I believe Dylan Hernandez, the Dodgers beat writer for the LA Times, reported this first.

Whatever happened to the Dodgers quest for payroll neutral trades? Maddux ain't that cheap
Of course, now that even the devil is a Dodgers fan, the Padres are likely getting Andruw Jones

Whatever happened to the Dodgers quest for payroll neutral trades? Maddux ain't that cheap

Probably still in force. The dickering over the PTBNL could go on a while. If I'm the Padres, now that the deal is announced, I'm not settling for anything less than James McDonald.

I should add that my comment #2 is conditional on the Padres eating 100% of Maddux' contract. If, as Ken Rosenthal reports, the Dodgers and Padres will split that, Ned Colletti can give up quite a bit less.

Why would the Padres eat the contract at all? it's a relatively minor amount remaining and it could pay huge dividends if it is the push to get them over the hump. I'm not sure that Maddux is the answer, but if the Dodgers think he is, then they should eat the contract and give up something decent in return. (not a top prospect of course)

"Why would the Padres eat the contract at all?"

Because there's nothing in Colletti's wallet but moths, bits of string, and one lonely button.

So Joe Torre's Dodgers have acquired Manny Ramirez and Greg Maddux this month?

Even though Manny's tearing it up, that would be a great haul - in 1998. Maybe we're seeing why recent vintages of Yankee teams were built with players who were dominant years ago.

Even though Manny's tearing it up, that would be a great haul - in 1998.

Manny was pretty good for a season or two after 1998 I think.

Manny was pretty good for a season or two after 1998 I think.

I believe that might be the case. And 43% of Maddux's career wins have come since 1998.

I didn't attempt to imply that still-productive older players are bad investments on short-term deals; just wondering aloud whether the veteran-ness of recent Yankee acquisitions was more motivated by Joe Torre than I thought.

I believe that might be the case. And 43% of Maddux's career wins have come since 1998.

Yes, he didn't stop being Greg Maddux until 2003.
Through 2002 he was 273-152, 145, in 3750 IP

since then 80-71, 104 in 1217 IP
Basically his performance since then has been comparable to these guys (2003-08):
14 Brad Penny 110 1005.1
15 Mike Mussina 109 1061.2
16 Derek Lowe 109 1185.2
17 Javier Vazquez 108 1227.2
18 Dontrelle Willis 108 1034
19 Doug Davis 108 1035
20 Kenny Rogers 108 1024
21 Tim Wakefield 107 1092
22 Barry Zito 107 1225
23 Jon Garland 107 1207.1
24 Ted Lilly 106 1044.2
25 Greg Maddux 105 1217.1
26 Aaron Harang 105 1045.1
27 Tom Glavine 104 1068.2
28 Jeff Suppan 104 1125.1
29 Jamie Moyer 103 1178.2
30 Livan Hernandez 102 1303.1
31 Gil Meche 100 1019
32 Jarrod Washburn 100 1054.2

Though I gotta say the old guy's endurance is impressive- from 2003-2008 Maddux (who was no longer THE Greg Maddux) has the 8th highest IP total in all MLB.

since then 80-71, 104 in 1217 IP
Basically his performance since then has been comparable to these guys (2003-08):
14 Brad Penny 110 1005.1
15 Mike Mussina 109 1061.2
16 Derek Lowe 109 1185.2
17 Javier Vazquez 108 1227.2
18 Dontrelle Willis 108 1034
19 Doug Davis 108 1035
20 Kenny Rogers 108 1024
21 Tim Wakefield 107 1092
22 Barry Zito 107 1225
23 Jon Garland 107 1207.1
24 Ted Lilly 106 1044.2
25 Greg Maddux 105 1217.1
26 Aaron Harang 105 1045.1
27 Tom Glavine 104 1068.2
28 Jeff Suppan 104 1125.1
29 Jamie Moyer 103 1178.2
30 Livan Hernandez 102 1303.1
31 Gil Meche 100 1019
32 Jarrod Washburn 100 1054.2

???? have a question about number 25. that .1 inning raised his era+ 1 point. very impressive 1/3 of an inning I guess. :)

Because there's nothing in Colletti's wallet but moths, bits of string, and one lonely button.

and the Padres should care why? It's a potential divisional rival who is going to be getting more money from post season success that can be used to improve the team. I would stick it to them as much as I possibly can.

and the Padres should care why?

