Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, August 24, 2012

Dodgers reportedly win waiver claim on Gonzalez

The Los Angeles Dodgers have been awarded the waiver claim on Boston Red Sox first baseman Adrian Gonzalez, Bill Shaikin of The Los Angeles Times reported Friday. The report has been confirmed by CBSSports.com insider Jon Heyman

“This would make the race in the NL West more interesting and I wonder what effect this would have on the Dodger clubhouse”

The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: August 24, 2012 at 03:18 PM | 351 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: boston, los angeles

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 3 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 
   201. McCoy Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:25 PM (#4217382)
Blargh.
   202. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:29 PM (#4217386)
I can't really see how this falls apart. At the end of the day they can just simply let these guys go.
Did LA put in a waiver claim on Crawford? Taking the three of them is one thing. Taking two and sticking Boston with Crawford is another.
   203. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:29 PM (#4217387)
Wait, if I take the deal now but the trade falls apart, does this mean we automatically push? Also, making a deal where I don't have any clue what my hand is would be plum foolish. I think you're overestimating the quality of your rhetorical riposte.

Yes. No deal = no bet. In fact, if the players involved in the deal change, no bet. You said I was being 'churlish' to think these players (Gonzales, Beckett and Crawford) were worth their contracts. I offered even odds that those three would put up more WAR next year than whoever Boston uses their money to acquire instead.
   204. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:34 PM (#4217391)
At the end of the day they can just simply let these guys go.


If it's true that this trade was being discussed before the deadline and the players were put on waivers specifically to allow the mega-deal to happen, then the teams may very well have agreed that the Sox would pull the players back if it were to fall apart for any reason.
   205. McCoy Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:34 PM (#4217392)
The Red Sox don't have to accept the claim on Adrian.
   206. McCoy Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:36 PM (#4217394)
If it's true that this trade was being discussed before the deadline and the players were put on waivers specifically to allow the mega-deal to happen, then the teams may very well have agreed that the Sox would pull the players back if it were to fall apart for any reason.

Millions of dollars make people do ugly things. Right now the Dodgers have won the waiver claims for Adrian and Beckett. If the Red Sox want to stick it to them they can and there isn't a thing the Dodgers can do about it except whine.
   207. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:40 PM (#4217399)
"The Youk deal made clear that they are more than willing to trade good players for pennies on the dollar for financial/clubhouse reasons. Team chemistry is going to have to get pretty ####### amazing to make up for losing three players as good as Gonzalez/Beckett/Crawford - unless the money is used to sign players as good or better."

"As good as"? There is one good player on that list of three. The Crawford deal was dumb as dogshit when made, and his being injured hasn't made it better. I have every confidence that even this FO will be able to get someone who will outperform him next year and beyond.
   208. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:40 PM (#4217400)
Millions of dollars make people do ugly things.


Of course. And yet people occasionally do behave honorably even when millions of dollars are involved.
   209. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:44 PM (#4217404)
"As good as"? There is one good player on that list of three. The Crawford deal was dumb as dogshit when made, and his being injured hasn't made it better. I have every confidence that even this FO will be able to get someone who will outperform him next year and beyond.

I'll make you the same bet. $20 bbref sponsorship that those three players put up more 2013 WAR than their 2013 Red Sox counterparts.

If it's true that this trade was being discussed before the deadline and the players were put on waivers specifically to allow the mega-deal to happen, then the teams may very well have agreed that the Sox would pull the players back if it were to fall apart for any reason.

I am confident this is the case. I'd be shocked if the Sox decide to just stick LA with Beckett if the deal doesn't work out.
   210. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:44 PM (#4217405)
And BTW, while it's no shock that Beckett and Crawford would fall to the Dodgers, it is at least mildly surprising that no AL team claimed A-Gon.
   211. McCoy Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:45 PM (#4217406)
Of course. And yet people occasionally do behave honorably even when millions of dollars are involved.

Sure but the notion is that the Red Sox will screw this up but about the only way they can do that is if they pay for all the players they are shipping out and get nothing back.
   212. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:49 PM (#4217408)
"I'll make you the same bet. $20 bbref sponsorship that those three players put up more 2013 WAR than their 2013 Red Sox counterparts."

That bet is rigged and you know it. You make a trade like this so you can pay that money to more than three guys.

If you want to make that bet on Crawford, I'll do it every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
   213. Swedish Chef Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:50 PM (#4217409)
And BTW, while it's no shock that Beckett and Crawford would fall to the Dodgers, it is at least mildly surprising that no AL team claimed A-Gon.

