trial balloon?

by lboros on Feb 13, 2006 8:05 AM EST in News Comment 18 comments

i'll have results from the encarnacion projection this afternoon (still time to post your numbers if you haven't already). this morning we focus on another stl outfielder, jim edmonds, on which subject ken rosenthal drizzled some ink this weekend at fox sports. the article, titled "Cardinals will have to decide on Edmonds," reviews (in not-great depth) the team's options concerning jimmy after 2006 -- viz., pick up his option for $10m for 2007, buy him out for $3m, or restructure the contract (adding years but decreasing the per-year salary). the article itself is far less interesting than the discussion thread about it at Baseball Think Factory. scroll down to comment #10 and read this from cardinal stat counselor mitchel lichtman, or mgl:

Of course, you never know if and when a player like Edmonds will be part of a major trade. In order to stay competetive, we will eventually (soon) need to replace him in CF with either another great player (and presumably pay through the nose) or replace him with someone good (and underrated) and then upgrade at the corners and at second, and of course eventually at SS again (which is another difficult position to find bargains). We have very few, if any, position player prospects ready for the majors anytime soon (I don't think).

hmmm. first time i've ever heard anyone on the organization's payroll explicitly mention the possibility that edmonds might depart in a trade. we've all heard rumors, of course -- most notably this one, which had edmonds shipped to the yankees (who hadn't signed damon yet) for robinson cano and chien-ming wang. and here's how mgl assessed those two ballplayers in an interview last week at the Replacement Level Yankees Weblog:

I think that Cano is the real deal and should help the Yankees for years to come. His hitting was surprisingly good last year, and should regress a little, given his modest MLE's in the minors. There are some differences of opinion as far as his defense goes. UZR has him as slightly below average in 05. I have heard others say that he is not that bad. If his defense ends up being above average, he is quite a valuable commodity.

I think that Wang is the real deal too, and ought to remain an above-average starter, which is a very valuable commodity, given that league-average FA starters command 8 mil a year or so. He was very good (his MLE) in the minors so it was not surprising that he would have pitched so well in 05.

maybe that cano-wang rumor wasn't so crazy after all. here's a paid front-office advisor who a) freely speculates that edmonds could be traded, and b) uses the phrase "valuable commodity" to describe both cano and wang. makes you wonder if there was indeed some discussion of this deal, at least within the cards' front office -- or possibly even a courtesy call to brian cashman. then again, maybe the discussion was merely between mgl and a sportswriter or three. remember, this rumor first surfaced at bernie's pressbox, posted by bernie himself in skeptical, but not entirely dismissive, tones: "For whatever it's worth, and I don't think it's worth much, but. . . . A new crazy one making the rounds is jimmy edmonds to the Bombers for 2B Robinson Cano and RH sp CM Wong."

please don't jump in with long comments explaining why this trade wouldn't make any sense -- because it surely wouldn't make sense now, after three months' worth of signings and trades. but it might have made some sense back in november, when the rumor first surfaced. the salary saved by edmonds' departure could have been used to acquire the then-unsigned brian giles, making the trade in essence edmonds for cano, wang, and giles -- a pretty clear gain for the cards. or maybe the cards would have put the money into yet another starting pitcher (burnett?) and then traded from their deep pitching surplus for help in the outfield.

anyway, the important point here isn't whether the edmonds-cano-wang rumor had any substance behind it. the point is that trading edmonds to restructure the payroll isn't out of the question -- and that's coming straight from a member of the cards' decision-making chorus.

one last item: for some worthwhile reading you may have missed over the weekend, check out cardnilly's post about the best player to wear 57 in franchise history.

0 recs | Comment 18 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Just personal feelings...

Edmonds will be 35 at the start of the season, turning 36 in late June. His worst year to date was 2005, with a slg of 533 and OBP of 385. Those numbers are better than good...and even though he is labeled an injury risk, the least amount of games he has played is 137 in 2002. I think it is well worth buying him out for $3mil, and trying to restructure a 2 year deal with 3rd year team option for $8mil/per (thereabouts). I don't think we could get even close to the same production out of a CF for that price.

by sdelek on Feb 13, 2006 9:51 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

It'd be cheaper...

...to just pay him. You're offering him $11m in '08 vs. the $10m option we have.

by sdrone on Feb 13, 2006 10:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Indeed.

I obviously didn't think it totally through (and also didn't consider our rotation needs for 2007 - per lboros). Just a gut reaction, that was partially biased by my love for the guy. Sometimes, I forget to think things through before I post.

by sdelek on Feb 13, 2006 11:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

it's gonna be a tough call

there are good arguments on both sides. edmonds is still likely to be much better than any available replacement; that's the argument for keeping him. but he'll also be way more expensive; that's the argument for letting him go. the cards will have to find three starting pitchers next off-season, and it's gonna be very difficult to do that unless they shed some salary somewhere.

by lboros on Feb 13, 2006 10:01 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Hard decision

If we are in a hunt for the WS again this year, is there anyway they move him? I think the PR from that would be abyssmal regardless of its long term efficacy. I really love watching Jimmy play but if we can get a young upper rotation starter who is under control/contract for several years...I'm not sure that it would be smart to pass on that.

by azruavatar on Feb 13, 2006 10:29 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Career year

