Edmonds heading to San Diego

[ghostrunner]

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.

They're sending him for a player you don't even think we should be trading. It seems to me they place some value on him.

All I'm saying is there's no reason not take advantage of a situation like this. We're trying to get younger and improve the farm system, we're not likely to contend, we could always use extra room in payroll, we have a surplus of outfielders, we have an expensive older player who may or may not retire, and if he doesn't retire he'll be a free agent. The only reason it upsets me is of a sentimental nature - I'd like to see him retire a Cardinal, yet that's not certain to happen anyway.

[skmsw]

Citing Ankiel, Schumaker, and Ludwick as reasons we could afford to give away a borderline hall of famer while getting in return a 25-year old who has not played above single-A?

I admit, he had to say something. I also admit that there is reason to be wary of Edmonds' age and health (although there are also reasons to roll the dice on them).

But Ankiel turns 29 shortly after the all-star break, and has some 170 major league at bats as a hitter (not to mention a .328 OBP during that time, and a .242/.276/.444 = 721 during his last four weeks, 106 PA). Ludwick turns 30 around that same time, and not only has a grand total of 700 major league plate appearances, but also is coming off his first-ever OPS+ better than 93 (unless you count 47 pretty good AB in 2006). And everything about his professional career suggests that Schumaker is a fifth outfielder. Not a lot of youth, and really not a lot of "proven success" either.

[greenback44]

I hear you. Ankiel is 27 with 3 years of service time.

PSA: Cot's had him at 3.152 before the season, and he got at least thirty days in 2007 to push him over four years. Apparently Ankiel got a year of service time in 2006.

[ghostrunner]

Citing Ankiel, Schumaker, and Ludwick as reasons we could afford to give away a borderline hall of famer while getting a 25-year old who has not played above single-A?

That's really twisting the argument. Who cares about his HOF credentials? What is he now? What was he last year or the year before? He's lost a step defensively and was outplayed by his substitutes last season - and he's 37.

We right now have Ankiel, Duncan, Schumaker, Ludwick, Barton, and Rasmus. I think the point is to let those guys get playing time in the majors and find out what works. That's the mode we're in now. We may yet trade a couple of them. We may let Duncan continue to bat only against righties and then trade on those (hopefully) good statistics mid-season. I keep coming back to the question of "what does retaining Edmonds do for us?" The uncertainty of the answer tells me the best thing for both parties is for him to play elsewhere.

[haltz]

They're sending him for a player you don't even think we should be trading. It seems to me they place some value on him.

I've said a bunch of times that I'm more worried about dumping the contract and the negative value that comes with that. Basically, that his value doesn't translate exactly from the Cardinals to the Padres.

They think he's worth $6M and a throw-in minor leaguer. There's obviously an exchange rate on future and present performance, but how much do you suppose they think Edmonds is worth? If Freese didn't have a very small chance of ever being productive at the ML level, he wouldn't have been involved in the Edmonds trade. The Cardinals and Padres agreed he was worth about $2 million dollars.

All I'm saying is there's no reason not take advantage of a situation like this. We're trying to get younger and improve the farm system, we're not likely to contend, we could always use extra room in payroll, we have a surplus of outfielders, we have an expensive older player who may or may not retire, and if he doesn't retire he'll be a free agent.

They didn't take advantage of anything. They got some salary relief, which they don't need, aside from the fact that I guess they haven't given Cesar Izturis most of his paychecks yet. They got salary relief from a player who's a fan favorite in a year where the fans don't have much of a reason to show up to begin with.

The only reason it upsets me is of a sentimental nature - I'd like to see him retire a Cardinal, yet that's not certain to happen anyway.

I still maintain that there's a difference between him deciding to pursue another contract after a down year and his last contract year with the Cardinals, and him having one year left and management dumping him to save a few bucks.

[planet planet]

I still maintain that there's a difference between him deciding to pursue another contract after a down year and his last contract year with the Cardinals, and him having one year left and management dumping him to save a few bucks.

But it came from Jimmy's own words that he requested a trade?

[Hungary Jack]

Citing Ankiel, Schumaker, and Ludwick as reasons we could afford to give away a borderline hall of famer while getting a 25-year old who has not played above single-A?

That's really twisting the argument. Who cares about his HOF credentials? What is he now? What was he last year or the year before? He's lost a step defensively and was outplayed by his substitutes last season - and he's 37.

We right now have Ankiel, Duncan, Schumaker, Ludwick, Barton, and Rasmus. I think the point is to let those guys get playing time in the majors and find out what works. That's the mode we're in now. We may yet trade a couple of them. We may let Duncan continue to bat only against righties and then trade on those (hopefully) good statistics mid-season. I keep coming back to the question of "what does retaining Edmonds do for us?" The uncertainty of the answer tells me the best thing for both parties is for him to play elsewhere.

Exactly.

