clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

edmonds contract details

per this report, edmonds' contract breaks down as follows: $8m in 2007 and $8m in 2008, with $3m deferred (payable after 2010 in $300K installments). put me with the group of folks that are scratching their heads, wondering: why would the cardinals prefer this deal over the deal they already had in place, ie the 1 yr / $10m option? the new deal saves the organization $2m in current-year payroll, but to get that savings they had to commit an extra $9m to this player . . . . can anybody explain to me how the club comes out ahead?

i'm not criticizing the decision to bring edmonds back for 2007. i just don't understand why the club preferred to do it on these terms, as opposed to simply picking up the option. seems to me the cards are taking on an extra year of risk that they didn't have to take on --- and for not much gain. i'd have understood this more easily if the deferred money were higher, yielding a greater current-year payroll savings.

just taking the 2007 portion of the contract in isolation, it's a good deal for st louis. so let's just focus on that, and table the curious 2008 part of the contract until this time next year.