Dodgers after both Price and Tanaka?

[duke1861]

Industry sources; Dodgers? strategy to acquire Price and Tanaka - GammonsDaily.com

Gammons must have lost his mind. If we sign Tanaka, why would we acquire Price as well? Would that not defeat the purpose of signing Tanaka? We simply cannot trade away Pederson, Urias and Seager for Price. If Ned does it, he should be fired. That would gut our farm system completely.

If they want Stripling, Anderson and Santana, then I would do it. There is no reason to have 5 aces on the staff. If 3 of the 5 were from the farm system like the Cards, great, but we can't trade and sign 4 other aces on the staff. We still have a few holes to fill like 3rd. I think Gammons and others make up this crap to see if it sticks. Here is what I would do:

1. Re-sign Kershaw.
2. Sign Tanaka to a 5 or 6 year deal.
3. Sign Jhonny Peralta to play 3rd. Sign him to a 2 year contract so that Seager can continue in the Minors.
4. Re-sign JP Howell to a 1 year deal.
5. Attempt to sign Wilson. If he walks and wants a closer role, sign Jesse Crain or Grant Balfour to a 2 year year.
6. Attempt to trade Andre Either.
7. Fill in bench roles as necessary.

And one of the most important things....get our players HEALTHY!!!!

That is what I would do. I think if we did those things, we are looking at a World Series run. Of course it would take a boat load of money, but if they want to spend, so be it.

 

[besaesa]

I dont see how we can get Tanaka and Price considering we need to lock up Kershaw and Hanley to long term extensions. We also need a third baseman and to shore up middle relief in the bullpen.

 

[xJokerz]

Industry sources; Dodgers? strategy to acquire Price and Tanaka - GammonsDaily.com

Gammons must have lost his mind. If we sign Tanaka, why would we acquire Price as well? Would that not defeat the purpose of signing Tanaka? We simply cannot trade away Pederson, Urias and Seager for Price. If Ned does it, he should be fired. That would gut our farm system completely.

If they want Stripling, Anderson and Santana, then I would do it. There is no reason to have 5 aces on the staff. If 3 of the 5 were from the farm system like the Cards, great, but we can't trade and sign 4 other aces on the staff. We still have a few holes to fill like 3rd. I think Gammons and others make up this crap to see if it sticks. Here is what I would do:

1. Re-sign Kershaw.
2. Sign Tanaka to a 5 or 6 year deal.
3. Sign Jhonny Peralta to play 3rd. Sign him to a 2 year contract so that Seager can continue in the Minors.
4. Re-sign JP Howell to a 1 year deal.
5. Attempt to sign Wilson. If he walks and wants a closer role, sign Jesse Crain or Grant Balfour to a 2 year year.
6. Attempt to trade Andre Either.
7. Fill in bench roles as necessary.

And one of the most important things....get our players HEALTHY!!!!

That is what I would do. I think if we did those things, we are looking at a World Series run. Of course it would take a boat load of money, but if they want to spend, so be it.

Peralta play 3B?......

lol.

 

[navamind]

Peralta play 3B?......

lol.

Can't be any worse than Miggy.

 

[Villain]

Duke, what is the point of trading Ethier?

Can't be any worse than Miggy.

Well Miggy isn't our other option, so I don't why that is even a point. Uribe > Peralta.

 

[ksudodger]

I personally would sign Uribe to a 1 year deal with an option for a 2nd year over Peralta. As for the idea of going after Tanaka AND Price, that is simple LUNACY. There is no need. Personally, I do not think we need EITHER of them. Come February 16th, we will have 6, yes SIX, legitimate starters in camp. And that does not even count if we resign Nolasco.
First and foremost, Colletti must, MUST sign Kershaw and Han Ram to long term deals. Then we can focus on the rest of it.

 

[xJokerz]

Can't be any worse than Miggy.

its a position hes never played before

+ Peralta said he wants to come back on a short team deal with the Tigers and potentially play left field for us


he wants to be with winners, not a bunch of pussies like the Dodgers

 

[duke1861]

Duke, what is the point of trading Ethier?



Well Miggy isn't our other option, so I don't why that is even a point. Uribe > Peralta.

I would trade Either for 2 reasons.

1. We don't need 71 million dollars in the outfield (Kemp = 27, Crawford = 21, Either = 16 and Puig = 7). We have deep pockets but that is insane.