The issue here for debate, and the basis of the differing opinions, is how much JEd has left in his tank. Methinks not much, and we can speculate on this ad nauseum, but the only opinion that matters is that of the Cardinal brass. They felt that letting him go was the best move for this team.

[skmsw]

Who cares about his HOF credentials? What is he now? What was he last year or the year before? He's lost a step defensively and was outplayed by his substitutes last season - and he's 37.

Well, as I said -- his body type and skillset suggest that he is not a player that will turn out to have been washed up at age 36, and that the injuries will have had more to do with a couple mediocre to poor years than irreversible age-related decline.

If he does have a bounce-back year in 08, then keeping him will mean a productive bat and credible to strong defensive CF (I assume that if his poor years were injury-related, then his defense will rebound at least somewhat as well). It will mean another good hitter in a lineup that still has AP and has suggested the goal is to "compete every year."

If he does not have a bounce-back year, then at the end of it his contract is over, his salary and presence do not have a negative impact on 09 and beyond, and in an 08 season in which we are unsure of how likely we can be to contend anyhow, any deficits he brings to his spot on the field and in the lineup will be of minimal impact. Not that that's a completely negligible cost, but with the potential up-side, it's a reasonable risk to take. EDIT: and if the return in trade is a player about whom we have to search for semi-plausible reasons regarding why he hasn't gotten out of single-A ball before his age 25 season, the risk/reward ratio for keeping Edmonds in 08 becomes even more conservative.

And again -- if the money this move saves results on us spending it someplace else more likely to be productive -- or more likely to be a part of 2009 and beyond -- then the trade can be defended in other ways. Problem for me is, with the trade market being described as it is, and there being few useful free agents left to sign -- what will we do with the money we saved?

If the sole benefit is to create playing time for Ludwick, Ankiel, Schumaker, and Barton, then I personally find it to be another bad decision that does not adequately weigh the costs and benefits (at least, does not weigh them the way I would).

Along with Edmonds' health, Rasmus is a wild card here. If they have decided they needed to open up the center field job for him now, at least that is defendable. Debateable, but defendable.

[haltz]

I still maintain that there's a difference between him deciding to pursue another contract after a down year and his last contract year with the Cardinals, and him having one year left and management dumping him to save a few bucks.

But it came from Jimmy's own words that he requested a trade?

Are you talking about this quote? (The link doesn't work, so if there's some other context I apologize).

Edmonds said he and his agent approached the Cardinals' front office after hearing talk that he'd be moved to right field or have reduced playing time in center.

"Basically, the feedback wasn't so great, and they couldn't guarantee anything," he said. "We just decided maybe it was time for me to move on."

For one, they don't have to trade him because he asks, but it also doesn't look to me like anyone can say he requested a trade here. For all I know he's talking about why he waived his NTC, and the Cardinals weren't going to guarantee anything for someone whose NTC means $6 million.

Who were they going to put in CF instead? Are we going to burn an option year on Rasmus? Ludwick's not a CF, are we going to put Ankiel out there everyday? Is there a tent big enough to cover Busch?

EDIT: I think Steve has a great take on the entire situation in the post above this one.

[Colbert Rasmols]

Who cares about his HOF credentials? What is he now? What was he last year or the year before? He's lost a step defensively and was outplayed by his substitutes last season - and he's 37.

Well, as I said -- his body type and skillset suggest that he is not a player that will turn out to have been washed up at age 36, and that the injuries will have had more to do with a couple mediocre to poor years than irreversible age-related decline.

If he does have a bounce-back year in 08, then keeping him will mean a productive bat and credible to strong defensive CF (I assume that if his poor years were injury-related, then his defense will rebound at least somewhat as well). It will mean another good hitter in a lineup that still has AP and has suggested the goal is to "compete every year."

If he does not have a bounce-back year, then at the end of it his contract is over, his salary and presence do not have a negative impact on 09 and beyond, and in an 08 season in which we are unsure of how likely we can be to contend anyhow, any deficits he brings to his spot on the field and in the lineup will be of minimal impact. Not that that's a completely negligible cost, but with the potential up-side, it's a reasonable risk to take.

And again -- if the money this move saves results on us spending it someplace else more likely to be productive -- or more likely to be a part of 2009 and beyond -- then the trade can be defended in other ways. Problem for me is, with the trade market being described as it is, and there being few useful free agents left to sign -- what will we do with the money we saved?

If the sole benefit is to create playing time for Ludwick, Ankiel, Schumaker, and Barton, then I personally find it to be another bad decision that does not adequately weigh the costs and benefits (at least, does not weigh them the way I would).

Along with Edmonds' health, Rasmus is a wild card here. If they have decided they needed to open up the center field job for him now, at least that is defendable. Debateable, but defendable.

This sums up my feelings quite nicely.

Mostly, I'm just curious to see what - if anything - we do with the savings.