And what do ou do with J'Ed if he puts up another near career year, which is a possibility if he has Rolen hitting behind him.

by Zubin on Feb 13, 2006 11:44 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

JuanEnc

Hasn't someone mentioned before that could be the reasoning behind signing Juan, to replace JEd next year at about half the cost. I thought I heard he plays a decent CF and his batting stats look better in that position than a corner slot.

by Just Rope Ball on Feb 13, 2006 12:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

that would be me

in this post: http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/story/2005/12/27/42857/129

quoting: "maybe en'cion's arrival means edmonds is gone after this year; he will not be renewed, and encarnacion will take over in cf in 2007. at that position his bat would no longer be a liability; he'd be instantly transformed from a dead-weight corner outfielder, hardly better (if at all) than freely available backups, into a centerfielder who can hit 15-20 homers -- a pretty worthwhile commodity. he still wouldn't be an all-star nor a great bargain, but as a centerfielder he'd at least be valuable enough to earn his keep.

hey, it's a theory -- and a far more comforting one than 'jocketty panicked.' if it works out that way, then encar'cion's contract might not be so unforgivable in the end."

by lboros on Feb 13, 2006 1:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hey

he's only had like 24 ab in the last 3 yrs when playing center so those #'s are a little skewed.

by sportsmanspark78 on Feb 13, 2006 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i feel

at ease with Jimmy in center.I would rather have a great cf than a guy who never has played it in a regular capacity.

by sportsmanspark78 on Feb 13, 2006 1:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

better option

what about the scenario of the Cards signing Edmonds for '07 at the $10M rate and then making him available for trade after the '06 season.

That might make more sense since dealing JEd now woudl be counter productive to the "win now" ethos (unless, god forbid, we're out of it come July).

If Edmonds rebounds from last year's numbers (highly likely) he still has a lot of value, and for a team wanting to make a serious now-or-never run in '07 a $10M guy like that isn't a bad price at all. Isn't that what Giles another 35 year-old is making this season?

Then Juan E can move to center and the team upgrades the currently weaker corner OF positions.

Cardinals Diaspora

by VanRam on Feb 13, 2006 3:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Edmonds

10/5

by Vidor on Feb 13, 2006 4:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

that's been noted before

but obviously mgl would be aware of that fact, and he's still holding out the possibility. 10/5 guys can be and are traded; you buy them out of the no-trade, you send them to a team that's close to home, etc etc. edmonds doesn't strike me as the type of guy to stick it out in a situation where he's clearly not wanted.

the 10/5 complicates any trade scenario, but it doesn't rule out the possibility.

by lboros on Feb 13, 2006 4:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Another point

Besides the 10/5 issue, I would imagine Edmonds would want added years before he would ever accept a trade (he has a no trade clause to 23 teams). But it may benefit the Cards to get the first round draft pick should Edmonds sign elsewhere if his option is not picked up. He surely will be a type A free agent. We could then sign someone for near the price Edmonds would have commanded plus have another draft pick to help rebuild our farm system. That is unless an offer we cannot refuse comes along first.

by acr on Feb 13, 2006 5:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

excellent point

but i think the cards would have to offer edmonds arbitration to get the draft pick . . . anybody know that for sure?

if true, they'd run the risk that edmonds might accept arbitration and sign a one-yr deal that's comparable to the option they just declined . . . .

by lboros on Feb 13, 2006 5:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I am pretty sure...

...he would have to be offered arbitration (kinda like Damon this year). And since arbitration figures are heavily weighted in service time there is no telling how much he would get. I see where you are coming from in that Edmonds might accept arbitration. If he were a few years younger he could sign somewhere else for a 3-4 year deal. Who knows? He may think some club might offer him a two year deal after next season. It all depends on what the market looks like, I suppose. I could see a team like the Yankees overspending on an aging free agent again.

On a side note, players seem to play at their peek during contract years and Edmonds is surely wanting that $10 million option exercised. So we may see some pretty nice numbers based on that alone. Although I never had the impression before that Edmonds was ever not playing 100%.

by acr on Feb 13, 2006 7:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

another issue

It would be odd, to say the least, to not excercise a $10 million option and instead pay a $3 million buyout and then offer arbitration on top of the $3 million. He may have one of those stipulations in his contract like Grudz did where he cannot be offered arbitration? Anyway, when his contract ends he will still be owed about $6 million in deferred salary from his previous years. So the Cards will be on the hook for either $9 million or $16 million however you slice it.

I think it is more realistic, as some previous posters have pointed out, that Edmonds is traded or he is resigned to an extra year or two for maybe $6-7 million per. This would spread out the $3 million buy out money a bit further. I would suspect the 5 clubs he can be traded to are the Yankees, BoSox, etc. (although it would be interesting to see if the Angels are in that mix as they have a ton of young talent).

by acr on Feb 13, 2006 9:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Most comparable to JEd by age...

Tim Salmon. Funny. Although I would rather have #2 on the list, Ellis Burks for the longevity. I would like to see Jimmy finish his career as a Cardinal; three more years at Giles money is not unreasonable. Reyes and Wainwright are a lot closer than any OF prospect we have.

All my friends became Cardinal fans and grew up happy and liberal. I became a Cub fan and grew up imbittered and conservative." -- George Will

by wannabeGedman on Feb 13, 2006 10:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs