They will help for a year, but yeah by my math they took on 8-10 million in total for 3 players who walk in a year and gave upNo question their 2019 OF is much better, but this is the kind of move that will help them compete for third place in the NL Central.
Puig and Kemp could have huge years in GAB.sure seemed like the Reds wanted to get rid of Homer.
I kinda feel bad for Kemp. resurgent for a bit with the Dodgers the second time around, but now jettisoned to Reds in a bad contract swap.
Dodgers (correctly) determining that Puig / Wood are not that good. I'm curious to follow Puig's career now that he's out of the limelight of LA.
Or both, what about Keuchel and Sonny Gray?If the Reds added one more good starting pitcher (which I guess would be Keuchel or a trade), I think they could be in the Wild Card conversation.
Who plays centerfield next year?
Think he’ll improve on his “not that good” career 127 OPS+?Dodgers (correctly) determining that Puig / Wood are not that good. I'm curious to follow Puig's career now that he's out of the limelight of LA.
That was my thought as well. Puig and Wood are very valuable to a stretch run. And they’re also talking to Clevand about Kluber still. Cleveland was rumored to have interest in Puig earlier in offseason, weren’t they?They can of course flip all of these in July, which might make it a net positive in the long run.
Why wouldn't the Dodgers make that trade themselves in that case? I suspect this is tacit confirmation that Kluber's staying put (watch him get traded to, like, Milwaukee or something now).That was my thought as well. Puig and Wood are very valuable to a stretch run. And they’re also talking to Clevand about Kluber still. Cleveland was rumored to have interest in Puig earlier in offseason, weren’t they?
If they aren't going to do it coming off a 97 win season, they probably never will.
They can convert Verdugo+ into one of Kluber/Realmuto. Not sure beyond that. If they are smart they’d sell high on Muncy.Anyone follow the Dodgers really closely? I know it's not Friedman's style, but it seems like this deal allows them to really go for it if they want, trade for Kluber and/or Realmuto and sign Harper. Not sure if they have the minor league talent to make both those deals, but the prospects they got today help.
I think like the Yankees in recent years they have poured a ton of money into scouting on every level, and it's why they keep coming up with guys like Muncy and Chris Taylor, blossoming out of nowhere into big contributors when they were never top prospects even. Every one of those you get pushes everyone else down a notch, so that helps build the system too.In the past few years, the Dodgers have traded significant pieces for Yu Darvish, Josh Reddick, Rich Hill, Logan Forsythe, and Manny Machado, they've also graduated Cody Bellinger and Corey Seager from their system, and perhaps a few other guys I'm not aware of. Do they have a bottomless farm system?
They clearly think that 2017 season is an outlier. I could see the argument for it. I think they get an extra year of control out of Hamel as well and probably at a cheaper rate.Milwaukee trades Santana to Seattle for a 4th outfielder and a relief pitching prospect.
Talk about selling at the Nadir of value. Great trade for the Mariners. What the hell is Milwaukee thinking.
So, were Dodgers staff bribing government officials? I had to look up FCPA to see what that is and it's a law against bribing foreign gov't officials. Did they get the inside track to some players that way?While we discuss their bottomless farm system, let’s also remember that a bunch of people in the Dodgers’ FO may be indicted for FCPA violations.
I'm sure as hell glad they didn't have him in the ALCS, especially when Jackie Bradley Jr. was up in all those big spots.Can you imagine the Astros having Hader right now? Hoo-boy!
Pretty much.So, were Dodgers staff bribing government officials? I had to look up FCPA to see what that is and it's a law against bribing foreign gov't officials. Did they get the inside track to some players that way?
The allegation is that they were, yeah.So, were Dodgers staff bribing government officials? I had to look up FCPA to see what that is and it's a law against bribing foreign gov't officials. Did they get the inside track to some players that way?
Dunno his exact criticism but CLE is almost certainly going to win the division with or without Kluber, so it's at least worth exploring getting some young position players in return, especially outfielders and a catcher. It's also worth at least noting that Kluber has been absolutely shelled in the last two postseasons, a 10.64 ERA in three starts. Not saying that's predictive, but if you're going to win the division anyway...Indians apparently in serious talks to trade Kluber, especially with Padres, Dodgers, Phillies and Brewers according to MLB network.
Joel Sherman is not treating the Indians well for this.
I think his perspective was that it's really hard for a small market club to build up to be this close to winning it all. So, once you get there (to a position of definitely contending) how can you choose to move back or sideways at best without it being financially required?Dunno his exact criticism but CLE is almost certainly going to win the division with or without Kluber, so it's at least worth exploring getting some young position players in return, especially outfielders and a catcher. It's also worth at least noting that Kluber has been absolutely shelled in the last two postseasons, a 10.64 ERA in three starts. Not saying that's predictive, but if you're going to win the division anyway...
