Remove this ad

#581 [url]

Aug 1 16 12:58 PM

WildHare wrote:
We have, seven, count 'em, seven former and current GM's in the front office, and this is the best they can do. Did they help negotiate the Iran nuke deal???

smiley: rollsmiley: rollsmiley: rollsmiley: rollsmiley: rollsmiley: rollsmiley: roll
Line of the day...! 

Remove this ad

#582 [url]

Aug 1 16 1:00 PM

DieHardDodgerFan wrote:
NewportDodger wrote:
The one thing that is key to note is that Friedman is gambling heavy here on the farm system. He is going all in with this chips because the MLB product is not there at this time. It could be that he has a mandate to stay cost-controlled and has his hands tied. It could be that he gets paralysis by analysis and just can't pull the trigger on the big names. Zaidi has to have value there somewhere as well in this process. If it pans out and we have two aces is Urias and DeLeon plus Verdugo and Bellinger form a core with Seager in the future then it's a great plan. If it falls short, Friedman is looking for another job.

If Kershaw is done though, it wouldn't have mattered who we picked up.  

Yeah, I'm wondering if the uncertainty of Kershaw's back made the front office be more conservative in the trades they made.

Still, they could have probably gotten Matt Moore from the Rays, picked up Chavez from Toronto and called it a day. I would have been okay with that.

Of course, I'm assuming the Dodgers could've traded for Moore without giving up Urias or Bellinger, but maybe the Rays were asking for a king's ransom from the Dodgers. 
The uncertainty of Kershaw's back is exactly why they should have been all in on Sale.  Dread the thought, he may never be the same again.  Hell, if he gets his back cut on, he may never throw another pitch.

#583 [url]

Aug 1 16 1:00 PM

DieHardDodgerFan wrote:
WildHare wrote:
Somebody help here, please. Tell me how any of this makes sense.

Our biggest problem areas were:
A.) Multiple disabled starting pitchers. So, we acquired a pitcher, Hill, currently on the DL. Yeah, I know it's a blister but his 76 IP is the MOST he's thrown since 2007! His history screams OUCH!

B.) Hitting against left handed pitchers. So, we acquired a lefty hitter, Reddick, with the most amazingly awful splits. OPS .955 vs. righties, .425 vs. lefties. (25% of his PA's vs. lefties, so it's not a terribly sss.)

C.) Additional bullpen depth, preferably a solid eighth inning setup man. So, we get a reliever, Jesse Chavez, who has allowed 8 earned runs in his last 5.1 innings and isn't better than any of our current relievers.

All have the stench of Oakland and are free agents at the end of 2016. We lose three prospects some of whom I prize more than two months of these three.

We have, seven, count 'em, seven former and current GM's in the front office, and this is the best they can do. Did they help negotiate the Iran nuke deal???

I can see where this trade COULD help the Dodgers, but it could also flame out like the deals they pulled at the deadline last year.

Difference this year is that Frankie Montas and/or Grant Holmes could end up useful contributors to the A's down the road. Or good trade chips.

I'm guessing Zaidi had a lot of influence on these two trades.
I'm of the opinion that Zaidi is still working for the A's...!  

#584 [url]

Aug 1 16 1:13 PM

Were the Brewers against trading Braun or something? I didn't really hear any rumors about him being available or teams being interested in him, but Braun, Jeffress and Moore would have been a good deadline day that made sense and addressed our direct needs.

I just get the sense sometimes that our front office may spend too much time trying to be tricky with 3-way deals and player-flips rather than just calling a team and saying, "I want that player, let's make a deal".

I, of all people, understand that it takes two willing sides to complete a trade, but the deals for Moore, Lucroy/Jeffress and Bruce all seemed reasonably priced, did they not? Is there really that much of a premium being charged to the Dodgers, just for being "the Dodgers"?