I don't think many teams put in claims for players with eight-figure contracts just for the kicks.
   214. DA Baracus Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:55 PM (#4217415)
Did they get put on waivers before or after Johnny Pesky's funeral? I'm serious.
   215. charityslave is thinking about baseball Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:58 PM (#4217418)
While I don't think Crawford will be worth his contract going forward, I think most of the lost money is behind him. Also, he'll have more value defensively in Chavez ravine than at the corner of Brookline and Yawkey way. Beckett will rebound in the NL. And the a Sox guessed wrong on Adrien. He's going to look cheap going forward. I think the Dodgers set themselves up very well for the next 3 or 4 years. And the Sox set themselves up to rebuild totally through free agency. Isn't that how this whole mess got started?
   216. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:58 PM (#4217419)
I don't think many teams put in claims for players with eight-figure contracts just for the kicks.


I don't think that either. And the two teams that might have been most likely to put in a claim on general principles just happen to have spent a ton of dough on first basemen last winter. But there are a couple of contending AL teams that could use a 1B/DH and have some money to throw around. What's left on Gonzalez' contract is about what the Orioles were rumored to have offered Teixeira, for instance.
   217. Sonic Youk Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:01 PM (#4217421)
"I'll make you the same bet. $20 bbref sponsorship that those three players put up more 2013 WAR than their 2013 Red Sox counterparts."


Yea, but how much better? Enough to make the playoffs? Because if youre spending 60 million and theres no hope those guys will get you over the top, whats the point?
   218. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda. Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:03 PM (#4217422)
Is this trade a salary dump, or a way to get rid of the malcontents from the last two years? Personally, I'm leery of AGon's story about someone else using his phone to send that text. And if this is the middle of a process to get rid of the unhappy players (Youkilis was the beginning), what happens in the offseason?

Ortiz gone via free-agency? Probably. Same with Dice-K. Pedroia traded? I dunno, can Boston get someone like Neil Walker back? Lackey with $30M or so over the next two years might go somewhere if Boston picks up about $27,000,000 of it.

That's the top seven contracts, according to Cot's.
   219. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:03 PM (#4217423)
Me: "three players as good as Gonzalez/Beckett/Crawford"

You: ""As good as"? There is one good player on that list of three... I have every confidence that even this FO will be able to get someone who will outperform [Crawford] next year and beyond."

You: "That bet is rigged and you know it. You make a trade like this so you can pay that money to more than three guys."

Shrug.
   220. Dan Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:05 PM (#4217427)
And the a Sox guessed wrong on Adrien. He's going to look cheap going forward.


He may look less than massively overpaid, but almost no one is cheap at $23M/year. Unless you're suggesting he's going to be routinely posting 6-7 WAR seasons for the next 3-5 years, this just doesn't fit the contract commitment.
   221. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:06 PM (#4217428)
What's left on Gonzalez' contract is about what the Orioles were rumored to have offered Teixeira, for instance.

Aha! But (as KM is no doubt furiously typing at this moment) Duquette knows the Sox would never deal with the O's on a deal like this, and his waiver claim could only scupper a deal that, given the implication of a Sox rebuild and the limited tenure of the average GM, would clearly be to Duquette's advantage. And the result? Advantage Duquette! Not sure about the other 12 teams though.
   222. The District Attorney Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:07 PM (#4217429)
I'm leery of AGon's story about someone else using his phone to send that text.
Gee, are you? Are you also leery of the culprit happening to be the bit player who had just gotten traded and thus wasn't around to defend himself? What a skeptic you are.

(I do look forward to the stories about Nick Punto being a clubhouse nightmare that we're surely about to see.)

What's left on Gonzalez' contract is about what the Orioles were rumored to have offered Teixeira, for instance.
I think it would have been pretty crazy for Baltimore to risk taking on Adrian Gonzalez.

Texas, that I could have imagined, especially since letting him go in the first place was Jon Daniels' greatest disaster.
   223. Dan Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:09 PM (#4217431)
Texas is the team that I would have expected to claim Gonzalez.
   224. Sonic Youk Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:17 PM (#4217434)
Word is now that the dodgers are taking on 95% of the money. Damn.
   225. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:18 PM (#4217435)
The video game GM in me sees a lot of fun possibilities with the extra money and roster spots to fill. Like doing one-year deals for Grady Sizemore or Lance Berkman, for instance.
   226. tfbg9 Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:19 PM (#4217438)
Sliverman in the Herald is reporting that the Dogers are picking-up ~95% of Gonzo's, CC's, and Beckett's remaining
contacts:

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/sports/red_sox/index.php/2012/08/24/source-dodgers-would-pick-up-more-than-95-percent-of-red-sox/