2. Either is the least talented out of the 4. A case can be made for Kemp being traded due to chronic injuries, but I feel Either is the most likely candidate.

Peralta generally has a higher batting average and has higher RBI than Uribe. He is also 3 years younger. Uribe played extremely well this year, but the rest of tenure with LA has been a disaster. Botton line is that an upgrade is needed at 3rd as Uribe played over his head last year. I could see a 1 year deal if the organization feels Seager will be ready by 2014 but I am thinking 2015 will be his earliest as he finished the year struggling at High A.

 

[duke1861]

its a position hes never played before

+ Peralta said he wants to come back on a short team deal with the Tigers and potentially play left field for us


he wants to be with winners, not a bunch of pussies like the Dodgers

LOL, in all honestly, the word "winner" is the first thing that comes to mind when I think of Detroit sports. Outside of the Red Wings, you guys are Losertown USA. I mean the Pistons and the Lions are awful.

 

[HammerDown]

Magic is about to write some checks.

 

[xJokerz]

LOL, in all honestly, the word "winner" is the first thing that comes to mind when I think of Detroit sports. Outside of the Red Wings, you guys are Losertown USA. I mean the Pistons and the Lions are awful.

the Tigers and Lions are awful? the pistons arent even THAT bad and its the NBA..everyone knows its the heat year..soo i could give two shits about the NBA

tell me more boy genius

 

[xJokerz]

Magic is about to write some checks.

i would hope those checks are going to Kershaw...

good luck with that

 

[besaesa]

i would hope those checks are going to Kershaw...

good luck with that

Youre the one over here trolling and calling the Dodgers pussies as you say. I would worry more about your own teams.

 

[xJokerz]

Youre the one over here trolling and calling the Dodgers pussies as you say. I would worry more about your own teams.

dodgers have been pussified by their big name trades

Gonzalez and Crawfords contracts are horrible, so is ethiers.

you have to pay Kershaw and Hanley...

id be worried about the current Dodgers roster than anything else.

 

[Villain]

Okay, so I typed a super long rant again. I put the extra-ranty stuff in italics, so feel free to ignore those sections if you want to. I tried to summarize my main points below so just focus on those if you don't have the time/patience for those huge blocks of text.

I would trade Either for 2 reasons.

1. We don't need 71 million dollars in the outfield (Kemp = 27, Crawford = 21, Either = 16 and Puig = 7). We have deep pockets but that is insane.

2. Either is the least talented out of the 4. A case can be made for Kemp being traded due to chronic injuries, but I feel Either is the most likely candidate.

1. Who cares? Money clearly isn't a problem for this team at this time. This team does not need to worry about saving money by trading an overpaid outfielder.

2. I have two problems with this:

First Problem: What does it matter if he is the least talented? Every one of the 4 outfielders has strengths and weaknesses. Ethier is money against right-handed pitchers, he's got a better arm than Crawford and probably Kemp, and he's probably got the best outfield instincts of all three (maybe Crawford is better). Is he the slowest? Yes. Is he the worst against lefties? Yes. Does that make him useless? No.

2nd Problem: You're wrong about Kemp. Chronic injuries do not make a case for Kemp to be traded. Trading Kemp will create a massive hole in the roster that will not be easily filled. You must have a regular center fielder and Crawford and Ethier can't start against lefties all the time.

Dodger fans by and large need to stop worrying about penny-pinching in the outfield or this so-called "outfield logjam" or whatever terminology is being used. 4 outfielders on a roster is pretty standard (actually, 4 is at least the minimum if not 5). The Braves took 6 outfielders to the NLDS.

Anyways, the only reason to trade a player is to make the team better and just I can not see how trading Ethier would accomplish that. He has an atrocious contract and he's on the decline. What does that mean? That means that the Dodgers would essentially be paying another team to take Ethier off their hands and they'd only get iffy prospects in return. That doesn't make the team better. In fact, it just creates a hole on the 25-man roster.

So let's go best-case scenario. You trade Ethier to the Mets and you get 2 decent prospects (maybe number 9 and 12 in their system) and one kid who's like 18 but he has the chance to be a lottery ticket (high ceiling, low floor kind of a guy). Well, neither one of those 3 players will be on the team in 2013 - no way Ethier gets traded for MLB-talent unless it's a swap of bad contracts like Guerrier/Marmol.