#585 [url]

Aug 1 16 1:14 PM

WOW! The Dodgers made one final HUGE trade before the 1PM deadline! I cannot believe that MLBN or ESPN doesn't have this on their breaking news crawler. We're going to the WS!!!!
-------------------------------------
DODGERS ACQUIRE JOSH FIELDS FROM HOUSTON

LOS ANGELES - The Los Angeles Dodgers today acquired right-handed reliever Josh Fields from the Astros in exchange for minor league first baseman Yordan Alvarez.

Fields, 30, went 1-0 with one save and a 1.65 ERA in 23 relief appearances for the Astros' Triple-A Fresno this season, limiting opponents to a .192 batting average with a 0.65 WHIP. He also made 15 appearances for the Astros this year, posting a 6.89 ERA (12 ER/15.2 IP), and went 9-10 with nine saves and a 4.53 ERA in 164 big-league games with Houston in four seasons from 2013-16, averaging better than a strikeout per inning in the Majors with 197 Ks in 159.0 innings. He was originally selected by the Mariners in the first round (20th overall) of the 2008 First-Year Player Draft out of the University of Georgia.
Alvarez, 19, was signed by the Dodgers as an amateur free agent on June 15 out of Las Tunas, Cuba.
To create room on the 40-man roster, the Dodgers transferred left-handed pitcher Hyun-Jin Ryu (left elbow tendinitis) to the 60-day disabled list.

#586 [url]

Aug 1 16 1:14 PM

ocmike24 wrote:
DieHardDodgerFan wrote:
NewportDodger wrote:
The one thing that is key to note is that Friedman is gambling heavy here on the farm system. He is going all in with this chips because the MLB product is not there at this time. It could be that he has a mandate to stay cost-controlled and has his hands tied. It could be that he gets paralysis by analysis and just can't pull the trigger on the big names. Zaidi has to have value there somewhere as well in this process. If it pans out and we have two aces is Urias and DeLeon plus Verdugo and Bellinger form a core with Seager in the future then it's a great plan. If it falls short, Friedman is looking for another job.

If Kershaw is done though, it wouldn't have mattered who we picked up.  

Yeah, I'm wondering if the uncertainty of Kershaw's back made the front office be more conservative in the trades they made.

Still, they could have probably gotten Matt Moore from the Rays, picked up Chavez from Toronto and called it a day. I would have been okay with that.

Of course, I'm assuming the Dodgers could've traded for Moore without giving up Urias or Bellinger, but maybe the Rays were asking for a king's ransom from the Dodgers. 
The uncertainty of Kershaw's back is exactly why they should have been all in on Sale.  Dread the thought, he may never be the same again.  Hell, if he gets his back cut on, he may never throw another pitch.

First off, I doubt its THAT serious. At least I hope not.

And if Kershaw does need back surgery, then I actually am glad they kept Urias and De Leon because they could end up major parts of the rotation that much sooner.

Personally, I think Kershaw does come back this year, but only once he's 100%. That may take a little more time but better to be safe than sorry.

#587 [url]

Aug 1 16 1:28 PM

I'll be interested to see if Reddick will be in the lineup Wednesday night against a LH starter. I hope not.

#588 [url]

Aug 1 16 1:29 PM

DSinSoCal wrote:
Were the Brewers against trading Braun or something? I didn't really hear any rumors about him being available or teams being interested in him, but Braun, Jeffress and Moore would have been a good deadline day that made sense and addressed our direct needs.

I just get the sense sometimes that our front office may spend too much time trying to be tricky with 3-way deals and player-flips rather than just calling a team and saying, "I want that player, let's make a deal".

I, of all people, understand that it takes two willing sides to complete a trade, but the deals for Moore, Lucroy/Jeffress and Bruce all seemed reasonably priced, did they not? Is there really that much of a premium being charged to the Dodgers, just for being "the Dodgers"?

I don't think the FO guys are stupid or incompetent, far from it.  The only way I can make any sense out of all of this is to think their real plan continues to be to reduce payroll, wait for the kids to be ready, and try to remain competitive enough to fill seats while the kids develop.  I think they are intentionally playing on the gullibility of the fans by making it seem like they are in active pursuit of most of the big names out there and doing enough window dressing moves to look like they are trying.  In the meantime the old bloated contracts come closer to running off and the kids come closer to reaching the majors.

#589 [url]

Aug 1 16 1:33 PM

Anyone have any thoughts on upcoming roster manipulations? Obviously if Hill, Reddick, and Chavez are added, three corresponding 25-man roster moves have to take place. I would guess Toles and Taylor go back down and possibly Avilan or Stripling.

#590 [url]

Aug 1 16 1:38 PM

WildHare wrote:
Anyone have any thoughts on upcoming roster manipulations? Obviously if Hill, Reddick, and Chavez are added, three corresponding 25-man roster moves have to take place. I would guess Toles and Taylor go back down and possibly Avilan or Stripling.

I'd send down Chavez.

Remove this ad

#591 [url]

Aug 1 16 1:39 PM

beefchopper wrote:
DSinSoCal wrote:
Were the Brewers against trading Braun or something? I didn't really hear any rumors about him being available or teams being interested in him, but Braun, Jeffress and Moore would have been a good deadline day that made sense and addressed our direct needs.

I just get the sense sometimes that our front office may spend too much time trying to be tricky with 3-way deals and player-flips rather than just calling a team and saying, "I want that player, let's make a deal".

I, of all people, understand that it takes two willing sides to complete a trade, but the deals for Moore, Lucroy/Jeffress and Bruce all seemed reasonably priced, did they not? Is there really that much of a premium being charged to the Dodgers, just for being "the Dodgers"?

I don't think the FO guys are stupid or incompetent, far from it.  The only way I can make any sense out of all of this is to think their real plan continues to be to reduce payroll, wait for the kids to be ready, and try to remain competitive enough to fill seats while the kids develop.  I think they are intentionally playing on the gullibility of the fans by making it seem like they are in active pursuit of most of the big names out there and doing enough window dressing moves to look like they are trying.  In the meantime the old bloated contracts come closer to running off and the kids come closer to reaching the majors.
This glitch in that thinking is that Moore is guaranteed through 2019 at a VERY team friendly rate.  He's owed less than 9 million/year from 2017-2019.   After returning from TJ surgery he finally appears to be right and he has pitched REALLY well over his last 10 starts.  He's exactly the type of pitcher that should appeal to our front office.  High ceiling, potentially under-valued, relatively cheap and cost-controlled for several years.   We should have spent the prospects there, IMO. 

#592 [url]

Aug 1 16 1:40 PM

beefchopper wrote:
DSinSoCal wrote:
Were the Brewers against trading Braun or something? I didn't really hear any rumors about him being available or teams being interested in him, but Braun, Jeffress and Moore would have been a good deadline day that made sense and addressed our direct needs.

I just get the sense sometimes that our front office may spend too much time trying to be tricky with 3-way deals and player-flips rather than just calling a team and saying, "I want that player, let's make a deal".

I, of all people, understand that it takes two willing sides to complete a trade, but the deals for Moore, Lucroy/Jeffress and Bruce all seemed reasonably priced, did they not? Is there really that much of a premium being charged to the Dodgers, just for being "the Dodgers"?

I don't think the FO guys are stupid or incompetent, far from it.  The only way I can make any sense out of all of this is to think their real plan continues to be to reduce payroll, wait for the kids to be ready, and try to remain competitive enough to fill seats while the kids develop.  I think they are intentionally playing on the gullibility of the fans by making it seem like they are in active pursuit of most of the big names out there and doing enough window dressing moves to look like they are trying.  In the meantime the old bloated contracts come closer to running off and the kids come closer to reaching the majors.
That's a nice strategy, other than the fact that I've seen nothing from this group of "kids" that leads me to believe they are top tier talent, outside of maybe Urias (and I'm still not sold on him being a top 5 pitcher either).

#593 [url]

Aug 1 16 1:40 PM

beefchopper wrote:
WildHare wrote:
Anyone have any thoughts on upcoming roster manipulations? Obviously if Hill, Reddick, and Chavez are added, three corresponding 25-man roster moves have to take place. I would guess Toles and Taylor go back down and possibly Avilan or Stripling.

I'd send down Chavez.
lol.   It's funny because it's true.  He doesn't belong in our pen any more than Bolsinger did.

#594 [url]

Aug 1 16 1:42 PM

WildHare wrote:
Anyone have any thoughts on upcoming roster manipulations? Obviously if Hill, Reddick, and Chavez are added, three corresponding 25-man roster moves have to take place. I would guess Toles and Taylor go back down and possibly Avilan or Stripling.

My guess is Toles, Taylor and Stripling go down.

Kendrick and Utley will platoon at 2B (as well as play some LF) and they will continue on with 8 pitchers in the pen. 

#595 [url]

Aug 1 16 2:10 PM

Kind of expected that when we didn't get another starter that bitching would start. At the end of the day, we didn't overpay for any player. Holmes upside is now, the only thing that might improve is command and that is an iffy thing for a full-effort kid who is stocky now and could have some serious body concerns in the future. Montas can't stay healthy and also has body concerns, even though the injuries are bizarre, he still hasn't shown us anything and we are basically trading an injured pitcher who has less than ten innings on the farm for a guy who has 76 very good innings in the show. Hell, it is a rental and a cheap one at that. Lastly, Cotton is the mystery guy. Is he a starter or is he a reliever? Even the Dodgers don't know. I am thinking reliever and even with the overpayment, leaguewide, for veteran relief arms, they are still a dime a dozen if he doesn't close. Lastly, lost Bolsinger....good riddance, 'nuf said.

We get Josh Reddick and if we slot him into left field, we have the best defensive outfield in the game. Add in Hill, when (if) healthy, he is very good. Not my first choice but given the price paid by the Giants for Matt Moore, we got away damned cheap. We added Jesse Chavez, who was a poor fit in Toronto and the AL East. Guy can be hard to square up and his peripheral numbers aren't bad. Josh Fields looks like farm fodder, who will likely get a call up in September.

For what it is worth, we still have Urias, JDL, Stewart, Alvarez, Verdugo, Bellinger, Calhoun, Barnes, etc..... Maybe the Blue saw enough in Puig, yesterday, to think that he has turned the corner. By adding Reddick, we have ended the Howie Kendrick experiment and maybe he can start splitting time with Utley. At the end of this day, we still have enough to swing a deal for Chris Sale or Chris Archer in December. Resigning Reddick could be a move, but we still have Verdugo who can slot into left field in '17. Could we have done more? Sure, I am no fool, but if the talk is correct, the Rays, White Sox, Reds and others were trying to talk us into giving up both JDL and Urias in any deal. The line was likely drawn at you get one or the other. When I look at what the Giants gave up for Matt Moore, Will Smith and Eduardo Nunez, I can safely say they emptied their farm system for a four, a lefty set up guy and third baseman with marginal pop. While I am not high on Bickford (bad character and likely a closer) or Duffy (think it was all smoke and mirrors- although if he moves to shortstop, he will be a great fit in Tampa), I think that Susac, Fox and Mejia will all hurt the Giants especially when they are forced to move Posey out from behind the plate.

In closing. I can see where our front office drew the line. The prices for Sale and Archer were likely over the moon and Moore is a good piece but if we send our third baseman, our top international free agent and our best relief pitcher on the farm for a guy like Moore, I am equally sure the bitching would be just as raucous. Hell, nothing is guaranteed. If we get Matt Moore and his elbow goes pop, the second-guessing would begin. Did we get right handed power? Depends on where you look. If Puig is right in his mind and body, then we got that covered. Did we get a relief pitcher? Again, we didn't deal Baez and added a veteran righty to a pen. Also, we still have JDL, Urias, Stewart and even Rhame who can be called up and fill in where needed. Adding another lefty seems nutty, but Ryu looks done this year and we can't get a straight answer on Kershaw, so we have to hope Norris is healthy, Anderson is close and Hill can continue to give us seventy innings of a mid two ERA. I am good with what we have added and if that was the limit on what the front office was willing to give up. It is still nowhere as bad as Ned giving up Carlos Santana to get a Casey Blake.