If thats anywhere near the truth...THANKS FOR 07 Josh! See ya baby!
   227. TerpNats Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:24 PM (#4217444)
Why would the Red Sox not sign Hamilton to play LF for them after the season? He'd hit .350 with 30-40 HR's in Fenway.
Why would Hamilton want to play for the Bosox and endure that soap opera? I would be shocked if Hamilton leaves the Metroplex, though if he did I doubt he would go to a high-maintenance Northeast Corridor team.
   228. jyjjy Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:28 PM (#4217451)
That's simply crazy if true unless the sox are throwing in some major prospects as well and getting basically nothing in return.
   229. The District Attorney Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:29 PM (#4217452)
Funny that Adrian Beltre hits for the cycle today. I dunno whether he wanted out of Boston... but certainly at least in retrospect, it would have been much better to have Beltre at 3B and Youkilis at 1B (and, by the way, keep Anthony Rizzo) than to acquire Adrian Gonzalez while simultaneously moving Youk to a significantly tougher defensive position at age 32.

I dunno how much credit can be given for getting out of a hole that you dug for yourself, but I will say this. It seemed like J.P. Ricciardi milked the "my predecessor stuck me with bad contracts" excuse for about a decade. Cherington was able to get himself out of the straitjacket in his first season.
   230. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda. Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:29 PM (#4217453)
Why would Hamilton want to play for the Bosox and endure that soap opera?


Sounds like they're getting rid of most of the contributors of the soap opera.
   231. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:32 PM (#4217456)
Ortiz gone via free-agency?


I highly doubt that. Same for Pedroia. I wouldn't mind sacrificing Lackey to a volcano god, though.

(I do look forward to the stories about Nick Punto being a clubhouse nightmare that we're surely about to see.)


He only stayed on the Twins so long because he had kidnapped Joe Mauer's parents and held them hostage.

Word is now that the dodgers are taking on 95% of the money. Damn.


Holy shitsnacks.
   232. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:34 PM (#4217459)
"Why would Hamilton want to play for the Bosox and endure that soap opera?"

How high can you count?
   233. Mattbert Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:36 PM (#4217460)
Sounds like they're getting rid of most of the contributors of the soap opera.

That would entail getting rid of ownership, the Boston media, and a significant portion of the entire population of New England. Are the Dodgers building an island out in the Pacific somewhere for all these people?

Hamilton in Boston would be a disaster.
   234. Darren Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:44 PM (#4217465)
The good news is that the Red Sox will now have a ton of money to spend on talent. The bad news is that it will be the Red Sox deciding how to spend it.

BTW, anyone thinking this deal is anywhere near done, thinking that it won't go down to the last second of the 72-hour window, with multiple ups and downs in between, has not followed any of the Sox dealings in the past decade.
   235. charityslave is thinking about baseball Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:46 PM (#4217468)
How about Hamilton at 1st/DH? Save some wear and tear. Choo in right. Grienke on the bump. I'm starting to like this team!
   236. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:47 PM (#4217470)
Putting Grienke in Boston would be criminally abusive.
   237. Sonic Youk Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:53 PM (#4217479)
If the deal falls through, dont the Sox just stiff them with beckett and keep gonzo? Or is that too messed up?
   238. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:59 PM (#4217486)
I'd actually bet that 20 dollars on too messed up. You don't want to burn your trading partners, especially when you work in a fairly small industry.
   239. charityslave is thinking about baseball Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:00 PM (#4217487)
Putting Grienke in Boston would be criminally abusive.


As part of the agreement, he will be allowed to pitch in a burqa.
   240. MM1f Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:04 PM (#4217491)
Millions of dollars make people do ugly things. Right now the Dodgers have won the waiver claims for Adrian and Beckett. If the Red Sox want to stick it to them they can and there isn't a thing the Dodgers can do about it except whine.


Wait, why would the Dodgers whine about getting Gonzalez and Beckett for free?
   241. Darren Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:15 PM (#4217497)
If the deal falls through, dont the Sox just stiff them with beckett and keep gonzo? Or is that too messed up?


Why would it be messed up. It's been pretty well established for the past decade or so that this is the risk you take when you put a claim in.
   242. Howie Menckel Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:17 PM (#4217499)
JonHeymanCBS 10:53pm via Twitter for BlackBerry®

"Crawford has 3 team no-trade list. As luck would have it, #dodgers are 1 of 3. As of few minutes ago he was yet to be asked"
   243. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:21 PM (#4217502)
"Crawford has 3 team no-trade list. As luck would have it, #dodgers are 1 of 3. As of few minutes ago he was yet to be asked"


Maybe they should ask to borrow Gonzalez' cell phone.
   244. jyjjy Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:23 PM (#4217503)
Why would there even have been a waiver claim if they weren't willing to accept Beckett's whole salary as is? It only makes sense in the context of a being afraid a different team(one the handful after LA on the priority list?) was willing to do so. If another team WAS willing to take his whole contract how is it "too messed up" to do to LA when the Sox gave up the chance to dump him another team in order to negotiate this trade?
   245. andrewberg Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:30 PM (#4217508)
(I do look forward to the stories about Nick Punto being a clubhouse nightmare that we're surely about to see.)


