clement wrote:Sentimentally I'm sad, but I don't think this is necessarily a bad move from a future team development point of view.
That's where I'm at. My heart aches a bit, and mainly I'm just shocked. It's probably best to move on in the end, though, given even a little leeway in future salary and a good prospect in return.
Unfortunately the last part appears very much in doubt.
He might be worthless, in which case I'm a little surprised and disappointed we couldn't get more.
I'm not surprised we couldn't get much for Edmonds. Like I said earlier in the thread, if teams value him it probably tops out at $8M. So if we bought Freese for $2M then it's no surprise that he's likely crap. Just the fact that he was part of this deal maybe says as much as Jim Callis or Dan Szymborski.
I just don't think this is the part that matters all that much, because the return was going to blow either way and we just dumped Jim Edmonds for presumably his final year.
Solid move. I knew it was coming. We had too many OF's, especially LH ones. Jimmy was ripped apart last season by message boards because he had a horrible contract, he was old and had nothing left in the tank, and was always getting injured. We didn't get much in return, but I think this is an addition by subtraction move. I love Edmonds. He is the only player that I have a jersey of. But when we have cheap guys like Schumaker and Ludwick who are healthy and able to play CF well until Colby is ready, I think it was the right time to part ways.
planet pujolsian wrote:We hear the signal now, loud and clear. Why not just say we're rebuilding?
THat's what I'm asking myself. Why all the BS propaganda?
I don't think they're being dishonest at all. He has said several times that they intend to compete in 2008, but they're not going to do so at the expense of 2009 and beyond. We have too many outfielders and if we can't move a Duncan or an Ankiel for something significant in return, I'd rather us move the guy who won't be around in 2009 anyway. They have more payroll now to make a couple of significant but not earth-shattering acquisitions to make us be a longshot, but at least potentially competitive this year. (remember, this is the NL Central we're talking about)
Well we obviously have a new GM and a new direction.
Can someone please tell me what that direction is?
The toilet. 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.
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).
As far as throwing away a season...personally, I'm alright with it if it's a part of a plan that's being actively followed. I'm not much for spending resources that can be better spent elsewhere in a vain attempt to reach a goal that I consider to be unrealistic (and given the current state of the team, it's about as unrealistic as it gets)...but I also understand that's just my opinion. There's obviously no "right" answer.
planet pujolsian wrote:We hear the signal now, loud and clear. Why not just say we're rebuilding?
THat's what I'm asking myself. Why all the BS propaganda?
I don't think they're being dishonest at all. He has said several times that they intend to compete in 2008, but they're not going to do so at the expense of 2009 and beyond. We have too many outfielders and if we can't move a Duncan or an Ankiel for something significant in return, I'd rather us move the guy who won't be around in 2009 anyway. They have more payroll now to make a couple of significant but not earth-shattering acquisitions to make us be a longshot, but at least potentially competitive this year. (remember, this is the NL Central we're talking about)
So, we're going to trade prospects for high-priced talent? Because there isn't anyone on the free agent market who would turn us into a contender.
I think it'll take 90+ wins to take the NL Central. At the moment, I don't even like how we stack up against the Reds and Astros.
planet pujolsian wrote:We hear the signal now, loud and clear. Why not just say we're rebuilding?
THat's what I'm asking myself. Why all the BS propaganda?
I don't think they're being dishonest at all. He has said several times that they intend to compete in 2008, but they're not going to do so at the expense of 2009 and beyond. We have too many outfielders and if we can't move a Duncan or an Ankiel for something significant in return, I'd rather us move the guy who won't be around in 2009 anyway. They have more payroll now to make a couple of significant but not earth-shattering acquisitions to make us be a longshot, but at least potentially competitive this year. (remember, this is the NL Central we're talking about)
They've also said that it was ok that nothing happened at the GM meetings because we would be competitive if players like Rolen and Edmonds got healthy, now that Edmonds is gone, that kind of throws that theory out the window.
Well we obviously have a new GM and a new direction.
Can someone please tell me what that direction is?
Off the top of my head and with a lot of speculation on my part... Build on the (potential) pieces that we have. Let them all play in 2008 and see where the chips fall. 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. Try to fill in a few gaps with short-term players. And, I think, try to add one solid starting pitcher to the rotation - if possible, one that you can ink for 3 or 4 years, but only if you can find one that's worth that kind of deal.
