Pudge and Edmonds as reds? Rotoworld thinks so!

[SanDiegoRed]

Here is the link. Rodriguez work for me but I want no part of Edmonds and his severly declining skills.

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/features/column.aspx?sport=MLB&columnid=2&articleid=31146

[GoReds33]

I would have no problem with a one year deal for Rodriguez. While reading that, I was happy we didn't still have Krivsky, as he would be more likely to guarantee a second year.

[fadetoblack2880]

I hope Edmonds does not come to Cincinnati.

[EV4Prez]

still dont understand how people dont just pitch 3 straight fastballs to edmonds.. the guy cant catch up to anything over 90 to save his life!

[Red in Atl]

Hell no to Edmonds.

Irod would be interesting, but only if he hasn't signed with anyone by mid-spring training, and only if Hanigan plays himself out of being the starter.

[CarolinaRedleg]

And somewhere, George Grande is reading this report and smiling as he thinks about fawning over Edmonds for 162 games.

[Mitri]

Please god no Edmonds.

I'm on the fence about Pudge, but something tells me it would be backwards progress to sign an aging catcher with a declining skill set for one year. If it's for the right price I could handle it, but only if they team acquires another catching prospect via trade who'd be ready to go in 2010.

[Slyder]

Here is the link. Rodriguez work for me but I want no part of Edmonds and his severly declining skills.

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/features/column.aspx?sport=MLB&columnid=2&articleid=31146

If IRod wants 10 mil for next season I want no part of him. Yes he has a cannon but 10 mil, he might even bump Eric Milton for dumbest offseason signing. Why not Jason Kendall for less than half that? If he'd take 2-5 mil, he's use to handling young pitchers, never see the problems with pitchers, not the hitter he use to be but if were looking at defense why not, .330 OBP this year? 30% career throwing out runners trying to steal. If Hannigan beats him out keep him around to tutor.

Jim Edmonds for anything is too much. He's Ken Griffey Jr part duex. Theres NO reason I see bringing him in for anything more than the vet min. If he comes he basically replaces Patterson as worst hitter on the team. We have in house options to play CF, there shouldnt even be a discussion about Edmonds (I dont care the ties to St. Louis and Walt).

[markymark69]

IRod I would take. Edmonds I would not.

[highheat11]

IRod I would take. Edmonds I would not.

I agree wholeheartedly. However, I fear that Walt's influence and past with Edmonds in STL might make it more likely that we get Edmonds than Pudge.

[Kingspoint]

I would have no problem with a one year deal for Rodriguez. While reading that, I was happy we didn't still have Krivsky, as he would be more likely to guarantee a second year.


Detroit signed him to a 3 or 4 year deal last Winter for $10M per season. That's the contract we would pick up and he'd have to be traded to us by the Yankees.

I don't know where Rotoworld is getting the idea that he's a free agent.

[TC81190]

Detroit signed him to a 3 or 4 year deal last Winter for $10M per season. That's the contract we would pick up and he'd have to be traded to us by the Yankees.

I don't know where Rotoworld is getting the idea that he's a free agent.
The Tigers signed him to that contract after the 2004 season. All they did last winter was exercise his '08 option.

[I(heart)Freel]

Detroit signed him to a 3 or 4 year deal last Winter for $10M per season. That's the contract we would pick up and he'd have to be traded to us by the Yankees.

I don't know where Rotoworld is getting the idea that he's a free agent.

According to Cot's...



Ivan Rodriguez c
4 years/$40M (2004-07), plus 2008 club option


acquired in trade from Detroit 7/30/08 (waived no-trade clause)
4 years/$40M (2004-07), plus 2008 club option
04:$7M, 05:$8M, 06:$11M, 07:$11M, 08:$13M club option ($3M buyout)
$8M-$11M deferred at 1% interest ($2M in 2004, $3M each in 2006-08)

Tigers exercised $13M 2008 option 10/9/07

[Mitri]

To note that the Tigers should have stuck with the $3 million buyout is enough for me to know that the Reds should stay far, far away. Veteran leadership only goes so far...

[TC81190]

To note that the Tigers should have stuck with the $3 million buyout is enough for me to know that the Reds should stay far, far away. Veteran leadership only goes so far...
You're probably right. He's SLGing under .400 this year with an OBP of .320. His line with the Yankees is Pattersonesque. Hanigan could probably easily out-produce that.

Although his numbers could get a boost in GABP...

[ChatterRed]

Just say no to both.

Next.

[mound_patrol]

No need for either of them. I'd rather just let Hanigan play. And anyone not named Patterson is better than Edmonds

[RED VAN HOT]

How stupid does he think Reds management is? 16 Million for one year of I Rod and Edmonds? We have young players as talented who need the playing time. Those acquisitions are not going to make the Reds a contender in 2009. Either spend the money for an impact player, or save it for a wiser use in 2010. As a Reds fan, the only thing that would test the strength of my support is foolish spending or abandoning the commitment to development young talent.

The only player on the lists that interests me is Furcal, and he is out of reach.

[Stephenk29]

Supposedly from an ESPN telecast Pudge has diminshed quite a bit in the past two years. His throws are not what they used to be and his offensive numbers have already been posted. I don't see a reason to go after him. He seems to be on the quick decline. Why would the Tigers who hope to seriously contend every year get rid of him if they didn't think along the same lines. It says something when they replace him with Inge who hadn't caught in 5(?) years

[757690]

Guys, this comes from Rotoworld. Why is anyone taking this seriously?

[thatcoolguy_22]

Guys, this comes from Rotoworld. Why is anyone taking this seriously?

LOL exactly


10 million for a 38 year old former all-star catcher with a history of PED use, currently in year 4 of a steady decline? Incredibly unlikely.

Jim Edmonds (like Pudge) would have been phenomenal in the lineup if Edmonds stopped aging at 31. However at this stage of his career he is a midling defender and a platoon LF. I would honestly rather have Corey Patterson on the bench as a late inning defensive replacement than edmonds at this point. (If there could be instructions handed down to Dusty that if CP starts more than 10 games on the season or is in the lead off spot once, then Baker will be fired immediately)

With WJ's history as a guideline, I see no reason to credit either rumor of paying for an aging/declining veteran...

However instead of spending millions of dollars on 16 year old latin american players, maybe we could send Edmonds and IROD here (http://www.fountainofyouthflorida.com/).Only then would these acquisitions make any sense. :D

[ChatterRed]

Neither of those two make sense when you consider the youth movement on this team. They aren't aging superstars. They're more like nursing home superstars at this point, wouldn't you say?

[Newman4]

Edmonds = the Anti-Red

I think Edmonds would fit in nicely in San Francisco if you get what I'm saying. ;)

[Kingspoint]

The Tigers signed him to that contract after the 2004 season. All they did last winter was exercise his '08 option.

That's right.

[REDblooded]

Guys, this comes from Rotoworld. Why is anyone taking this seriously?


Because Jocketty has a history of falling head over heels over aging veterans.