It got very distracting when he kept showing off the pictures of gardenhire with the goats that he used to stay in the lineup all those years.
   246. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:32 PM (#4217510)
You heard it here first: this deal is not happening. It hinges on the money, and the Red Sox would have to be crazy to kick in a lot of money, and the Dodgers would have to be crazy to take on this much age-30 payroll.

The deal is DOA.

It's also bizarre to me that Sox fans are relieved to maybe get out from under Josh Beckett's contract. He's owed all of $31 million for 2013-2014, which is basically nothing - essentially a short two-year deal for not-outrageous money - and there's a good chance he'll be worth it anyway.

Much ado about nothing, all of this is.
   247. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:33 PM (#4217511)
It only makes sense in the context of a being afraid a different team(one the handful after LA on the priority list?) was willing to do so. If another team WAS willing to take his whole contract how is it "too messed up" to do to LA when the Sox gave up the chance to dump him another team in order to negotiate this trade?


Again, if the trade negotiations led to the players being put on waivers instead of the other way around, then the Dodgers would basically have no choice but to put in "blocking" claims. Whether that makes it "messed up" for the Red Sox to stick the Dodgers with Beckett and pull Gonzalez back is debatable.
   248. OCD SS Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:33 PM (#4217513)
in retrospect, it would have been much better to have Beltre at 3B and Youkilis at 1B (and, by the way, keep Anthony Rizzo) than to acquire Adrian Gonzalez while simultaneously moving Youk to a significantly tougher defensive position at age 32.


I'm not so sure. On paper the Sox got a guy who was younger in AGon and cleared the way for one of their top prospects in Middlebrooks, which looks like a fairly orderly transition to a younger core. They also got Jackie Bradley Jr and Blake Swihart as draft compensation for Beltre.

The main factor is how do you like Beltre in his later '30s vs AGon's mid '30s? I would've bet on the 1Bman who knew how to take a walk (but then I can't figure out why he stopped walking this year anyway).

   249. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:36 PM (#4217516)
You heard it here first: this deal is not happening. It hinges on the money, and the Red Sox would have to be crazy to kick in a lot of money, and the Dodgers would have to be crazy to take on this much age-30 payroll.

The deal is DOA.


So you're not buying Michael Silverman's source?

EDIT: on second thought... It's over. It's always been over.
   250. zonk Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:39 PM (#4217518)
I believe 10/5 rights allow a player to block a waiver claim, too - 10/5 rights apply to 'contract assignment', which includes waiver claims.

But wow, for the Dodgers to take on these contracts, just wow...
   251. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:40 PM (#4217520)
So you're not buying Michael Silverman's source?


I don't know who Michael Silverman is, let alone his source.

Oh, I don't doubt that the teams are talking about it, even talking seriously. But they Will. Never. Agree. On the money.

It would be professional suicide for Colleti to take on that much payroll for that many years on the wrong side of 30.

Mind you, I'd love to get out from under Crawford's contract, and given Gonzalez's relatively poor year (for him), I'd be ok with gambling that he's declined and trading his contract as well. I simply don't see it happening.
   252. Darren Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:41 PM (#4217522)
On paper the Sox got a guy who was younger in AGon and cleared the way for one of their top prospects in Middlebrooks, which looks like a fairly orderly transition to a younger core.


But the path the took also ended up in them blocking their top prospect.

The main factor is how do you like Beltre in his later '30s vs AGon's mid '30s?


Beltre is signed through 36 (37 if his option kicks in) for $16 mil/year.
Gonzalez is signed through 36 at $20-22 mil/year.

I'd bet on the more athletic guy aging better (not that I was saying so then, IIRC).
   253. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:43 PM (#4217523)
You heard it here first:
You listen to a lot of sports talk radio, don't you?
this deal is not happening. It hinges on the money, and the Red Sox would have to be crazy to kick in a lot of money, and the Dodgers would have to be crazy to take on this much age-30 payroll.
There are a good number of reports that have the Red Sox taking on less than $20M of the money owed. Alex Speier reports it's just $10M.
   254. Bourbon Samurai Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:44 PM (#4217524)
This is a real thing? This can't possibly be a real thing.
   255. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:44 PM (#4217525)
I believe 10/5 rights allow a player to block a waiver claim, too - 10/5 rights apply to 'contract assignment', which includes waiver claims.


You're absolutely right. But people still get it wrong every time this situation comes up.
   256. Darren Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:47 PM (#4217527)
MC, you have to admit that some far more sure-thing deals involving the Red Sox have fallen through.
   257. rr Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:49 PM (#4217530)
But they Will. Never. Agree. On the money.