Okay, so Ethier is gone. Now you need a 4th outfielder. Who's that going to be? Kemp, Crawford, and Puig can't play everyday. Elian Herrera? Joc Pederson (if he hasn't already been traded)? Re-sign Skip Schumaker? Scott Van Slyke? Chili Buss? I don't know if you realize it, but 4 out of 5 of those options are obviously not ideal, and Joc Pederson as the 4th big league OF is just a terrible, unrealistic idea. Joc Pederson needs to be an everyday player to have any kind of value and if you bring him up to be a bench player then you are A) Setting him up for failure, B) Diminishing his value, and C) Rolling the dice that he can handle being a pinch hitter and irregular playing time.

Also, I should probably remind you that at no time in 2013 were all 4 outfielders healthy at the same time. The advantage of keeping all 4 is that you can rotate them based on pitching matchups and rest schedules. Also, having one of those 4 on the bench for any given game gives you a quality pinch hitter and flexibility in a late or mid-game double-switch. Keeping the 3 of Kemp/Ethier/Crawford rested also hopefully helps alleviate the risk of injuries. And of course it's only a matter of time in 2014 when Puig will have to miss time because he ran into a wall going after a foul ball or something. Someone will need to play those games, do you want it to be Ethier or Elian Herrera?

Moral of the story: Trading Ethier is a bad idea and doesn't improve the team. Keeping Ethier gives the roster added flexibility on a regular basis and improves the quality of the outfield depth chart.

Peralta generally has a higher batting average and has higher RBI than Uribe. He is also 3 years younger. Uribe played extremely well this year, but the rest of tenure with LA has been a disaster. Botton line is that an upgrade is needed at 3rd as Uribe played over his head last year. I could see a 1 year deal if the organization feels Seager will be ready by 2014 but I am thinking 2015 will be his earliest as he finished the year struggling at High A.

First thing: Seager is still at SS. I hope he remains there because that's where he has the most value. Everyone keeps saying he'll be at 3B eventually, but I think it's more likely that Seager comes up to play short and Hanley Ramirez will move over to 3B.

Second thing: Peralta is not an upgrade at 3B. For starters, he's never played the position in the bigs and he was already a shoddy defensive SS. Uribe was one of the best defensive 3B in MLB last year and was even a finalist in the gold glove voting. Also, Peralta may be 3 years younger than Uribe, but that doesn't make him "young" - he is still past his prime and he's only going to get worse. His batting numbers are better than Uribe's, but not by a big enough margin for me. You have to remember, he got those numbers hitting in the AL Central - not exactly a hitters' paradise like the NL Central, but Uribe was in the NL West which is undoubtedly the most stingy division for hitters' (Petco, Dodgers Stadium, and AT&T Park). Point is, you have to wonder how well his bat will translate the the NL West and if he ends up being any better than Uribe was. My guess, he'll probably still be better, but I doubt it will be by a ton.

Also, don't forget that Peralta just missed 50 games due to a steroid suspension. I don't know about you, but I don't want any part of a guy like that. I'm also not really a huge "character" guy, but I have to say that Uribe is absolutely adored by his Dodgers teammates and Peralta will be coming in with steroid controversies around him.

Would an upgrade over Uribe be a huge improvement for this club? Yes. I would love to see that. But after looking around the league, there just aren't that many sensible options. Freese, Middlebrooks... there's a case to be made for those guys but their margin of improvement over Uribe is not really that significant (if existent) and they'd both cost the Dodgers depth from the minors. Uribe comes over cheaply via free agency.

Moral of the story: the available options to upgrade at 3rd are not that great for the price they'd cost. Uribe is the best stopgap for the time being and signing Johnny Peralta to replace Uribe is more likely to make the team weaker at 3rd than stronger. He's a better hitter by a small margin and a worse fielder by a large margin.

===================================​

ALTERNATE SUGGESTION: Why not sign both Peralta and Uribe? This team needs bench bats. Punto, Hairston, and Young are all gone (for the time being at least). If Peralta wants to come in and be in a three-man rotation with Hanley Ramirez and Juan Uribe, then I'm for that. The team can afford it. Hanley can use a few regularly scheduled days off to keep fresh. Uribe is getting older so he does, too. And, once again, having one of those 3 guys on the bench at the start of a game gives the team valuable depth and flexibility and a better pinch hitting option than Punto/Hairston/Young ever offered in 2013. The only problem with this idea, of course, is that Peralta probably wouldn't want to sign for that role.

