Jim Edmonds - RedsZone.com - Cincinnati Reds Fans' Home for Baseball Discussion

GAC · 07-12-2008, 05:50 AM

I know how much everyone loves Edmonds on here. So I know this will be a "barn burner" discussion on here; but a co-worker brought this up yesterday.

The Cubs signed Edmonds back in May since his release from SD. He's not an everyday player, that is obvious. The Cubs needed help in the OF with the continuing woes with Soriano.

But what big risk did they take? He passed a physical first, and they are paying him $284,000, the pro-rated amount of the minimum salary. San Diego and St. Louis are responsible for the rest of the $7.7 million he’s owed this year.

And since being a Cub (42 games)... .260 BA .362 OB% .520 SLG% .882 OPS.

Disadvantage: another LH'd bat

And I don't care what anyone says, or how much how anyone may personally dislike the guy, he was one of the premier CFers in the last decade.

I'm looking '08 only.

The minimal financial investment taken, and that he could have been used to strengthen our bench (dump Valentin), and yes, could have taken some of the pressure off of Bruce when it is needed, and even tutored/helped Bruce (which I'm sure, or hoping, Jr is also doing).

A bad move? Why?

If nothing else.... it would give George Grande something to talk about during the games a he slobbered all over his mike.

mth123 · 07-12-2008, 06:56 AM

Signing Edmonds may have been a good move. He's no longer the CF he once was, but hasn't fallen off the way Griffey has. Edmonds and SD were a poor fit. The huge OF in SD and the rest of NL west (including Colorado where the power numbers obscure the massive size of the OF out there) exposed his reduced range and killed his power numbers at the plate.

In Wrigley (as would have been the case in GABP), the OF isn't so big, which lessens the defensive issues and helps his offense. Edmonds OPS at home is .802 with only a .186 BABIP while on the road a .681 OPS with a .290 BABIP. (Those numbers aren't pure since his SD home games are included). Other NL Central parks (Like Houston) are also a good fit. Lou has done a good job of letting him sit against LH (OPS .532 against LH pitching in only 35 PA), but has used him too much on the road IMO (154 road PA versus 97 at home). Playing him at home and in smaller road parks against only RH pitching with a more rangey defender playing in the bigger OFs maximizes his declining skillset and creates a pretty solid part time player. Just a good fit in Wrigley that wouldn't have worked everywhere. I'd wonder if he would have had the same success between Dunn and Griffey as he has had between the speedy Soriano and Fokudome. I'm guessing that may have been an issue here and the wear and tear on his legs would probably effect his offense.

hebroncougar · 07-12-2008, 07:48 AM

Signing Edmonds was a low risk, decent reward for the Cubs with their lineup being as RH dominant as it is. They needed a LH bat.

PuffyPig · 07-12-2008, 08:28 AM

I'm not sure if you are asking why we didn't sign him?

Edmonds went to the Cubs becuase he wanted to be in a pennant race and stick it to the Cards. He would have always chosen the Cubs over us for that reason.

Jpup · 07-12-2008, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

I'm not sure if you are asking why we didn't sign him?

Edmonds went to the Cubs becuase he wanted to be in a pennant race and stick it to the Cards. He would have always chosen the Cubs over us for that reason.

George says he called Walt first. I would not have wanted him for free. The Reds have enough players that should retire.

GAC · 07-12-2008, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

I'm not sure if you are asking why we didn't sign him?

No... I'm not saying we "missed the boat" or anything. Just wondering if we should have pursued him since he was such a low-risk financially, and could have improved our bench and helped take some of the pressure off of Bruce. Nothing more.

I'm not looking past '08 on this.

Quote:

Edmonds went to the Cubs because he wanted to be in a pennant race and stick it to the Cards. He would have always chosen the Cubs over us for that reason.

He went to the Cubs because they came calling.

And just as Jpup has stated....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jpup

George says he called Walt first.

It appears Edmonds initially called Walt, and Walt said no thanks. So the opportunity was there to have gotten him before the Cub's offer.

I'm not saying it was a huge blunder or anything by Walt or the Reds.... just should we have seriously considered it for the '08 season and the low financial risk (nothing more).

reds44 · 07-12-2008, 12:31 PM

Does Edmonds still play a good defensive CF?