So you're saying it's over.
   258. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:52 PM (#4217531)
MC, you have to admit that some far more sure-thing deals involving the Red Sox have fallen through.
Oh, no doubt. It absolutely could fall through.** I'm just making fun of the Crazy Ira and the Douche act Ray is trying out.

**See post 101
   259. OCD SS Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:55 PM (#4217534)

But the path the took also ended up in them blocking their top prospect.


Wait, who? Bogarts? At the time this deal was done had he even had his break out yet? Looking at the tools in question I'm fine with Middlebrooks at 3B and Xander in RF.

Beltre is signed through 36 (37 if his option kicks in) for $16 mil/year.
Gonzalez is signed through 36 at $20-22 mil/year.

I'd bet on the more athletic guy aging better (not that I was saying so then, IIRC).


I'd still bet on AGon aging better (he's seemed more durable over the course of his career), and the last part is the kicker; most of these moves looked much better on paper than they turner out.
   260. J. Sosa Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:55 PM (#4217535)
Great trade. Who'd we get?
   261. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:56 PM (#4217536)
There are a good number of reports that have the Red Sox taking on less than $20M of the money owed. Alex Speier reports it's just $10M.


Well, someone tweeted something. I know I'm sold.
   262. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:56 PM (#4217537)
I still don't believe this will happen, but I look forward to "Nick Punto and others traded to the Dodgers" headlines.
   263. Darren Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:57 PM (#4217540)
Wait, who? Bogarts? At the time this deal was done had he even had his break out yet? Looking at the tools in question I'm fine with Middlebrooks at 3B and Xander in RF.


Now, I'm confused. You were saying that the trade was good because it opened a path for Middlebrooks. But in fact Middlebrooks was still blocked. That's all that I was getting at.

Of course, if they hadn't made the deal, they'd also have been blocking Rizzo--what a tragedy that would have been!
   264. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:59 PM (#4217544)
Well, someone tweeted something.
Alex Speier is the best beat reporter in Boston. You haven't been reading Speier?
   265. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:01 AM (#4217547)
Nope. I don't read "beat reporters." I like to watch the games, not worry about gossip.
   266. Textbook Editor Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:04 AM (#4217551)

Great trade. Who'd we get?


Even if this just winds up a Beckett salary dump, I'd be thrilled. If it comes off as Beckett-Crawford-AGon-Punto + $10 million for a bucket of balls I'd be thrilled. That we might get living, breathing prospects instead of a bucket of balls has me over the moon.

Seriously, this cannot possibly be true. I'm still in disbelief.
   267. Roger McDowell spit on me! Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:05 AM (#4217552)

It would be professional suicide for Colleti to take on that much payroll for that many years on the wrong side of 30.


If it's his call - given the new ownership in LA, he might be getting a lot of suggestions...
   268. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:07 AM (#4217554)
I don't read "beat reporters." I like to watch the games, not worry about gossip.
He doesn't write gossip. He reports on the actual ballclub. He does everything that a sports reporter is supposed to do.
   269. jyjjy Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:08 AM (#4217556)
Again, if the trade negotiations led to the players being put on waivers instead of the other way around, then the Dodgers would basically have no choice but to put in "blocking" claims.

This ignores the point I was making. They had "no choice?" Why? Only makes sense if another team might take him, which is why Crawford wasn't claimed because of course no one would take him. If another team might take Beckett then that team thinks it is a positive, not "messed up" but it becomes messed up when they let LA have him? If the Sox are willing to let LA, or anyone, just have him then the whole "trade negotiations led to the players being put on waivers" makes no sense unless the Sox would be doing it just because they know LA wouldn't want that so they would do it purely out of spite as a punishment for LA not completing the trade and that scenario seems pretty nonsensical to me.
   270. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:10 AM (#4217559)
Oh, no doubt. It absolutely could fall through.** I'm just making fun of the Crazy Ira and the Douche act Ray is trying out.


Use logic, Matt. Neither team could agree to what the other team's terms would have to be.

Well, I suppose they could - Epstein did sign Crawford to a dumb megadeal, so these things do happen - but one of them would be foolish.

   271. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:14 AM (#4217562)
He doesn't write gossip. He reports on the actual ballclub. He does everything that a sports reporter is supposed to do.


? This entire subject is gossip.
   272. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:16 AM (#4217567)
Well, I suppose they could - Epstein did sign Crawford to a dumb megadeal, so these things do happen - but one of them would be foolish.
All the reports sound like Ned Coletti is making a foolish trade. As you correctly point out, baseball teams often make foolish trades or foolish signings. Your logic suggests it might be unlikely, but it does not support your bizarre absolutism. (It's also quite possible that the new LA ownership is dictating this and hell, it's their money.)

