will jeopardize the team moving foreward?

Absolutely baffling.

[skmsw]

Part of the issue for me is -- I believe that there is a high likelihood that Rolen's shoulder is changed forever. So we do what we need to there. But I believe that Edmonds' injuries are less likely to be debilitating, and I really believe he has another solid to good year or two in him. That's not sentiment, that's how the models come up for me.

I already said, I do not mind getting younger. I realize making room for Rasmus and Ankiel might -- might be a good thing (we don't know if Rasmus is ready, and we don't know what Ankiel is yet). But not by moving one of the few players with the CAPACITY for a good offensive year, during a season in which you have little else to do with the money anyhow, and the only return is a guy who does not project well.

Fat, maybe you can help me see the internal consistency of moves where we are willing to pay market rates for low-impact veterans like a deficient shortstop and a good but luxury middle reliever because we want to compete every year, but not on a borderline hall of fame outfielder hoping for a bounceback year, because we need to free up payroll and/or get younger. I freely admit I may be missing the big-picture plan here, sometimes I look at the puzzle pieces and for the life of me I can't imagine how they fit together even though I'm looking right at the jigs that go together, and maybe that's happening here.

[Magneto2.0]

My point is, if a guy has zero trade value...what is the point of trading him?

Ahh we DID get value for him, and too move his money off the payroll.