Why wouldn’t the Dodgers take on Alex Rodriguez?

I would think money still means a little something to them, doesn't it? Why take on an aging, apparently declining player with a huge contract just because you can? It doesn't make much sense unless their budget is truly unlimited. And if that is their budget situation, I still think it would be foolish to trade for Rodriguez. Just sign whoever the best 3rd baseman is on the market this offseason to a one year deal and then make it clear to David Wright's people that you have $150 million waiting for him after next season. Or whatever. There has to be a better use for that money. Or, I suppose if the budget is unlimited, use Alex as a stopgap until Wright is a free agent and then use Rodriguez as utility guy. Now that would be a sign of an actually unlimited budget.

Why not take on Barry Zito, or Vernon Wells? You can never have enough lefty long men or fifth outfielders.

If money's no object, I'd gladly sign for $20 M ... I'm happy to take it all up front to help keep the team below the luxury tax next year.

In a "serious" vein, Hanley's still under contract for 2/$31 and surely they don't think he's really a SS. Heck they still have Uribe under contract for next year at $8 M. Mark Ellis is still 1/$5.25 and Punto's measly $1.5.

The amount of (potential) wasted payroll on this team is astronomical.

Crawford $20
Hanley 15.5
Beckett 15.75
Lilly 12
Uribe 8
Guerrier, Harang, Ellis, Capuano, Hairston, Punto, Gwynn for a combined $30. Some of those guys will do well but there are gonna be a few clunkers in there too.

And of course Andruw for $3.2. :-)

That's $104 M. Those guys combined for about 8 WAR this year, almost all of it Harang, Ellis and Capuano.

Kevin Youkilis: 1.3 WAR
Alex Rodriguez: 2.0 WAR

Difference in salary next year: 1 BILLLLLLION dollars.

They probably can't take him on, but maybe they could trade Crawford for him.

I don't think any NL team would take on A-Rod, even if the Yankees were willing to party with him.

I don't think any NL team would take on A-Rod, even if the Yankees were willing to party with him.

This is my favorite typo ever.

They probably can't take him on, but maybe they could trade Crawford for him.

I don't think the Dodgers can trade Crawford to the Yankees. There is a clause in Crawford's contract that says that if he is traded the acquiring club cannot then trade him to the Yankees. I don't know if there is a time limit on that or if it's over the life of the contract. I thought it was all of the AL East but it's just the Yankees according to Cot's.

Kevin Youkilis: 1.3 WAR
Alex Rodriguez: 2.0 WAR

Difference in salary next year: 1 BILLLLLLION dollars.

That was a snot-shooting out the nostrils line. Good work.

Forget money; why would someone want A-Rod? You'd have to think that whatever is up with him is either injury or mechanical (and, therefore, fixable). If it's just age then he isn't going to get better from that.

A-Rod, like almost every other HOFer, inner circle included, isn't an elite level player after 35. Acting like he will be is how the Yankees got in this mess in the first place.

I would take a flyer on A-Rod if a) I needed a 3Bman, b) played in the AL, c) the Yankees eat at least 80% of the contract. Or, I suppose, d) if I thought A-Rod for the next few years would be back to being A-Rod the all-time great. Of course, you have to assume if he does that, folks are going to claim (rightly or wrongly) that it is "artificial".

I feel bad for A-Rod and think he is getting too much crap for what happens to all of us. But that wouldn't make me pay him $10 million per year.

there was a graphic up on one of the threads about the big dodger trade earlier this year that showed that $150 mil is going off the books after 2013 -- they'll be done with guys like manny and andruw. so, yeah, the dodgers will have a lot of money to waste on screwed up contracts for 2014.

If they are interested in a slightly used Dan Uggla, the Braves would be glad to leave him on the curb for pick up.

There is a clause in Crawford's contract that says that if he is traded the acquiring club cannot then trade him to the Yankees.

There might be a clause in his contract saying that he gets to kill one hobo per week. Doesn't mean it'd hold up.

@5. I think Youkilis would fit well in LA.

doesn't seem to do much for the Yankees assuming they still need to eat a good chunk of the money. For whatever your take on him is, he was still an above average 3B this year as a whole and those things (reliablly) are actually fairly rare in this market, unless they somehow want to trade us Hanely Ramirez, which would probably make all the Bo-Sox / Dodger / Yankee / Sane Fan's brain explode.

DO NOT WANT.

I don't think the Dodgers can trade Crawford to the Yankees. There is a clause in Crawford's contract that says that if he is traded the acquiring club cannot then trade him to the Yankees. I don't know if there is a time limit on that or if it's over the life of the contract. I thought it was all of the AL East but it's just the Yankees according to Cot's.

This is nuts. I figure it was a clause Crawford negotiated, but apparently the Red Sox put it in. I'd guess the Dodgers and Crawford could just yank it out since it's now a contract between them (and maybe MLB), but this is all very weird.

Am I the only one who thinks Crawford is going to be an MVP candidate next year? Assuming he is healthy and isn't out of shape, he should play very well in Dodger stadium. I think 3.0+ war is a given for him with a healthy season.

This is nuts. I figure it was a clause Crawford negotiated, but apparently the Red Sox put it in. I'd guess the Dodgers and Crawford could just yank it out since it's now a contract between them (and maybe MLB), but this is all very weird.

Isn't the purpose of the clause to prevent the player they signed from going to the Yankees and wrecking havoc on them? I don't know how it would be enforceable, but if it's part of the agreement on the trade, I imagine that the Red Sox could have a legitimate grievance if it's altered.

Am I the only one who thinks Crawford is going to be an MVP candidate next year?

yes

I think you're the only one. I'd be surprised if Crawford had an OBP of .340 next year, or stole 40 bases, or hit 20 homers. I can't see him being even being a 2 WAR player, unless he can get it out of his defense.

I could easily imaging Crawford ending up as an LCS or WS MVP.

But that is about as far as I'll go.

Note: I did say provided he is healthy and in shape. But I was a fan of the Crawford signing, just not a fan of the Crawford signing in Boston, if you could predict one stadium that wouldn't lend itself to Crawford strengths, that would be the first stadium of choice. He's a gap ball hitter and there are no gaps in Fenway. Yes short porch to the right, but that was never going to be his game.

Put him in a pitchers stadium with a cavernous outfield and he's going to provide plus value on both offense and defense.

Forget money; why would someone want A-Rod?

Are you kidding? He's a goddamned centaur! How ####### often do goddamned centaurs come the hell along, anyway?

The dodgers owe Juan Uribe $8M in 2013??!?!?!

Are you kidding? He's a goddamned centaur! How ####### often do goddamned centaurs come the hell along, anyway?

The question answers itself

The dodgers owe Juan Uribe $8M in 2013??!?!?!

ditto

Am I the only one who thinks Crawford is going to be an MVP candidate next year? Assuming he is healthy and isn't out of shape, he should play very well in Dodger stadium. I think 3.0+ war is a given for him with a healthy season.

Not an MVP candidate but I could easily see him rebounding to something closer to Tampa Bay Carl rather than Boston Carl... maybe a Comeback Player of the Year candidate. He is a good fit for Dodger Stadium and at 31, he could be a solid regular for a few more years. I actually feel better about his chances for a rebound than I do for A-Gon or Hanley.