I prefer evidence to logic, when I can get it. Alex Speier has demonstrated over the last year that he's a very good and ethical reporter. He could be getting things wrong - like general managers, reporters can do foolish things - but I take his report as good evidence of what's going on.
   273. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:19 AM (#4217571)
This entire subject is gossip.
He interviews doctors when players get hurt, he interviews front office folks about possible trades. He doesn't write about who didn't go to a fundraiser with who. There's sports reporting and there's gossip reporting.

I don't really understand why you're here at midnight on a Friday night talking about sports if you don't care to read about sports. But whatevs. I'm not saying you ought to read Speier if it wouldn't give you happiness. I just think there are fair distinctions to be made between different sports reporters as to how well and how seriously they do their jobs.
   274. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:22 AM (#4217572)
Well, fine. But there's a reason that this deal sounds WTF crazy. Because it is.

EDIT: And, hilariously, I now see from your Sox Therapy post that you agree with this. You wrote: "This is bugnuts insane, but also totally fascinating."


   275. jyjjy Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:27 AM (#4217575)
If it does go through with LA taking almost all of the salary does it steal the gold from the Vernon Wells trade in the stupid olympics?
   276. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:28 AM (#4217577)
I dunno. The Wells trade was sheer crazy. At least the Dodgers are getting one very good player in the deal, along with a pitcher who's an ace in odd number years and a wildcard.
   277. Textbook Editor Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:31 AM (#4217580)
If it does go through with LA taking almost all of the salary does it steal the gold from the Vernon Wells trade in the stupid olympics?


Yes.
   278. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:32 AM (#4217582)
You're forgetting a key component here: Ned Colletti is one of the stupidest men in the game.
   279. Mattbert Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:33 AM (#4217583)
He doesn't write gossip. He reports on the actual ballclub. He does everything that a sports reporter is supposed to do.

For real. The emergence of Alex Speier is, hands down, the best thing that's happened to serious Red Sox fans this year. The guy is a ####### godsend.
   280. Dan Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:34 AM (#4217587)
Well, fine. But there's a reason that this deal sounds WTF crazy. Because it is.

EDIT: And, hilariously, I now see from your Sox Therapy post that you agree with this. You wrote: "This is bugnuts insane, but also totally fascinating."


You're acting like baseball teams never make "insane deals", which is clearly false. And you're also ignoring the factors that push the Dodgers toward making this deal, despite any "insanity": namely the fact that they have new ownership that is trying to buy back the credibility that Frank McCourt spend most of the last decade pissing away. Meanwhile the Angels had made huge inroads towards taking a dominant position in the LA market, especially with the huge offseason they had. Right now the Angels seem to be falling on their faces in a decidedly 2011-12 Red Sox fashion, so the Dodgers have a unique opportunity to reverse the trends of the last decade and become THE LA team again. Is that worth $260M in contract commitments? Tough to say, but it's not unreasonable that their new ownership might think that money will be well spent, especially with new TV deals coming up in the near future.

edit: And as some others have helpfully pointed out, Colletti is probably pushing this too as it's probably his last chance to show the new ownership that he deserves to keep his job.
   281. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:34 AM (#4217588)
Again: The Dodgers would be taking on $264 million in salary for:

* a 30 year old outfielder coming off two lost years and signed to a huge deal that was silly even at the time of its signing when he was 28 and coming off a good season;

* a 30 year old first baseman who is having a slightly worrisome off year; and

* a 33 year old pitcher with a notable drop in K rate who is coming off of two lost years out of three.

(And whatever Nick Punto is. Not expensive, at least.)

Why would they do this? If you're spending that kind of money, you need to be getting stars at the top of their game. The Dodgers would be completely buying low for players in their 30s who already have problems. They would be taking on Crawford's albatross contract that looked like an albatross at the time, let alone now. And ponying up on a huge commitment to a first baseman having a down year.
   282. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:35 AM (#4217589)
If it does go through with LA taking almost all of the salary does it steal the gold from the Vernon Wells trade in the stupid olympics?
Not even close. The Dodgers are trying to win the World Series, and they've upgraded from sub-replacement level at 1B to a 4-5 WAR All-Star. They've also added a reasonably league average starter with some upside. They're paying a crapton of money, but they're getting valuable baseball players. This is nothing like the Wells deal, where the Angels actively made themselves worse while also taking on massive contractual obligations.
   283. Mattbert Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:38 AM (#4217592)
If it does go through with LA taking almost all of the salary does it steal the gold from the Vernon Wells trade in the stupid olympics?