Tom Servo · 07-12-2008, 12:35 PM

I was interested in Jimmy, but what's done is done.

mth123 · 07-12-2008, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reds44

Does Edmonds still play a good defensive CF?

About as good as anyone the Reds have not named Patterson. BUt I really think running between Griffey and Dunn with that fly ball pitching staff would have taken too much out of him for him to be successful here.

Jpup · 07-12-2008, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reds44

Does Edmonds still play a good defensive CF?

no. I would put him below average. If he can get to it, he will catch it, but he's getting very slow.

07-12-2008, 05:50 AM	#1
GAC What Me Worry? Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Bellefontaine, Ohio Posts: 26,416	Jim Edmonds I know how much everyone loves Edmonds on here. So I know this will be a "barn burner" discussion on here; but a co-worker brought this up yesterday. The Cubs signed Edmonds back in May since his release from SD. He's not an everyday player, that is obvious. The Cubs needed help in the OF with the continuing woes with Soriano. But what big risk did they take? He passed a physical first, and they are paying him $284,000, the pro-rated amount of the minimum salary. San Diego and St. Louis are responsible for the rest of the $7.7 million he’s owed this year. And since being a Cub (42 games)... .260 BA .362 OB% .520 SLG% .882 OPS. Disadvantage: another LH'd bat And I don't care what anyone says, or how much how anyone may personally dislike the guy, he was one of the premier CFers in the last decade. I'm looking '08 only. The minimal financial investment taken, and that he could have been used to strengthen our bench (dump Valentin), and yes, could have taken some of the pressure off of Bruce when it is needed, and even tutored/helped Bruce (which I'm sure, or hoping, Jr is also doing). A bad move? Why? If nothing else.... it would give George Grande something to talk about during the games a he slobbered all over his mike. __________________ "panic" only comes from having real expectations

07-12-2008, 06:56 AM	#2
mth123 The Big Dog Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 12,678	Re: Jim Edmonds Signing Edmonds may have been a good move. He's no longer the CF he once was, but hasn't fallen off the way Griffey has. Edmonds and SD were a poor fit. The huge OF in SD and the rest of NL west (including Colorado where the power numbers obscure the massive size of the OF out there) exposed his reduced range and killed his power numbers at the plate. In Wrigley (as would have been the case in GABP), the OF isn't so big, which lessens the defensive issues and helps his offense. Edmonds OPS at home is .802 with only a .186 BABIP while on the road a .681 OPS with a .290 BABIP. (Those numbers aren't pure since his SD home games are included). Other NL Central parks (Like Houston) are also a good fit. Lou has done a good job of letting him sit against LH (OPS .532 against LH pitching in only 35 PA), but has used him too much on the road IMO (154 road PA versus 97 at home). Playing him at home and in smaller road parks against only RH pitching with a more rangey defender playing in the bigger OFs maximizes his declining skillset and creates a pretty solid part time player. Just a good fit in Wrigley that wouldn't have worked everywhere. I'd wonder if he would have had the same success between Dunn and Griffey as he has had between the speedy Soriano and Fokudome. I'm guessing that may have been an issue here and the wear and tear on his legs would probably effect his offense. __________________ "All I can tell them is pick a good one and sock it." --BABE RUTH Having better players makes "the right time" or "the big hit" happen a lot more often. PLUS PLUS

07-12-2008, 07:48 AM	#3
hebroncougar Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 2,015	Re: Jim Edmonds Signing Edmonds was a low risk, decent reward for the Cubs with their lineup being as RH dominant as it is. They needed a LH bat.

07-12-2008, 08:28 AM	#4
PuffyPig Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 9,693	Re: Jim Edmonds I'm not sure if you are asking why we didn't sign him? Edmonds went to the Cubs becuase he wanted to be in a pennant race and stick it to the Cards. He would have always chosen the Cubs over us for that reason.

07-12-2008, 12:35 PM	#8
Tom Servo thirsty and miserable Join Date: May 2006 Location: NJ/NY Posts: 5,391	Re: Jim Edmonds I was interested in Jimmy, but what's done is done. __________________ "Since I've been with the Reds in 1989, we've never had a farm system this loaded," Bowden said. "If we were the New York Yankees and had unlimited dollars, we could have traded for Colon, (Jeff) Weaver, Rolen, (Cliff) Floyd, (Kenny) Rogers and Finley and gotten them all -- and still held onto our top five prospects. That's an amazing statement."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode