Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
DoppelgangBang:According to SD Union Tribune via Rotoworld:
" According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, there are signs first baseman Adrian Gonzalez will be traded "sooner than later."
Gonzalez, 27, is under team control for another two years. But he'll continue to lose value as free agency nears. As the Union-Tribune notes, the slugger was left out of a brochure shipped to prospective season-ticket holders at the end of the season and his agent, John Boggs, has not been approached by the Padres' new ownership group about the possibility of inking a contract extension. Gonzalez posted a .958 OPS and 40 home runs this season. A laundry list of teams would come calling if he's made available this winter. "Adrian is gonna move ... we gotta make a play. Acquire Collapso, acquire Gonzalez and I will care much less about snagging a #1.
Furcal
Kemp
Gonzalez
Ramirez
Ethier
Blake
Callaspo
MartinWOW that would be nasty. Use Billz, Kershaw and Kuroda ... sign Padilla, Sheets and back up with youngsters ... and a SICK bullpen.
Good to go.
I think the cost that San Diego would require to trade Gonzalez in the division would be astronomical... but I can't argue that a middle of the order consisting of Kemp/Gonzalez/Manny/Ethier is just INSANE.
Mike Scioscia's tragic illness - the blog! For Dodger analysis, reviews, and hilarity.DoppelgangBang:I think Halladay is a goner before the start of the season. There's no chance of the Jays contending and they are in FULL rebuild mode. Any GM worth his salt knows that it's time to ditch expensive players and reinvest in player development. I have to think that's what they're trying for ... the good thing here is that perhaps they are willing to take players who are in the low minors, considering they are several years off from contending. What kinda play would a Loney & Elbert deal get? Then maybe sign Beltre to a cheap deal, move Blake to 1st. Just a thought. That is of course adding like 10M in payroll ... so perhaps NOT gonna happen.
My #1 move would be to snag Adrian Gonzalez, but I just don't see SD giving him to us without putting us through the wringer - there are lots of teams out there that would be VERY interested and that are our equal in prospects cache.
Why all the love for Blake? Loney outhit him in the playoffs by a ton is cheaper and much younger. I am more inclined than ever to release Blake and let DeWitt play 3rd.
Mike Scioscias tragic illness:I think the cost that San Diego would require to trade Gonzalez in the division would be astronomical... but I can't argue that a middle of the order consisting of Kemp/Gonzalez/Manny/Ethier is just INSANE.
i would buy my A GONZ jersey immediately
i honestly think Kemp needs the beard in his life.
and i really don't think Dewitt would lead us anywhere. mediocrity at best.
Gonzales and Blake are far more superior than Dewitt and Loney
Mike Scioscias tragic illness:I think the cost that San Diego would require to trade Gonzalez in the division would be astronomical... but I can't argue that a middle of the order consisting of Kemp/Gonzalez/Manny/Ethier is just INSANE.
Also, Manny in all likelihood is done with us after this year ... and this would replace his bat in a SERIOUS way - and not in just a 1-year rental!
I think if we're looking at acquiring Halladay OR Gonzalez and the cost in terms of prospects were equal ... I'd pick Gonzalez.
I like the thought of us getting two years out of Gonzalez ... and I think our chances of doing a deal with Roy are next to none, considering what he'll get on the FA market ...
The mad scientist formerly known as ngrossloneymiller:Why all the love for Blake? Loney outhit him in the playoffs by a ton is cheaper and much younger. I am more inclined than ever to release Blake and let DeWitt play 3rd.
I don't have massive love for Blake. I'd love to replace him entirely ... Loney has value on the trade market and could be used as a BIG piece to acquire something we desperately need. I think I would prefer Beltre @3B and Blake @1B as opposed to Blake @3B and Loney @1B ... especially if Beltre's cheap and Loney could net us a massive return! The Defense is MASSIVELY improved and the potential for offensive improvement over the year before is STILL there. And again, we used Loney to acquire a needed piece to improve the team overall.
I'm not saying this is 100% the way to go, just an option to consider.
The mad scientist formerly known as ngrossLoney is only attractive as part of a package to acquire said "Big Piece". I believe that the Dodgers will need to make two "Huge" acquisitions this year. Obviously an Ace type pitcher (Lackey anyone??) and a bat, the obvious choice being Gonzalez. The Dodgers can do this by using Loney,Dewitt and Arms from the system to get Gonzalez, possibly sweetening the deal to include Russell for an additional piece coming back to the Dodgers. This deal was bandied around during the last trading deadline. Who knows it may be rekindled at the GM Meetings. Lackey is the kind of Bulldog the Dodgers have lacked for a long time and although he has been hurt the past 2 seasons, he is better than anyone we have who is not named Kershaw.
carlerskine:Obviously an Ace type pitcher (Lackey anyone??) Lackey is the kind of Bulldog the Dodgers have lacked for a long time and although he has been hurt the past 2 seasons, he is better than anyone we have who is not named Kershaw.
Am I the only one who doesn't see Lackey as any sort of ace, and is a nice #2 at best?
Mike Scioscia's tragic illness - the blog! For Dodger analysis, reviews, and hilarity.Mike Scioscias tragic illness:Am I the only one who doesn't see Lackey as any sort of ace, and is a nice #2 at best?
Because of his injury history...yea, I agree with you. I'd rather go with Chien Ming Wang on a short term, incentive laden deal rather than John Lackey.
Tim Kurkjian says that if the Dodgers want to trade for a pitcher, that it has to start with Chad Billingsley.
Mike Scioscias tragic illness:Am I the only one who doesn't see Lackey as any sort of ace, and is a nice #2 at best?
I don't see him as a PURE ace ... that's why I wouldn't support offering him north of say $16M per year. However I do see him as being worthy of around 15M per - something like a 4/60 deal. He is, when healthy, a very solid pitcher with a nice track record in the playoffs.
He isn't a true ACE - but, how many TRUE aces are actually in existence? 5? Many are on/off ... like Beckett and Cole Hamels and even Sabathia ...
The mad scientist formerly known as ngrossMike Scioscias tragic illness:Am I the only one who doesn't see Lackey as any sort of ace, and is a nice #2 at best?
I agreee Mike. I see Lackey as a very good #2 when healthy. Problem is, he's shown he's a little injury prone the last few years and he's hit 30. I think his best years are behind him and have no desire to pay him ace-like money for what we're likely to get from him. If he's the ace-type we are going to get, I'd say we need to pass on an ace-like pitcher.
"It is called being a professional. If you take the money, give the effort. If you are a pro in any sport, you are always supposed to give your best effort." ~Joe Morgan.My skeptical side keeps nudging me and asking me if the Dodgers are going to do anything of note until the firestorm between the McCourts is resolved? I am wondering this because if the Dodgers are in play, how can any major deal be approved if their is a potential for this team to be sold as part of divorce settlement?
Basically, outside of negotiating with their own players, I get the feeling that we are going to be doing a whole bunch of watching this Winter.
NewportDevil:My skeptical side keeps nudging me and asking me if the Dodgers are going to do anything of note until the firestorm between the McCourts is resolved? I am wondering this because if the Dodgers are in play, how can any major deal be approved if their is a potential for this team to be sold as part of divorce settlement?
Basically, outside of negotiating with their own players, I get the feeling that we are going to be doing a whole bunch of watching this Winter.
I agree--we'll probably see a handful of low-risk, unflashy moves, like re-signing Padilla to a one-year deal and maybe taking a flyer on Bedard. Or I could see Garland returning on a one-year deal for much less than what he would've gotten with the option kicking in.
They certainly had better offer arbitration to both Wolf and Hudson, although it seems fairly likely Hudson could end up with a team whose first-rounder would be protected (i.e. Washington). Wouldn't that figure?
And I can see Wolf getting two or three years from the Mets.
NewportDevil:My skeptical side keeps nudging me and asking me if the Dodgers are going to do anything of note until the firestorm between the McCourts is resolved? I am wondering this because if the Dodgers are in play, how can any major deal be approved if their is a potential for this team to be sold as part of divorce settlement?
Basically, outside of negotiating with their own players, I get the feeling that we are going to be doing a whole bunch of watching this Winter.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
We did a lot of sitting and watching last winter. Wolfie, O-Dog and Manny were all late signings, after we did diddly in the trade bazaar. However, many of us do get the feeling that this winter will pass by sloooooowlly with little if any Dodger activity, other than in divorce court.
Every silver lining has a cloud.elysianpark62:I agree--we'll probably see a handful of low-risk, unflashy moves, like re-signing Padilla to a one-year deal and maybe taking a flyer on Bedard. They certainly had better offer arbitration to both Wolf and Hudson, although it seems fairly likely Hudson could end up with a team whose first-rounder would be protected (i.e. Washington). Wouldn't that figure?
And I can see Wolf getting two or three years from the Mets.
Either way, I'll take 2DPs for Hudson - either 1st or 2nd and a supplemental. We have to offer him arbitration.
What the club can do financially is a question of whether we will operate at the payroll used last year, where we have ~10M to spend; if we'll not be able to add any significant payroll; or if we'll be able to increase payroll above last year.
Options 1 and 2 are most likely ... but even under option 1, we could make a big move if we sent out some salary in any deal. Getting Lackey requires a commitment to an increased payroll. I see that as being very UNlikely.
The mad scientist formerly known as ngrossNewportDevil:My skeptical side keeps nudging me and asking me if the Dodgers are going to do anything of note until the firestorm between the McCourts is resolved? I am wondering this because if the Dodgers are in play, how can any major deal be approved if their is a potential for this team to be sold as part of divorce settlement?
Basically, outside of negotiating with their own players, I get the feeling that we are going to be doing a whole bunch of watching this Winter.
I agree, also. Moves like the one being bandied about to get Alberto Callaspo to play second will be the type that Ned will make, this off-season. Bedard looks like the same kind of move, high risk, high reward. The same can be said for Sheets, Harden and Padilla. But, Ned seems to have some kind of success in these type of moves. It also helps that Logan White seems to be the arbiter in whether these moves are made. I could live with a Bedard or Sheets signing if either is interested in a relatively low base with easily attainable incentives (like Hudson and Wolf). Filling the bench looks dicey. I would not be shocked to see Ausmus and Castro being brought back. Of course, if we can move Slap without eating too much salary, that would be good, also. I would not be shocked to see our depth being much younger than the past with guys like Hu, Paul and I would not complain if we brought back Mitch Jones to be the backup at first and left along with our power bat off of the bench.
But, if and when this team does get sold (and it will), expect Ned to be given the freedom to make a big move. I gotta figure whoever the new owner is, he or she will want to make a big showing for the media.
I'll play the radio on Southern stations because Southern Belles are Hell at night...elysianpark62:I agree--we'll probably see a handful of low-risk, unflashy moves, like re-signing Padilla to a one-year deal and maybe taking a flyer on Bedard. Or I could see Garland returning on a one-year deal for much less than what he would've gotten with the option kicking in.
They certainly had better offer arbitration to both Wolf and Hudson, although it seems fairly likely Hudson could end up with a team whose first-rounder would be protected (i.e. Washington). Wouldn't that figure?
And I can see Wolf getting two or three years from the Mets.
EP, both the Mets and Nats' picks are protected, IIRC. Seeing as how the Mets will be big players for Holliday/Lackey, we are looking at a sandwich and a third for Wolf, if he signs with the Mets. If the Nats don't sign anyone besides Hudson (pure speculation, at this point) we get a sandwich and the first pick of the second round. Not as good a payoff as we would have with three first rounders and two sandwichs, but unless the McCourts are gone, extra first round picks are wasted on the Blue because the McCourts can't see past their attempts to leach as much money from the Blue as possible.
I'll play the radio on Southern stations because Southern Belles are Hell at night...grabarkewitz:EP, both the Mets and Nats' picks are protected, IIRC. Seeing as how the Mets will be big players for Holliday/Lackey, we are looking at a sandwich and a third for Wolf, if he signs with the Mets. If the Nats don't sign anyone besides Hudson (pure speculation, at this point) we get a sandwich and the first pick of the second round. Not as good a payoff as we would have with three first rounders and two sandwichs, but unless the McCourts are gone, extra first round picks are wasted on the Blue because the McCourts can't see past their attempts to leach as much money from the Blue as possible.
Yes, it probably doesn't matter much whether the Dodgers get another team's first- or second-rounder. Their meager spending on draftees the last few years has been inexcusable, and I would not expect them to sign, say, two or three first-rounders, anyway.
People writing somewhat in the McCourts' defense point to mostly winning seasons under the McCourts' reign. However, they inherited the young core of talent. It's not like they ponied up the money to draft them. To the (various) GMs' credit, the young core was retained. But with the well having dried up, it's time to reinvest and reinvigorate the farm system. And the sooner the move to a new regime that will do that, the better for this organization.
elysianpark62:People writing somewhat in the McCourts' defense point to mostly winning seasons under the McCourts' reign. However, they inherited the young core of talent. It's not like they ponied up the money to draft them. To the (various) GMs' credit, the young core was retained.
I like the way DT put it when Colletti was extended - (paraphrased) "I don't give him credit for holding onto the young core. That's like knowing to put on pants before going into work."
Mike Scioscia's tragic illness - the blog! For Dodger analysis, reviews, and hilarity.Mike Scioscias tragic illness:I like the way DT put it when Colletti was extended - (paraphrased) "I don't give him credit for holding onto the young core. That's like knowing to put on pants before going into work."
Yeah, great line by Weisman. It wasn't like anyone really tempted the man to make a deal for the young core, anyway.
I'll play the radio on Southern stations because Southern Belles are Hell at night...Got to agree with the consensus, we'll be shopping on the scrap heap once again. This is getting old.
