From: Colin William on
In exchange for this guy:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/dickech01.shtml

I'm still wondering why the Braves didn't go after Edmonds. Is there
something I'm missing? Yes, he's an injury risk, but it seems to me no
more so than Ankiel.

Colin
From: tom dunne on
On Aug 9, 2:09 pm, Colin William <colintwill...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> In exchange for this guy:
>
> http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/dickech01.shtml
>
> I'm still wondering why the Braves didn't go after Edmonds. Is there
> something I'm missing? Yes, he's an injury risk, but it seems to me no
> more so than Ankiel.

I believe there's an obscure bylaw regarding the waiver trading period
that prohibits a team from acquiring two former Cardinals center
fielders in a single week. (More likely, the Braves had a better
record than the Reds when the claim was made, and so they didn't
really have a chance to get him once the regular trading deadline
passed.)
From: Colin William on
tom dunne wrote:
> On Aug 9, 2:09 pm, Colin William <colintwill...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In exchange for this guy:
>>
>> http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/dickech01.shtml
>>
>> I'm still wondering why the Braves didn't go after Edmonds. Is there
>> something I'm missing? Yes, he's an injury risk, but it seems to me no
>> more so than Ankiel.
>
> I believe there's an obscure bylaw regarding the waiver trading period
> that prohibits a team from acquiring two former Cardinals center
> fielders in a single week. (More likely, the Braves had a better
> record than the Reds when the claim was made, and so they didn't
> really have a chance to get him once the regular trading deadline
> passed.)

I understand why they didn't get him now; what I can't fathom is why
they didn't get him rather than Ankiel. The price was clearly low.

Colin