You're virtually guaranteed to have Ramirez miss a bunch of games. Having Peralta be the replacement SS would definitely be way more ideal than Nick Punto. Maybe Peralta can buy into being the half-time 3B and once-a-week SS to rest Hanley Ramirez? Heck, maybe he would sign to be the starter and advanced-age Uribe will agree be the relatively pricey backup? I don't prefer that last idea, but it's not unreasonable.

 

[besaesa]

dodgers have been pussified by their big name trades

Gonzalez and Crawfords contracts are horrible, so is ethiers.

you have to pay Kershaw and Hanley...

id be worried about the current Dodgers roster than anything else.

You make it sound like the Dodgers are the first and only team to trade for big names. For whatever reason it is wrong for LA to do it but not wrong when other teams do it. Second, Im very well aware that Hanley and Kershaw needs to get paid and that is going to be settled. I just dont see the point of you trolling when we are very well aware of what needs to be done with our team.

 

[besaesa]

Okay, so I typed a super long rant again. I put the extra-ranty stuff in italics, so feel free to ignore those sections if you want to. I tried to summarize my main points below so just focus on those if you don't have the time/patience for those huge blocks of text.



1. Who cares? Money clearly isn't a problem for this team at this time. This team does not need to worry about saving money by trading an overpaid outfielder.

2. I have two problems with this:

First Problem: What does it matter if he is the least talented? Every one of the 4 outfielders has strengths and weaknesses. Ethier is money against right-handed pitchers, he's got a better arm than Crawford and probably Kemp, and he's probably got the best outfield instincts of all three (maybe Crawford is better). Is he the slowest? Yes. Is he the worst against lefties? Yes. Does that make him useless? No.

2nd Problem: You're wrong about Kemp. Chronic injuries do not make a case for Kemp to be traded. Trading Kemp will create a massive hole in the roster that will not be easily filled. You must have a regular center fielder and Crawford and Ethier can't start against lefties all the time.

Dodger fans by and large need to stop worrying about penny-pinching in the outfield or this so-called "outfield logjam" or whatever terminology is being used. 4 outfielders on a roster is pretty standard (actually, 4 is at least the minimum if not 5). The Braves took 6 outfielders to the NLDS.

Anyways, the only reason to trade a player is to make the team better and just I can not see how trading Ethier would accomplish that. He has an atrocious contract and he's on the decline. What does that mean? That means that the Dodgers would essentially be paying another team to take Ethier off their hands and they'd only get iffy prospects in return. That doesn't make the team better. In fact, it just creates a hole on the 25-man roster.

So let's go best-case scenario. You trade Ethier to the Mets and you get 2 decent prospects (maybe number 9 and 12 in their system) and one kid who's like 18 but he has the chance to be a lottery ticket (high ceiling, low floor kind of a guy). Well, neither one of those 3 players will be on the team in 2013 - no way Ethier gets traded for MLB-talent unless it's a swap of bad contracts like Guerrier/Marmol.

Okay, so Ethier is gone. Now you need a 4th outfielder. Who's that going to be? Kemp, Crawford, and Puig can't play everyday. Elian Herrera? Joc Pederson (if he hasn't already been traded)? Re-sign Skip Schumaker? Scott Van Slyke? Chili Buss? I don't know if you realize it, but 4 out of 5 of those options are obviously not ideal, and Joc Pederson as the 4th big league OF is just a terrible, unrealistic idea. Joc Pederson needs to be an everyday player to have any kind of value and if you bring him up to be a bench player then you are A) Setting him up for failure, B) Diminishing his value, and C) Rolling the dice that he can handle being a pinch hitter and irregular playing time.

Also, I should probably remind you that at no time in 2013 were all 4 outfielders healthy at the same time. The advantage of keeping all 4 is that you can rotate them based on pitching matchups and rest schedules. Also, having one of those 4 on the bench for any given game gives you a quality pinch hitter and flexibility in a late or mid-game double-switch. Keeping the 3 of Kemp/Ethier/Crawford rested also hopefully helps alleviate the risk of injuries. And of course it's only a matter of time in 2014 when Puig will have to miss time because he ran into a wall going after a foul ball or something. Someone will need to play those games, do you want it to be Ethier or Elian Herrera?

Moral of the story: Trading Ethier is a bad idea and doesn't improve the team. Keeping Ethier gives the roster added flexibility on a regular basis and improves the quality of the outfield depth chart.