I think what you really can't afford as a small market club is to let your best assets walk with no return, and since CLE would still be close to locks to win the division without Kluber, and they still would have Carrasco/Bauer/Clevinger for a postseason rotation, it might make sense to move Kluber for a package including Verdugo (long-term OF replacement), one of their stud C prospects and Julio Urias (who could be the 4th man in CLE's postseason rotation).I think his perspective was that it's really hard for a small market club to build up to be this close to winning it all. So, once you get there (to a position of definitely contending) how can you choose to move back or sideways at best without it being financially required?
All true.I think what you really can't afford as a small market club is to let your best assets walk with no return, and since CLE would still be close to locks to win the division without Kluber, and they still would have Carrasco/Bauer/Clevinger for a postseason rotation, it might make sense to move Kluber for a package including Verdugo (long-term OF replacement), one of their stud C prospects and Julio Urias (who could be the 4th man in CLE's postseason rotation).
That kind of deal might make sense both ways, the Dodgers have so much depth and could use more consolidation deals for stars. And if Kluber has another top 10 AL SP season and then gets shelled in the playoffs for the third straight season, he will be a lot less valuable next winter, one year less of control and a third straight bad postseason.
I think what you really can't afford as a small market club is to let your best assets walk with no return, and since CLE would still be close to locks to win the division without Kluber, and they still would have Carrasco/Bauer/Clevinger for a postseason rotation, it might make sense to move Kluber for a package including Verdugo (long-term OF replacement), one of their stud C prospects and Julio Urias (who could be the 4th man in CLE's postseason rotation).
Wow. I wonder what their offer was for a clean one year deal that giving them the option to cut his pay if he has another good season was the better deal?Cruz goes to Twins. 14M this year, 12M club option next year with 300k buyout.
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2018/12/twins-sign-nelson-cruz.html
Again, the issue isn't that exactly, it's that signing OK veterans hurts roster flexibility, one less spot you can option someone down if they're not performing. The money helps too, but the roster flexibility is a big issue that is hurting the veterans it's designed to protect.Baseball’s owners are really exploiting profit boost provided by the lack of a minimum payroll or other incentive to be competitive in the last deal.
I can see that incentive at play and it is enhanced by the lack of a penalty for being uncompetitive. If there were a penalty for losing more than 95 games, say, then the cost - benefit of that roster flexibility changes. The stability provided by a veteran innings eater or strong DH is worth more.Again, the issue isn't that exactly, it's that signing OK veterans hurts roster flexibility, one less spot you can option someone down if they're not performing. The money helps too, but the roster flexibility is a big issue that is hurting the veterans it's designed to protect.
Really? Looking through the current list of free agents and taking the Cruz and Ramos contracts as baseline for solid veteran position players, I bet I could easily put together a team for less than $125 million that would finish .500. I guarantee it wouldn’t lose 100 games.I think the problem is you're equating 'spending money' with being competitive and I'm not sure they're so connected anymore (again, the quotes in my sig are relevant as always). Personally I'd say if anything too many teams are going for it as opposed to a full rebuild, but what there's no question about is that the current CBA is awful awful awful for players. They need to be paid a lot more earlier in their careers (if they are very productive) because you can't force teams to overpay solid players after they hit free agency when so many of them end up not performing up to the level of their contracts.
Those two guys coat $24M just by themselves, so you have $101M left for 23 players and zero roster flexibility. Good luck with your pitching staff.Really? Looking through the current list of free agents and taking the Cruz and Ramos contracts as baseline for solid veteran position players, I bet I could easily put together a team for less than $125 million that would finish .500. I guarantee it wouldn’t lose 100 games .
There are many ways younger players could get paid more, but few that would be acceptable to ownership and veteran players. You could decrease years of control (either reduce them or age cap it), make arbitration apply earlier (either years earlier or fiddle with Super 2 rules), reduce options, etc. All of these, however, would result in increased payouts from owners, so would need something to be traded back for them, and it's unlikely for the veteran players to be willing to do that.Really? Looking through the current list of free agents and taking the Cruz and Ramos contracts as baseline for solid veteran position players, I bet I could easily put together a team for less than $125 million that would finish .500. I guarantee it wouldn’t lose 100 games.
I also don’t see how you’re going to pay players a lot more early in their careers unless you Uber-Ize the first two years with a bunch of large, automatic bonuses in the rookie and second year contracts. Say $1 million for ROY and $750k for ROY runner up, and $500k for an all star selection or something like that.
I tried it.Really? Looking through the current list of free agents and taking the Cruz and Ramos contracts as baseline for solid veteran position players, I bet I could easily put together a team for less than $125 million that would finish .500. I guarantee it wouldn’t lose 100 games.
I also don’t see how you’re going to pay players a lot more early in their careers unless you Uber-Ize the first two years with a bunch of large, automatic bonuses in the rookie and second year contracts. Say $1 million for ROY and $750k for ROY runner up, and $500k for an all star selection or something like that.