Because the more salary they have to eat, the better prospect they get in return.

I understand that, but is there any high level prospects that the Dodgers are going to give up for a 2 month rental player? my guess is probably not, even if the Pads eat 100% of the salary. They are going to offer either a likely bench player or a long term potential guy, and to be honest I doubt salary eating affects the offer that much in this case.

What players in the Dodgers are worth eating 100% of the remaining contract? (about 2mil I imagine)
What is worth splitting the difference? What is worth trading maddux for?

And what is the chances that the Dodgers actually offered one of the guys you would list as worthy?

What players in the Dodgers are worth eating 100% of the remaining contract? (about 2mil I imagine)
What is worth splitting the difference? What is worth trading maddux for?

Honestly, I don't know the Dodgers system well enough to say. I figure the Padres will get a B- prospect instead of a C prospect if they eat most or all of the salary. To put it in perspective, 2 million bucks it's the signing bonus for a mid first rounder, so it's not an insignificant amount of money. I actually think the Dodgers are doing well for themselves considering the financial limitations they've forced on themselves. They may regret it in a few years, but flags fly forever and all that. I still don't know why they didn't block Dunn going to Arizona, though.

"I still don't know why they didn't block Dunn going to Arizona, though."

If they'd claimed him and the Reds had said, "Fine, take him", they would've been in deep ####, financially. They didn't want to get Canseco'ed.

I still don't know why they didn't block Dunn going to Arizona, though.

He's making $13M this season, so they'd have been on the hook for about $4M if they claimed him and Cincinnati said, "Fine, he's yours, enjoy." I don't know why Cincinnati would have done that, but I guess it's a risk that the Dodgers were unwilling to take. At the least, maybe it's a risk that the Dodger owners were unwilling to allow Colletti to take.

EDIT: Just pretend that Vlad never posted when you read this.

If they'd claimed him and the Reds had said, "Fine, take him", they would've been in deep ####, financially. They didn't want to get Canseco'ed.

Is their money really that tight? I mean, these are the freakin L.A. Dodgers! It's hard to wrap my mind around it.

Is their money really that tight? I mean, these are the freakin L.A. Dodgers! It's hard to wrap my mind around it.

that is the part I'm having trouble understanding. I mean they may have payroll limitations, but if they don't have the money to up it because it's not there, then they really should look at selling the team.

Word around here (a.k.a. BTF gossip) is that Colletti has fallen very far out of favor with Dodgers' ownership and has lost a lot of length on his leash. For what it's worth, I wouldn't trust him with my money either.

Is their money really that tight? I mean, these are the freakin L.A. Dodgers! It's hard to wrap my mind around it.

Obviously they've got more than enough revenue stream, but this ownership/GM have demonstrated some interesting spending priorities.

The fun part about the Dodgers today is that the Giants can be as horribly run as they've been for the last 3-4 years, take another 3-4 years to get back together, and still have not endured the Dodgers winning anything. The Dodgers have been in a holding pattern for so long that I'm now calling a holding pattern a Dodger pattern.

has lost a lot of length on his leash.
Damn, I hate when that happens. There are a lot of middle of the night infomercials that claim to help this problem.

If they'd claimed him and the Reds had said, "Fine, take him", they would've been in deep ####, financially. They didn't want to get Canseco'ed.

Because Jocketty certainly would've passed the chance to keep Dunn in the lineup and get 2 draft picks for the opportunity to save himself $4m or so. I personally think the Dbacks felt the Dbacks wouldn't be able to acquire him even if they claimed him--i.e., they wouldn't give up the talent the Reds would demand for Dunn. Either that, or Colletti is dumber than 10 LaSordas

Damn, I hate when that happens. There are a lot of middle of the night infomercials that claim to help this problem.

I get a lot of emails about this stuff too. I will forward them to Mr. Colletti.