First thing: Seager is still at SS. I hope he remains there because that's where he has the most value. Everyone keeps saying he'll be at 3B eventually, but I think it's more likely that Seager comes up to play short and Hanley Ramirez will move over to 3B.

Second thing: Peralta is not an upgrade at 3B. For starters, he's never played the position in the bigs and he was already a shoddy defensive SS. Uribe was one of the best defensive 3B in MLB last year and was even a finalist in the gold glove voting. Also, Peralta may be 3 years younger than Uribe, but that doesn't make him "young" - he is still past his prime and he's only going to get worse. His batting numbers are better than Uribe's, but not by a big enough margin for me. You have to remember, he got those numbers hitting in the AL Central - not exactly a hitters' paradise like the NL Central, but Uribe was in the NL West which is undoubtedly the most stingy division for hitters' (Petco, Dodgers Stadium, and AT&T Park). Point is, you have to wonder how well his bat will translate the the NL West and if he ends up being any better than Uribe was. My guess, he'll probably still be better, but I doubt it will be by a ton.

Also, don't forget that Peralta just missed 50 games due to a steroid suspension. I don't know about you, but I don't want any part of a guy like that. I'm also not really a huge "character" guy, but I have to say that Uribe is absolutely adored by his Dodgers teammates and Peralta will be coming in with steroid controversies around him.

Would an upgrade over Uribe be a huge improvement for this club? Yes. I would love to see that. But after looking around the league, there just aren't that many sensible options. Freese, Middlebrooks... there's a case to be made for those guys but their margin of improvement over Uribe is not really that significant (if existent) and they'd both cost the Dodgers depth from the minors. Uribe comes over cheaply via free agency.

Moral of the story: the available options to upgrade at 3rd are not that great for the price they'd cost. Uribe is the best stopgap for the time being and signing Johnny Peralta to replace Uribe is more likely to make the team weaker at 3rd than stronger. He's a better hitter by a small margin and a worse fielder by a large margin.

===================================​

ALTERNATE SUGGESTION: Why not sign both Peralta and Uribe? This team needs bench bats. Punto, Hairston, and Young are all gone (for the time being at least). If Peralta wants to come in and be in a three-man rotation with Hanley Ramirez and Juan Uribe, then I'm for that. The team can afford it. Hanley can use a few regularly scheduled days off to keep fresh. Uribe is getting older so he does, too. And, once again, having one of those 3 guys on the bench at the start of a game gives the team valuable depth and flexibility and a better pinch hitting option than Punto/Hairston/Young ever offered in 2013. The only problem with this idea, of course, is that Peralta probably wouldn't want to sign for that role.

You're virtually guaranteed to have Ramirez miss a bunch of games. Having Peralta be the replacement SS would definitely be way more ideal than Nick Punto. Maybe Peralta can buy into being the half-time 3B and once-a-week SS to rest Hanley Ramirez? Heck, maybe he would sign to be the starter and advanced-age Uribe will agree be the relatively pricey backup? I don't prefer that last idea, but it's not unreasonable.

The main problem I have with Peralta is I do not know now that he is off the PED's what his numbers will look like. I would prefer to resign Uribe on a 1 year deal but if we signed Peralta fine. What we really need are some legit pinch hitting options that will drive in some runs later in the game.

 

[Jonas_steven]

I know you guys say screw "a budget" but price and tanaka will empty those "deep pockets" by themselves! The bid for tanaka is likely 50+ million(most likely around the 70-80 mark) and then you will have to sign him to a contract of like 12-15 million a season. David price will garner 100+ million plus for any team that signs him. The word on kershaw is that the dodgers are looking to offer him a contract for somewhere in the ballpark of 10/220+! I am not sure what the deal would be for ram rod. Needless to say, you may not have money issues now but what about 3-5 years down the road. Are the dodgers only seeking to be a win now team? At least use a coupon every once in a while!

 

[Old1949]

Maybe the Dodgers will let Kershaw walk and replace him with Price AND Tanaka for the same money. A rotation in 2015 of Greinke, Price, Tanaka, Ryu and Zach Lee wouldn't be too shabby. Kershaw is a very good pitcher, but you have to wonder if ANY pitcher is worth the kind of money that's being thrown around. It's quite a gamble given the Dodgers' propensity for injuries.

 

[Old1949]

Someone will need to play those games, do you want it to be Ethier or Elian Herrera?

Brewers claim Elian Herrera - Los Angeles - Dodgers Report - ESPN Los Angeles