Last Edited By: grabarkewitz Aug 1 16 2:17 PM. Edited 1 time.

#596 [url]

Aug 1 16 2:17 PM

grabarkewitz wrote:
Kind of expected that when we didn't get another starter that bitching would start. At the end of the day, we didn't overpay for any player. Holmes upside is now, the only thing that might improve is command and that is an iffy thing for a full-effort kid who is stocky now and could have some serious body concerns in the future. Montas can't stay healthy and also has body concerns, even though the injuries are bizarre, he still hasn't shown us anything and we are basically trading an injured pitcher who has less than ten innings on the farm for a guy who has 76 very good innings in the show. Hell, it is a rental and a cheap one at that. Lastly, Cotton is the mystery guy. Is he a starter or is he a reliever? Even the Dodgers don't know. I am thinking reliever and even with the overpayment, leaguewide, for veteran relief arms, they are still a dime a dozen if he doesn't close. Lastly, lost Bolsinger....good riddance, 'nuf said.

We get Josh Reddick and if we slot him into left field, we have the best defensive outfield in the game. Add in Hill, when (if) healthy, he is very good. Not my first choice but given the price paid by the Giants for Matt Moore, we got away damned cheap. We added Jesse Chavez, who was a poor fit in Toronto and the AL East. Guy can be hard to square up and his peripheral numbers aren't bad. Josh Fields looks like farm fodder, who will likely get a call up in September.

For what it is worth, we still have Urias, JDL, Stewart, Alvarez, Verdugo, Bellinger, Calhoun, Barnes, etc..... Maybe the Blue saw enough in Puig, yesterday, to think that he has turned the corner. By adding Reddick, we have ended the Howie Kendrick experiment and maybe he can start splitting time with Utley. At the end of this day, we still have enough to swing a deal for Chris Sale or Chris Archer in December. Resigning Reddick could be a move, but we still have Verdugo who can slot into left field in '17. Could we have done more? Sure, I am no fool, but if the talk is correct, the Rays, White Sox, Reds and others were trying to talk us into giving up both JDL and Urias in any deal. The line was likely drawn at you get one or the other. When I look at what the Giants gave up for Matt Moore, Will Smith and Eduardo Nunez, I can safely say they emptied their farm system for a four, a lefty set up guy and third baseman with marginal pop. While I am not high on Bickford (bad character and likely a closer) or Duffy (think it was all smoke and mirrors- although if he moves to shortstop, he will be a great fit in Tampa), I think that Susac, Fox and Mejia will all hurt the Giants especially when they are forced to move Posey out from behind the plate.

In closing. I can see where our front office drew the line. The prices for Sale and Archer were likely over the moon and Moore is a good piece but if we send our third baseman, our top international free agent and our best relief pitcher on the farm for a guy like Moore, I am equally sure the bitching would be just as raucous. Hell, nothing is guaranteed. If we get Matt Moore and his elbow goes pop, the second-guessing would begin. Did we get right handed power? Depends on where you look. If Puig is right in his mind and body, then we got that covered. Did we get a relief pitcher? Again, we didn't deal Baez and added a veteran righty to a pen. Also, we still have JDL, Urias, Stewart and even Rhame who can be called up and fill in where needed. Adding another lefty seems nutty, but Ryu looks done this year and we can't get a straight answer on Kershaw, so we have to hope Norris is healthy, Anderson is close and Hill can continue to give us seventy innings of a mid two ERA. I am good with what we have added and if that was the limit on what the front office was willing to give up then I am good. It is still nowhere as bad as Ned giving up Carlos Santana to get a Casey Blake.
What turned you around from "Holmes, Montas and Cotton? We best have an extension with Reddick on the table" a hour ago?