Not even close. This deal is somewhat defensible for the Dodgers. The Wells trade was just straight-up dumb. That is like the Joe D 56-game hitting streak of bad trades. It's astonishing that it ever even happened in the first place, and there's almost no way it will ever be topped.
   284. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:39 AM (#4217593)
Alex Speier's twitter is great, too. There was very little noise in his tweets this afternoon. Every tweet of his since this afternoon has been interesting, useful and/or news-worthy.
   285. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:41 AM (#4217595)
You're acting like baseball teams never make "insane deals", which is clearly false.


That's a fair point, but there is insane and there is insane. And usually, teams make insane trades because they overvalue players. Or undervalue them. (Or it's a young player who blossoms.) That's not really the case here. How could someone overvalue Carl Crawford at this point, and given his contract? You can think that Gonzalez will bounce back, but you would NEED him to to make the deal worth it.

What deals of the past couple of decades would be as bad as this one? I'll spot you Vernon Wells.

And you're also ignoring the factors that push the Dodgers toward making this deal, despite any "insanity": namely the fact that they have new ownership that is trying to buy back the credibility that Frank McCourt spend most of the last decade pissing away.


It would seem an odd way to go about that.
   286. JE (Jason) Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:48 AM (#4217598)
It would seem an odd way to go about that.

But not that odd. The CW believed before the season started that the Dodgers were likely to make a big splash at the trade deadline. They were off by one month.
   287. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:52 AM (#4217601)
What deals of the past couple of decades would be as bad as this one? I'll spot you Vernon Wells.
Kazmir for Zambrano. Some thumbtacks and a wad of singles for Curt Schilling. Ned Coletti traded Carlos Santana for Casey Blake. Nick Swisher for Wilson Betemit.

I think truly bad trades are when one team gives up lots of value and gets no return. Here the Dodgers are getting an All-Star at a position where they've gotten nothing for half a decade, plus a solid average pitcher, plus a lottery ticket in Crawford that could turn into an All-Star. They're paying way, way too much money for these players, but that happens a lot. They are getting real value for their ballclub, just at too high a price.
   288. Foster Posted: August 25, 2012 at 01:04 AM (#4217609)
This is like a deal you trick the computer into making in OOTP. Unless LA is just counting on money flowing like water from a new TV deal and doesn't care about eating most of this money in 3 years, this is batshit insane. I'm a Sox fan who's aggresively stopped caring this year, and I echo the concerns that the FO could piss the savings away, but wow. I don't know how it'll play out for Boston, but for LA this is ten dogs dumb. Unless, like I said, the economics have changed so much that the money doesn't matter.

   289. McCoy Posted: August 25, 2012 at 01:06 AM (#4217612)
This is why I love baseball. It is a game that unfolds and reveals all in time. Yet that doesn't stop people from being absolutely certain that they know exactly what is happening and what will happen.
   290. Tripon Posted: August 25, 2012 at 01:19 AM (#4217620)

But not that odd. The CW believed before the season started that the Dodgers were likely to make a big splash at the trade deadline. They were off by one month.


Trading for Hanley Ramirez isn't making a big splash?
   291. McCoy Posted: August 25, 2012 at 01:26 AM (#4217625)
Trading for Hanley Ramirez isn't making a big splash?

When he jumps in the pool he makes a pretty big splash nowadays.
   292. JE (Jason) Posted: August 25, 2012 at 01:27 AM (#4217626)
Trading for Hanley Ramirez isn't making a big splash?

Hmmm, maybe I should have written "the biggest splash?"
   293. jyjjy Posted: August 25, 2012 at 01:41 AM (#4217630)
They're paying a crapton of money, but they're getting valuable baseball players. This is nothing like the Wells deal, where the Angels actively made themselves worse while also taking on massive contractual obligations.

They are getting "valuable baseball players" who are on contracts that let them go unclaimed by every team in the AL and most of the NL. If that many other teams think they have negative value given what they are being paid you can't just say "at least they are getting some decent players." The money matters and that is what makes it stupid. If they had simply claimed Crawford it would obviously be worse than the Wells trade IMO. Throwing in two other players on contracts no one else wants doesn't make it better, it makes it worse.
   294. Walt Davis Posted: August 25, 2012 at 01:53 AM (#4217634)
They are getting "valuable bassball players" who are on contracts that let them go unclaimed by every team in the AL and most of the NL. If that many other teams think they have negative value given what they are being paid you can't just say "at least they are getting some decent players." The money matters and that is what makes it stupid. If they had simply claimed Crawford it would obviously be worse than the Wells trade IMO. Throwing in two other players on contracts no one else wants doesn't make it better, it makes it worse.

But this is likely over-stated:

a) for whatever reason, you basically never see waiver trades to non-contending teams. I don't know if it's a gentleman's agreement or what, but I bet it would be very rare for a 2nd division team to put in a claim on Gonzalez or Beckett even if they wanted them.

b) a substantial number of teams "can't afford" the Gonzalez contract anyway. Beckett probably anybody could afford.

c) lots of teams have good 1B already, sometimes signed to long-term deals.

