Edmonds heading to San Diego

[haltz]

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

The Cardinals don't just give players lump sums when they sign them. They are going to pay 37.5% of Cesar and Joel's contracts with the savings! You have to look at the big picture, or you won't see how much better off the Cardinals are and why people are going to come to the ballpark.

[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?

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.

I'm talking about this:

The move came at Edmonds' request after he failed to receive assurances from the Cardinals' front office and manager Tony La Russa about his playing time next season. Edmonds' agent, Paul Cohen, contacted Mozeliak last month about his client's willingness to relinquish his no-trade protection if dealt to one of several teams. Cohen expanded the list to 14-16 teams early last week.

"They told me I was going to be the center fielder, but they didn't know how much I was going to get a chance to play," Edmonds said. "Being a professional athlete and the player I am, inside I wanted a chance to play every day."

"This is a summer job. This is a profession. This is something I have to do for me," Edmonds said. "Luckily, San Diego needed a center fielder. If there could be a better place for me to play in the world, Southern California would be it. This just happened to be the perfect fit."

Edmonds had hoped to end his career in St. Louis until the fit became uncomfortable. The Cardinals owed him $8 million for next season.

Link

[haltz]

Thanks, planet, I hadn't read that.

I know how I'd get Edmonds to relinquish his no-trade protection, and Ankiel or Rasmus being in CF on opening day with Duncan being untouchable is interesting, but whatever. I wish Edmonds the best, and knew he was on-board with the move this whole time considering that it happened. If he didn't want to go, then he wouldn't have gone.

[Colbert Rasmols]

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

The Cardinals don't just give players lump sums when they sign them. They are going to pay 37.5% of Cesar and Joel's contracts with the savings! You have to look at the big picture, or you won't see how much better off the Cardinals are and why people are going to come to the ballpark.

If I may be hopelessly optimistic/idealistic for a moment:

I prefer to think the Izturis and Pineiro money is coming from Miles and Wells. And that the Edmonds+Eckstein savings (minus the difference between Izturis+Pineiro and Miles+Wells) will go to an above average starting pitcher, who we acquire via trade.

And that we'll get fair value for Rolen.

And that some team will take Kennedy and Mulder off our hands.

And that we'll achieve world peace.

[jim]

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.

Me to. Almost exactly how I feel. The way I would have attacked '08 is "rolling dice" as steve said earlier. I understand that Edmonds might not have anything left, but I also understand the a borderline HOF'er is a special player, and he just might.

Trading Rolen is more justifiable, because it gets money off the books for '09 and beyond. Edmonds trade did not do that.

I am not arguing that Edmonds will have a bounceback year, I am arguing that it was a reasonable risk to take to remain on the fringes of competitive for '08.

[planet planet]

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.

I think the issue is also whether we'll ever see Freese as either an everyday player (or close to it) or as a big part of a package for an impact player, because if not, it truly is a salary dump.

[jim]

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.

I think the issue is also whether we'll ever see Freese as either an everyday player (or close to it) or as a big part of a package for an impact player, because if not, it truly is a salary dump.

Right. It's not really the issue of how much JEd has, but whether a team that is retooling could take some gambles with guys like Edmonds for me.

[skmsw]

I am not arguing that Edmonds will have a bounceback year, I am arguing that it was a reasonable risk to take to remain on the fringes of competitive for '08.

Especially when trading him ---

* nets a player about whom we have to dig deep to come up with semi-plausible reasons about why he has not advanced outside of single-A before his age 25 season

* results in saving money that lowers us well below payroll targets (thus did not need to be saved -- we could afford to roll the dice on Edmonds), and puts us into a market in which we still do not have the trade chips to acquire a more productive or longer-term part of the puzzle, and in which there still is no compelling free agent out there to use the money on

[planet planet]

How is it that we only owed Edmonds $8 mil anyway? I thought when we extended him it was for two yrs. $21 mil?

[jdk82]

How is it that we only owed Edmonds $8 mil anyway? I thought when we extended him it was for two yrs. $21 mil?

2yrs/19M

07:$11M, 08:$8M

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/0 ... adres.html