"I know, everybody funny, now you funny too."Babe Herman:Got to agree with the consensus, we'll be shopping on the scrap heap once again. This is getting old.
At least there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Frank & Hot Lips have to sell and Mark Cuban let it be known he is an interested buyer. I gotta think that Bud is running out of well-heeled types to buy his franchises. His reluctance to let someone who doesn't kiss his ass to be part of his clubhouse is not a good idea, any longer.
I'll play the radio on Southern stations because Southern Belles are Hell at night...elysianpark62:People writing somewhat in the McCourts' defense point to mostly winning seasons under the McCourts' reign. However, they inherited the young core of talent. It's not like they ponied up the money to draft them. To the (various) GMs' credit, the young core was retained. But with the well having dried up, it's time to reinvest and reinvigorate the farm system. And the sooner the move to a new regime that will do that, the better for this organization.
Those same people are the type of fans the McCourts want. Anyone who goes beyond the Dodger Stadium experience knows too much about the game to be among the McCourt lovers of the world. These clowns have have more luck than anything. They fire Dan Evans because he didn't sign Vlad Guerrero even though it was their lack of funding that caused that to happen. They fire PDP because he didn't make nice with Plass-Hat and Simers and to top that, they hamstring Colletti by being more interested in spending like a young Hilton than running a baseball properly. Yet, they still have defenders and fools who actually think they are good for the Dodgers. Including morons like the foofs at ESPN and Fox. Spin is a wonderful thing.
I'll play the radio on Southern stations because Southern Belles are Hell at night...AOL reporting that Orlando Hudson's going to win the NL Gold Glove. Kind of a joke.
Mike Scioscia's tragic illness - the blog! For Dodger analysis, reviews, and hilarity.Dylan Hernandez tweeted that we're not likely to go after Jason Marquis, because he's "out of our price range" ... seriously?
That's just pathetic.
The mad scientist formerly known as ngrossDoppelgangBang:Dylan Hernandez tweeted that we're not likely to go after Jason Marquis, because he's "out of our price range" ... seriously?
That's just pathetic.
I'm happy to hear that, though. Marquis is HUGELY overrated in my book.
Mike Scioscia's tragic illness - the blog! For Dodger analysis, reviews, and hilarity.Mike Scioscias tragic illness:I'm happy to hear that, though. Marquis is HUGELY overrated in my book.
Agreed. However, there's a big difference between overpriced and out of our price range ... the former shows that our FO is on top of things and isn't willing to commit big $$$ to a mediocre player, the latter just lets me know that we can't even afford to use the small payroll room we have from last year.
The mad scientist formerly known as ngrossDodgers FA's are Randy Wolf, Orlando Hudson, Jon Garland, Juan Castro, Mark Loretta, wILL Ohman, Eric Milton, Ronnie Belliard, Doug Mientkiewicz, Brad Ausmus, Vicente Padilla, Guillermo Mota, Jeff Weaver and Jim Thome.
I'd offer arbitration to Wolf and Hudson. If Hudson goes the FA route, I'd make a run at signing Belliard, but not put too much stock in six weeks of fairly productive offense.
Padilla is a tough one. Going into that final game he pitched in Philly, he looked like multi-year worthy. (What was that I said about six weeks?) His career doesn't really point to his doing as well long term, but watching him, I like his stuff a lot. The question is his off field issues. It's being whispered that he drinks a lot, is not a good teammate, and has an uncontrollable temper. None of those were issues with the Dodgers last year, so I think I'd see what his agent has in mind and if a one-year deal is in their plans.
If we lose out on Wolf and Padilla, then maybe kick the tires on Garland. He is an innings eater and had only one bad game in Blue. I felt he should have been on the postseason roster, certainly ahead of Elbert in the LCS.
Juan Castro, Mark Loretta, wILL Ohman, Eric Milton, and Jim Thome can walk. Eyechart, Mota, Weaver, and Ausmus could all contribute in '10 and should be considered.
On the other hand...
While we have it tough here in Dodgertown this Hot Stove, at least we're NOT the Giants...! Northern California sports radio is reporting (1140 KHTK, Sacramento) that the Giants are kicking the tires with the Cubbies on a Rowand for Gameboy swap...! Milton Bradley to San Francisco would be PRICELESS...! The mere fact that they would even consider trading a somewhat underperforming (& overpaid!) clubhouse leader for the faux-injury riddled, race-card baiting, poison-pill that is our beloved "Gameboy"; well, it is just so Brian Sabean...! Let's hope this deal gets done before Thanksgiving...
For a few moments, at least, our troubles don't seem quite so gloomy...! Now, back to our regularly-scheduled hand wringing...
Michael Mahler