PDA

View Full Version : Dodgers


SEALgep
01-27-2004, 11:24 AM
If the ownership transfer goes down, does it affect the Sox? My guess is that it probably will. I don't believe the Dodgers are inclined to go into the season without addressing their offensive whoas, and I believe have only been reluctant to do a deal because of the debt scenerio it would put them in. McCourt would probably want his input, and also because it would restructure any potential deal (voted on Thursday). It has been rumored that they are still interested in Maggs and/or Konerko. What choice do they have. The real question is if they can get a match. My guess is that a deal for one or both will happen before ST. However, I most certainly could be wrong, especially if Evans continues his unwillingness to part with some of his young studs. Now with Shingo, Mota may or may not be part of the demands. If not though, you can bet someone else of value will be. If Evans declines this option, then he will most likely add some subpar talent and just try to get by. They certainly wouldn't win the division, and most likely not the wild card either. Either way, I like how KW has handled the matter. We obviously don't want to give up Maggs when the Central is this competitive, but if they made an offer we couldn't refuse, then so be it. It's their call, we would okay either way. Especially since other clubs have also showed continued interest. KW is in the drivers seat.

mdep524
01-27-2004, 11:39 AM
I agree- I like the way KW is sticking to his guns on this one. If the ownership change goes down, I have a feeling Evans will give in and make a deal, but like I always say- it better include Jackson or Miller! I would definitely drop Mota from the trade if we get one or two of their studs.

SEALgep
01-27-2004, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by mdep524
I agree- I like the way KW is sticking to his guns on this one. If the ownership change goes down, I have a feeling Evans will give in and make a deal, but like I always say- it better include Jackson or Miller! I would definitely drop Mota from the trade if we get one or two of their studs.
Oh we'll get one if a trade goes down. Probably Miller, but depending who else was thrown in the deal, we could possibly get both. I seriously doubt that, they are tight on Jackson (rightfully so), but they also have a prospect rated just under these guys. I don't know what would be worked out, but I know KW won't do anything unless one of them is included, you can bet on that.

LATruBlue
01-27-2004, 12:18 PM
Obviously, you guys don't follow what's going on in LA regards to the change in ownership, but that's ok. Allow me to bring you up to speed.

Right now no one except for a minority of fans want McCourt as owner. Many of us, myself included, don't feel that he has the resources to make the Dodgers competitive. He is being torched in the local papers and sports radio. We think he'll slash payroll tremendously by trading the big paycheck players and not resigning those whose contracts will be up for renegotiation.

With that having been said, regardless of the transfer in ownership many fans are still against trading any of the young prospects (Miller, Jackson, Gutierrez, and Loney etc). And would seem more probable that the young kids would play sooner in LA than anticipated should McCourt become the owner.

Now it is also speculated that McCourt wants to bring in Billy Beane so I can't comment on how he would view the kids. He might just trade them after all but everyone here feels that Evans won't trade them which is fine with us.

Now concerning the need for the Dodgers to get offensive help. There is still a rumor floating around. The rumor is that the Dodgers will trade Perez, Hanrahan and Thurston to the Brewers for Geoff Jenkins and Spivey. Another rumor that just hit the Dodger board minutes ago was that the Dodgers are now actively persueing IRod. The poster said that this rumor was on ESPN Insider. I haven't seen anthing in print yet so I can't say that there is any validity to this or the previously mentioned trade scenario. Interesting though that IRod hasn't signed with the Tigers yet isn't it? One could get the impression that he really doesn't want to play there.

So, I would not be so smug yet as to think that Evans will be forced into having to trade our stud pitchers to the White Sox just yet. The only way I see that happening is if McCourt orders him to. In fact many think that with the impending Maggs free agency, that KW will be the one forced to make a trade. It's just a matter of time, that's all. Not to mention that Carlos Beltran will also be available with Maggs. Also the Astros may still be looking to unload Hidalgo. I still have a difficult time understanding why some posters think that the Dodgers will have to trade for Maggs now when we can pick him up next year for probably nothing and still retain our young pitching studs. Maybe I think that retaining our studs now and picking up Maggs next season is the smart thing to do. Maybe I don't understand.

