GatewayRedbirds.com

skmsw wrote:

Well we obviously have a new GM and a new direction.

Can someone please tell me what that direction is?

East on I-70 about 570 miles, then north 30 miles to Pittsburgh.

EastonBlues22 wrote:

greenback44 wrote:

EastonBlues22 wrote:Since he's almost certainly gone/done after next year, his value to the team is equal to approximately what we can get for him in a trade...which, it turns out, isn't all that much.

I don't agree with this. I also don't agree with completely throwing away an entire season.

How do you see him fitting in with the Cards beyond 2008? He could very easily be the fifth best bat in the OF by then (and more expensive than the other four combined).

He also very easily could be the best, even at the age of 39. Duncan, Ankiel, Ludwick, Barton and Rasmus come with intermediate-term question marks as big as Edmonds does, and the one that's most likely to have that much talent hasn't played above AA yet.

Make it difficult for Larussa to play a favored veteran that he's loyal to when the marginal gain from that veteran over a replacement player is minimal or even negative.

Why was the first move of the offseason to bring back a manager that needs to have his hand forced by lighting millions of dollars on fire? Apparently DeWitt got his MBA from Harvard, not a box of Frosted Flakes.

haltz wrote: I'm not arguing that it was. I'm saying that where he falls in our system tells us only stuff we already knew about our system. It tells us nothing about the trade.

I disagree somewhat. I agree completely that his actual "value" is independent of the system that he happens to be in (whether he's top five in one, or 55th in another, his inherent "value" is still the same). However, I think that comparing how he stacks up against the prospects that all of us are the most familiar with is a very quick and easy way to gauge/relate his value. If he's roughly equivalent as a prospect to Kozma...that's telling us instantly that he has upside in one facet of the game, warts in another, no "star" potential...but still the potential to be a "solid" player at the MLB level.

And in the big picture, it's something else that contradicts any previous Izturis rationale, so instead of me being able to say I disagree with the direction, I'm left just saying "WTF?"

I keep arguing that trying to rationalize the Izturis signing is a mistake...there simply is no good baseball rationale for it. It was an outright mistake (made, perhaps, by a somewhat nervous GM in his first offseason). Hope he learned from the mistake, treat it as an outlier, and attempt to retain your sanity is my best advice.

haltz wrote:We just dumped one of the greatest Cardinals of all time and one of the few interesting subplots of 2008 to pay for something less than 44% of Cesar Izturis and Joel Pineiro.

It's only an interesting subplot if he does well. Nothing interesting about it if he starts the season on the DL, gets off to a horrendous start, goes back on the DL again, and struggles to bring his average up to a respectable .250 by the end of the season. Besides, we still have Scott Rolen on the team to provide interesting soap opera drama... for now

haltz wrote:Why was the first move of the offseason to bring back a manager that needs to have his hand forced by lighting millions of dollars on fire?

I think it would be difficult for any manager to walk into the St. Louis dugout and keep Edmonds and Eckstein out of the starting lineup.

----

Let's say the Cardinals had simply picked up Edmonds option for 2007 (what they should have done last year). Would you think it would be wise to try and sign him for 2008, knowing that we have all these other outfielders, knowing that we have all these other needs, and knowing that his performance for 2008 is very unpredictable given his health and performance decline in 2007? If he were a free agent now, would you want to sign him for a one-year $6 million contract (and give up a Freese-level prospect)? I wouldn't other than for some sentimental reasons.

greenback44 wrote: He also very easily could be the best, even at the age of 39. Duncan, Ankiel, Ludwick, Barton and Rasmus come with intermediate-term question marks as big as Edmonds does, and the one that's most likely to have that much talent hasn't played above AA yet.

Perhaps, but none of them have anywhere near the injury/cost/age concerns that Edmonds has. I would put the chances of Edmonds staying healthy and producing an .800 OPS at the age of 39 well into the realm of "not very good." I would put the chances of him being the most expensive player in the OF (and one of the top five salaries on the team) at "almost a lock." If we're going to dump the money (hypothetically) allocated to him in 2009 into "improving" the OF, it almost certainly shouldn't be on someone with his particular concerns and projected production.

If you disagree, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

However, I think that comparing how he stacks up against the prospects that all of us are the most familiar with is a very quick and easy way to gauge/relate his value.

That's just saying the same thing I said the other way around. It's only a frame of reference for telling us something we already know. Freese tells us about our system, and our system tells us about Freese.