In the AL, Tex and the O's are the only teams that seem to make any sense for Gonzalez and Texas is getting good, cheap production out of Moreland these days (but not Young so Gonzo works there I guess). Possibly Seattle as a bolt out of the blue.

In the NL, he never made it as far as the Nats (some sense), Braves (no sense), Cincy (no sense), Cards (some sense) or Giants (some sense). Arizona has Goldschmidt and I don't imagine the Pirates want any part of his contract. Two more high payroll teams -- Phils are stuck with Howard; Cubs have Rizzo. I'm not sure the Mets consider themsevles high payroll team at the moment.

For Beckett though I'm not sure I can make that argument too well. There are lots of teams that could use a "true $15 M" starter.
   295. Baseballs Most Beloved Figure Posted: August 25, 2012 at 02:01 AM (#4217636)
Whether this trade goes trough or not it really shows that the Dodgers have absolutely no plan.
   296. zenbitz Posted: August 25, 2012 at 02:01 AM (#4217637)
As a giants fan, i dont know whether to laugh or cry. I mean, we just got rid of stupid gonzales from the division.

   297. rr Posted: August 25, 2012 at 02:02 AM (#4217638)
For Beckett though I'm not sure I can make that argument too well. There are lots of teams that could use a "true $15 M" starter.


This is a reasonable position, but I assume some teams think that Beckett is more trouble than he is worth at this point.
   298. Jeff Frances the Mute Posted: August 25, 2012 at 02:05 AM (#4217640)
Unless LA is just counting on money flowing like water from a new TV deal and doesn't care about eating most of this money in 3 years, this is batshit insane.


That is exactly what is happening. The new TV deal is going to be enormous and they don't have to pay revenue sharing on the increase.
   299. GregD Posted: August 25, 2012 at 02:08 AM (#4217641)
Whether this trade goes trough or not it really shows that the Dodgers have absolutely no plan.
Isn't it pretty clear they have a plan? The Steinbrenner Plan? George edition? Spend and spend.

If they have revenue and are worried about recapturing parts of the fan base they lost to the Angels, then they're obviously going to overvalue getting to the playoffs and advancing in the playoffs. Doesn't this trade advance that? Whether it's the best use of revenue or impacts life years down the road, well those are different questions.

I'm not saying I like it but I do think it is a plan
   300. jyjjy Posted: August 25, 2012 at 02:16 AM (#4217643)
Isn't it pretty clear they have a plan? The Steinbrenner Plan? George edition? Spend and spend.

With even the Yankees seemingly determined to decrease payroll because of the new harsh luxury tax is now really the time to pick up the plan they themselves have now abandoned?
Page 3 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Harry Balsagne, anti-Centaur hate crime division
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4134 - 11:47am, Nov 22)
Last: DJS and the Infinite Sadness

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(68 - 11:45am, Nov 22)
Last: Morty Causa

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(375 - 11:42am, Nov 22)
Last: I am going to be Frank

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(943 - 11:42am, Nov 22)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogMike Schmidt: Marlins' Stanton too rich too early? | www.palmbeachpost.com
(11 - 11:41am, Nov 22)
Last: DavidFoss

NewsblogMLB.com: White Sox Land Adam LaRoche With 2 Year/$25M Deal
(14 - 11:40am, Nov 22)
Last: Joey B.

NewsblogDodgers Acquire Joel Peralta – MLB Trade Rumors
(35 - 11:36am, Nov 22)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogRays name managerial finalists: Cash, Ibanez, Wakamatsu | Tampa Bay Times
(4 - 11:32am, Nov 22)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogMatthews: Cashman sleeps on the street, says all is quiet on the free-agent front
(15 - 11:24am, Nov 22)
Last: GregD

NewsblogFriars show interest in dealing for Bruce | MLB.com
(3 - 11:20am, Nov 22)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogCashman in wait-and-see mode on retooling Yanks | yankees.com
(1 - 10:43am, Nov 22)
Last: Win Big Stein's Money

NewsblogBraves shopping Justin Upton at a steep price | New York Post
(1 - 10:26am, Nov 22)
Last: Astroenteritis

NewsblogRed Sox offer for Pablo Sandoval might be in the lead - Sports - The Boston Globe
(1 - 10:13am, Nov 22)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

NewsblogFemale Sportswriter Asks: 'Why Are All My Twitter Followers Men?' | ThinkProgress
(130 - 9:17am, Nov 22)
Last: bob gee

NewsblogKemp drawing interest, raising chance he's the Dodgers OF dealt - CBSSports.com
(1 - 8:31am, Nov 22)
Last: akrasian

Page rendered in 0.5435 seconds
52 querie(s) executed