Jjav829
01-27-2004, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by LATruBlue
Now concerning the need for the Dodgers to get offensive help. There is still a rumor floating around. The rumor is that the Dodgers will trade Perez, Hanrahan and Thurston to the Brewers for Geoff Jenkins and Spivey. Another rumor that just hit the Dodger board minutes ago was that the Dodgers are now actively persueing IRod. The poster said that this rumor was on ESPN Insider. I haven't seen anthing in print yet so I can't say that there is any validity to this or the previously mentioned trade scenario. Interesting though that IRod hasn't signed with the Tigers yet isn't it? One could get the impression that he really doesn't want to play there.

So, I would not be so smug yet as to think that Evans will be forced into having to trade our stud pitchers to the White Sox just yet. The only way I see that happening is if McCourt orders him to. In fact many think that with the impending Maggs free agency, that KW will be the one forced to make a trade. It's just a matter of time, that's all. Not to mention that Carlos Beltran will also be available with Maggs. Also the Astros may still be looking to unload Hidalgo. I still have a difficult time understanding why some posters think that the Dodgers will have to trade for Maggs now when we can pick him up next year for probably nothing and still retain our young pitching studs. Maybe I think that retaining our studs now and picking up Maggs next season is the smart thing to do. Maybe I don't understand.

The Irod thing on Insider is courtesy of a Seattle Times report that the Dodgers will pursue Irod harder than they did any other FA. You seem to think that once Maggs becomes a FA, he will automatically become a Dodger as long as the Dodgers want him. There is no guarantee that a.) he will ever become a FA (I know, it seems hopeless now but what happens if Maggs has another down year? Maybe he settles for less. I'm not saying, I'm just saying.) b.) Maggs has any desire to become a Dodger. He may wish to go to a more hitter friendly park. It's possible that if traded to LA he likes where he is at and decides to stay, whereas if he isn't traded there, he may never consider it.

Why would the Dodgers bother at all this year then? Why not just ship off every aging player and get ready to ride these sure thing prospects that are keeping them from getting a good established offensive player. I mean if Greg Miller and Edwin Jackson are going to be the next Curt Schilling and Randy Johnson combination, they might as well just wait a few years for them to fully develop and then make a run at it. They can even inform their fans of this, as they are already pretty much doing. The Dodgers need offense. Desperately. Whether they want to throw this year away in hopes that they will be able to get a couple of good bats next year, or make a run at it this year is up to them. They've seemingly chosen the second option already.

SEALgep
01-27-2004, 12:40 PM
It's not that you don't understand, it's just a gamble. Even with Irod,the offense lacks. Maggs is not going for next to nothing next year, that's out. You probably will have a go with Nomar, but Beltran and Maggs will go high priced. If not, then he would probably just resign with the Sox. You can certainly wait until next year, but the pitching staff would be one more year closer to being disassembled. Miller and Jackson could pick up the slack, but nothing is for certain, especially with their young age. There is no problem with seeing who you can get next year, but by doing so, you sacrifice this season with no guarantees for next year. And if McCourt is going to cut payroll like you're suggesting, then what makes you so confident you can pick up a huge FA next year? With some of your biggest contracts on the offensive side, with Green in particular, they will be hard to move. Your club is the main team who needs offensive help, so trading them away will be difficult. You can build for the future by sacrificing this year, or go for it this year and sacrifice a bit of the future. Either scenerio is a gamble. My main point is that Maggs won't go for nothing, especially with the possibilty of resigning. Trading him eliminates that possibility, hence such a high demand for what we would want in return. By keeping him, and offering arbitration, we would get a pick (if he left) and he would contribute for the Central this year.

dougs78
01-27-2004, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by LATruBlue
I still have a difficult time understanding why some posters think that the Dodgers will have to trade for Maggs now when we can pick him up next year for probably nothing and still retain our young pitching studs. Maybe I think that retaining our studs now and picking up Maggs next season is the smart thing to do. Maybe I don't understand.


What you are saying make sense in theory. However, I think what you are having a hard time understanding is that posters on this board are incredulous that any group of fans would actually be in favor of "waiting until next year." Particularly when there are top players available to help THIS YEAR and all that is being asked for in return is a 3rd starter, a middle reliever and a prospect.

Believe me, "retaining our young pitching studs" and making other moves later has been tried to death in the White Sox organization. We've seen what happens there and we don't see it as a realistic option for success. You seem hearset on waiting for "tomorrow". I guess we are just tired of waiting for tomorrow, when it never seems to come.