I keep arguing that trying to rationalize the Izturis signing is a mistake...there simply is no good baseball rationale for it. It was an outright mistake (made, perhaps, by a somewhat nervous GM in his first offseason).

There's has to be some rationale for it, or it's just completely arbitrary. The only rationale that makes any sort of sense to me is the PR perspective, which is terribly misguided (and hysterical given today's events). I'm certain the mistake part isn't up for debate, and that Mo had a reason for signing him which was part of a plan. This is scary in several ways.

It's only an interesting subplot if he does well. Nothing interesting about it if he starts the season on the DL, gets off to a horrendous start, goes back on the DL again, and struggles to bring his average up to a respectable .250 by the end of the season.

I disagree, because part of the story line is the uncertainty. Will people stop paying attention if he fails miserably? Maybe, or maybe they'll show up to wish one of the greatest players they've ever seen farewell. I don't think it's too idealist to think that some of this would happen in St. Louis next year. They also chucked upside -- and I recognize the chance he puts up a .900 OPS isn't strong -- for saving a few bucks when there isn't anyone to spend it on.

I think it would be difficult for any manager to walk into the St. Louis dugout and keep Edmonds and Eckstein out of the starting lineup.

I didn't say anything about either one of those guys. It's not difficult to bring in someone who's on board with a plan, and if that's LaRussa then there's another Izturis theory shot to hell.

Would you think it would be wise to try and sign him for 2008, knowing that we have all these other outfielders, knowing that we have all these other needs, and knowing that his performance for 2008 is very unpredictable given his health and performance decline in 2007?

If he wanted to go again, then I'd give him $6M, sure. But that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that they wouldn't have to do what they just did, which is the real ill-will creating problem here.

EastonBlues22 wrote:

greenback44 wrote: He also very easily could be the best, even at the age of 39. Duncan, Ankiel, Ludwick, Barton and Rasmus come with intermediate-term question marks as big as Edmonds does, and the one that's most likely to have that much talent hasn't played above AA yet.

Perhaps, but none of them have anywhere near the injury/cost/age concerns that Edmonds has. I would put the chances of Edmonds staying healthy and producing an .800 OPS at the age of 39 well into the realm of "not very good." I would put the chances of him being the most expensive player in the OF (and one of the top five salaries on the team) at "almost a lock." If we're going to dump the money (hypothetically) allocated to him in 2009 into "improving" the OF, it almost certainly shouldn't be on someone with his particular concerns and projected production.

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.

haltz wrote: That's just saying the same thing I said the other way around. It's only a frame of reference for telling us something we already know. Freese tells us about our system, and our system tells us about Freese.

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.

There's has to be some rationale for it, or it's just completely arbitrary. The only rationale that makes any sort of sense to me is the PR perspective, which is terribly misguided (and hysterical given today's events). I'm certain the mistake part isn't up for debate, and that Mo had a reason for signing him which was part of a plan. This is scary in several ways.

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.

clement wrote:

haltz wrote:We just dumped one of the greatest Cardinals of all time and one of the few interesting subplots of 2008 to pay for something less than 44% of Cesar Izturis and Joel Pineiro.

It's only an interesting subplot if he does well. Nothing interesting about it if he starts the season on the DL, gets off to a horrendous start, goes back on the DL again, and struggles to bring his average up to a respectable .250 by the end of the season. Besides, we still have Scott Rolen on the team to provide interesting soap opera drama... for now

haltz wrote:Why was the first move of the offseason to bring back a manager that needs to have his hand forced by lighting millions of dollars on fire?

I think it would be difficult for any manager to walk into the St. Louis dugout and keep Edmonds and Eckstein out of the starting lineup.

----

Let's say the Cardinals had simply picked up Edmonds option for 2007 (what they should have done last year). Would you think it would be wise to try and sign him for 2008, knowing that we have all these other outfielders, knowing that we have all these other needs, and knowing that his performance for 2008 is very unpredictable given his health and performance decline in 2007? If he were a free agent now, would you want to sign him for a one-year $6 million contract (and give up a Freese-level prospect)? I wouldn't other than for some sentimental reasons.

clement, you just made me feel about 800 times better about this trade then I did when I got home from the bar and saw that it happened..

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...

i love jimmy just as much as the next guy, but at this point, he's a shell of his former self....but i wish him the absolute best of luck in san diego and hope he has a year like 2004 (which aint gunna happen)

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)