As always, if you have a question, use the link below to submit it -- and please be sure to include your first name, last initial and hometown. If you send a regular e-mail, rather than using the form, be certain to use the word "mailbag" in the subject header -- otherwise your mail may be directed to the spam folder or possibly be ignored in an unbecoming manner. Also, please understand that literally hundreds of e-mails arrive every week, so they can't all be used in the mailbag or receive personal responses.

Could you please tell me what the Cardinals get out of the Jim Edmonds deal? Any person to at least play in the Minors is incredibly talented, but I just don't see what the Cardinals are getting in David Freese. Please explain this deal.
-- John H., St. Louis

Obviously, when a true franchise icon is dealt for someone that most fans have never heard of, it's going to be the No. 1 topic in e-mail, on radio, on message boards, everywhere. And that has definitely been the case with the Edmonds trade.

There are a lot of factors, so let's break it down some. First, it's very important to note that the player the Cardinals traded is not the same player who was an MVP candidate and a true star of the game for most of his tenure. Due to injuries and age, Edmonds just isn't the impact player he once was. So while his historic and emotional value to the Cardinals is absolutely indisputable, you can't trade historic and emotional value.

That's not in any way to diminish what Edmonds has meant to the franchise. He's a better Hall of Fame candidate than some give him credit for, as one of the great offensive and defensive center fielders in the history of the game. Whatever may be said about his current value, it's with the full acknowledgment that his career accomplishments are truly something special.

But at this point in time, the Cardinals had a 37-year-old player showing signs of serious decline. That's how other teams look at Edmonds, regardless of how much he accomplished in St. Louis. So there was no serious chance of getting an impact starting pitcher, a big bat in the Major Leagues now, or anything like that.

Freese is an interesting player, but he needs to get going quickly. He's hit everywhere he's gone in the Minor Leagues, but at the same time, he's also been old for his level at every stop. Ideally, he'll start at Springfield and make it to Memphis this year.

But the fact is, whatever Freese may do, this deal was less about him and more about the center-field situation in St. Louis. First, Edmonds requested a trade because he saw that he was likely to be a part-time player this year. Second, given his recent performance, the truth is that his replacements are likely to equal or better his production this year.

Have a question about the Cardinals? E-mail your query to MLB.com Cardinals beat reporter Matthew Leach for possible inclusion in a future Inbox column. Letters may be edited for brevity, length and/or content. First Name, Last Initial: Hometown: Email Address: Question:

Now I am officially sad. Edmonds was my favorite player. Are the Redbirds now in rebuilding mode, with dealing Jim and trying to get rid of Scott Rolen, or are they just clearing up some cash to make a big deal? Please tell me what your opinion is, of what's going on.
-- Pat R., Huntington, Ind.

This is the hardest question to answer, not only for an outside observer but for the team itself. But the fact is, at this point the Cardinals are at least admitting that there's not a lot out there that makes sense for them in terms of big names for 2008. I'm of the opinion that as far as the big-name players that they missed out on already, in most cases they were either wise to stay away or actually couldn't have matched the offer.

General manager John Mozeliak continues to preach patience, and until we all see what the club fields on Opening Day, I think it's fair to grant that patience. The Cardinals are undeniably in a position where they're making up for some questionable contracts, and their flexibility is limited.

Are they rebuilding? No. Are they committing every possible resource to putting the best possible team on the field for Opening Day 2008? No, because in this market, doing so would be crippling to future teams.

In the end, I believe that they're trying to balance the two, to the extent that you can do that. They're keeping their ears open for the big acquisition that could help win in 2008, but they're not going to make that acquisition at the expense of harming the team in the long run. Giving up a ton of prospects for a fading star (like Miguel Tejada) doesn't make sense, and neither does overcommitting to a good-but-not-great starting pitcher.

As a result of decisions made over the past couple of years, the current situation is a tough one. It may take much of 2008 to put the franchise back in the position where it's used to being.

With Edmonds gone, who do you think the Cardinals will tab as their center fielder? As much as I like Colby Rasmus, I don't think he's quite ready for The Show. And, who are some names that the Cardinals have been considering to sign through free agency, and what are some trades that they have been considering?
-- Jacob S., Crane, Mo.

The day the Edmonds deal was finalized, I asked basically this very question to both Mozeliak and manager Tony La Russa, and understandably they had somewhat different answers.

From the organizational perspective, according to Mozeliak, Rick Ankiel currently stands No. 1 on the center-field depth chart. But as anyone who follows La Russa knows, he prefers not to guarantee jobs to much of anybody, with the exception of his biggest stars. So La Russa said on Saturday that while Ankiel is a serious candidate, Skip Schumaker will be considered for time, and Ryan Ludwick will as well. He didn't mention Brian Barton, but you'd have to think that Barton will be in the mix also. Rasmus will play in Spring Training and will get a chance to shine, but he'll probably start at Triple-A Memphis before making a midseason arrival in St. Louis.

The Cardinals will consider pursuing a short-term bridge in center field, but it's not likely that they will add somebody. Even following the trade, this is one area where the club is very deep.

The Mitchell Report has left me slightly confused. As we all know, earlier in the year, Ankiel's name was related to HGH use, but he was not penalized by MLB. Is the information in the Mitchell Report the same (or at least related) to the information that we already knew? How will this affect Ankiel's relationship with the Cardinals? Finally, have there been any adverse effects on other players and their respective teams (release, fining, etc.)? Love the mailbag, one of my favorite parts of StLCardinals.com; that, and seeing a win under last night's game.
-- Travers W., Alton, Ill.

Regarding Ankiel, there was really nothing new in the report that wasn't already public. The purchases are pretty well documented, but MLB decided -- evidently based on the time frame of the events -- that Ankiel should not be penalized. When the report came out, it had unearthed nothing new on Ankiel, so his status regarding the HGH situation should be unchanged.

As for other players, we haven't seen any disciplinary action taken to this point. It will be something to watch as far as how clubs and MLB handle the various revelations.

Mr. Leach, first-time caller; long-time listener. Due to a VERY annoying blackout of the Cards in Indy, I don't get to watch them as much as I would like. That qualification notwithstanding, I don't get it. Every time I saw Brendan Ryan play, he really looked like he was coming along. Is finishing the year at a .289 average that bad? It seems as though everyone is dismissing him as a possibility at shortstop or second base for next year. At his price tag, why isn't Ryan receiving more consideration?
-- Gabriel H., Indianapolis

What Ryan actually accomplished in '07 is hard to dismiss. He hit .289/.347/.406, stole seven bases in seven tries and played sometimes impressive though occasionally erratic defense. His place on the '08 team seems secure, but I believe that the staff saw those erratic tendencies and were hesitant to commit to him as an everyday player at second or short.

Still, he should get plenty of chance to play. There's a good chance he'll play against nearly all left-handed pitchers, since both Cesar Izturis and Adam Kennedy are better against righties.

Now that Mark Prior is a free agent, do you think there is any chance that the Cardinals would take a chance on him?
-- Brad C., Liberty, Mo.

There is a chance, yes. The Cardinals have some interest in Prior, but they're not all over him or anything. He's on the radar, is probably a good way to put it.