#597 [url]

Aug 1 16 2:19 PM

DieHardDodgerFan wrote:
WildHare wrote:
Anyone have any thoughts on upcoming roster manipulations? Obviously if Hill, Reddick, and Chavez are added, three corresponding 25-man roster moves have to take place. I would guess Toles and Taylor go back down and possibly Avilan or Stripling.

My guess is Toles, Taylor and Stripling go down.

Kendrick and Utley will platoon at 2B (as well as play some LF) and they will continue on with 8 pitchers in the pen. 

Yep, with Kike' back Taylor is redundant.  Kind of liked Toles and Stripling helped out (more than I expect from Chavez.)

#598 [url]

Aug 1 16 2:19 PM

DSinSoCal wrote:
beefchopper wrote:
DSinSoCal wrote:
Were the Brewers against trading Braun or something? I didn't really hear any rumors about him being available or teams being interested in him, but Braun, Jeffress and Moore would have been a good deadline day that made sense and addressed our direct needs.

I just get the sense sometimes that our front office may spend too much time trying to be tricky with 3-way deals and player-flips rather than just calling a team and saying, "I want that player, let's make a deal".

I, of all people, understand that it takes two willing sides to complete a trade, but the deals for Moore, Lucroy/Jeffress and Bruce all seemed reasonably priced, did they not? Is there really that much of a premium being charged to the Dodgers, just for being "the Dodgers"?

I don't think the FO guys are stupid or incompetent, far from it.  The only way I can make any sense out of all of this is to think their real plan continues to be to reduce payroll, wait for the kids to be ready, and try to remain competitive enough to fill seats while the kids develop.  I think they are intentionally playing on the gullibility of the fans by making it seem like they are in active pursuit of most of the big names out there and doing enough window dressing moves to look like they are trying.  In the meantime the old bloated contracts come closer to running off and the kids come closer to reaching the majors.
This glitch in that thinking is that Moore is guaranteed through 2019 at a VERY team friendly rate.  He's owed less than 9 million/year from 2017-2019.   After returning from TJ surgery he finally appears to be right and he has pitched REALLY well over his last 10 starts.  He's exactly the type of pitcher that should appeal to our front office.  High ceiling, potentially under-valued, relatively cheap and cost-controlled for several years.   We should have spent the prospects there, IMO. 


Maybe the FO didn't want to make that commitment to Moore and liked that Hill was a rental?  Hill is having a good year and on the surface his stats look great to the casual fan who knows nothing about prospects, etc.  It's like "wow we got a guy who is 9-3 with a 2.25 ERA, who needs Kershaw."  At the end of the year, they let Hill walk, don't have to pay him and then they groom one of the kids to take a rotation spot next year for peanuts compared to what Moore would have cost.  I can't shake the feeling that Friedman and Zaidi were brought in because they know how to operate in a cost-conscious environment more than anything and have had some success in that model.  Kasten is a "build from within" type of guy as well.  

It just feels like we traded for essentially what we have when Anderson comes back.  Hard to get excited about the options:  Hill, Kazmir, Maeda, McCarthy, Anderson and Norris.  They were just talking on the radio about Kershaw and the one guy from ESPNLA said that he doesn't know how Kershaw will be able to be effective if he hasn't even picked up a ball yet.  He has to go through a couple of throwing programs to get his stamina back, has to make some starts before coming up and even if he started today, he has to complete everything and be the CK of old in a month.  He just didn't see it happening.  Maybe the Front Office knows that and this deal is enough of a band aid to at least be competitive down the stretch. 

#599 [url]

Aug 1 16 2:27 PM

My first reaction to the Hill/Reddick trade was that we definitely overpaid for two month rentals.  Then, the other trades transpired, and I was floored by the number of highly-touted prospects being moved.  We are truly in a seller's market, possibly caused by the second wild card.  I'm somewhat relieved that our FO didn't move JDL, Alvarez, Belly for a RP.  I think the biggest winners are the Yankees and the Brewers, aka the biggest sellers in this market.

#600 [url]

Aug 1 16 2:38 PM

I haven't given up hope of getting Braun in a waiver wire deal this month.

Remove this ad

Quick Reply

bbcode help