LATruBlue
01-27-2004, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Jjav829
The Irod thing on Insider is courtesy of a Seattle Times report that the Dodgers will pursue Irod harder than they did any other FA. You seem to think that once Maggs becomes a FA, he will automatically become a Dodger as long as the Dodgers want him. There is no guarantee that a.) he will ever become a FA (I know, it seems hopeless now but what happens if Maggs has another down year? Maybe he settles for less. I'm not saying, I'm just saying.) b.) Maggs has any desire to become a Dodger. He may wish to go to a more hitter friendly park. It's possible that if traded to LA he likes where he is at and decides to stay, whereas if he isn't traded there, he may never consider it.

Why would the Dodgers bother at all this year then? Why not just ship off every aging player and get ready to ride these sure thing prospects that are keeping them from getting a good established offensive player. I mean if Greg Miller and Edwin Jackson are going to be the next Curt Schilling and Randy Johnson combination, they might as well just wait a few years for them to fully develop and then make a run at it. They can even inform their fans of this, as they are already pretty much doing. The Dodgers need offense. Desperately. Whether they want to throw this year away in hopes that they will be able to get a couple of good bats next year, or make a run at it this year is up to them. They've seemingly chosen the second option already.

What I am saying is that some posters thinks we have to take Maggs now as a result of our need for hitting. That KW is IN control of the situation. The reality is that Maggs is in control and that KW is at HIS mercy. All that I'm saying is that SHOULD Maggs become a FA next season we can then persue him without having to trade our young pitchers. Sure, there are no guarantees on anything. I think that scenario is our best move. Plus, if Maggs doesn't become a FA, then I'm sure that enough quality bats will avail themselves next season still.

The Dodgers aren't just going to tank the season. But the fans do realize that we need hitting still and are willing to wait for next season. We also realize that Dan's hands were apparently tied, especially with Vlad. (An article in the LA Times said that McCourt order Dan to cease negotiations with Vlad because he felt that it might jeopardize his chances of obtaing the team). The fans were certaintly ticked off against McCourt for this action. Anyway, the bottomline is that we aren't including our young guns in any trade scenario and that there will be enough sticks available through next year's free agency.

jeremyb1
01-27-2004, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by LATruBlue
What I am saying is that some posters thinks we have to take Maggs now as a result of our need for hitting. That KW is IN control of the situation. The reality is that Maggs is in control and that KW is at HIS mercy. All that I'm saying is that SHOULD Maggs become a FA next season we can then persue him without having to trade our young pitchers. Sure, there are no guarantees on anything. I think that scenario is our best move. Plus, if Maggs doesn't become a FA, then I'm sure that enough quality bats will avail themselves next season still.

The Dodgers aren't just going to tank the season. But the fans do realize that we need hitting still and are willing to wait for next season. We also realize that Dan's hands were apparently tied, especially with Vlad. (An article in the LA Times said that McCourt order Dan to cease negotiations with Vlad because he felt that it might jeopardize his chances of obtaing the team). The fans were certaintly ticked off against McCourt for this action. Anyway, the bottomline is that we aren't including our young guns in any trade scenario and that there will be enough sticks available through next year's free agency.

I think its been demonstrated that KW is not at anyone else's mercy at this point. Considering the fact that its nearly February, it seems clear that KW has proven he's willing to hold onto Maggs. The White Sox are a contending club and always have the option of dealing Maggs at the deadline, getting compensation for him, or possibly resigning him.

LATruBlue
01-27-2004, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I think its been demonstrated that KW is not at anyone else's mercy at this point. Considering the fact that its nearly February, it seems clear that KW has proven he's willing to hold onto Maggs. The White Sox are a contending club and always have the option of dealing Maggs at the deadline, getting compensation for him, or possibly resigning him.

At least not right now. It is clearly obvious that as long as Maggs doesn't resign, HE will eventually FORCE KW to come up with a plan to trade him or let him go.

As the manager on the receiving end, you say to KW, here, we will give you this. KW says no, then the opposing manager says ok then, we will just wait until Maggs becomes a free agent. Then KW thinks well, I'd hate to lose him and not get anything in return. KW then says ok, I hate to do this but I don't really have a choice.

KW's only saving grace is that he gets several clubs to compete for Maggs at the deadline. Nevertheless, several teams will still be very wary of trading anyone of real substance for a one year rental.

Paulwny
01-27-2004, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by LATruBlue

KW's only saving grace is that he gets several clubs to compete for Maggs at the deadline. Nevertheless, several teams will still be very wary of trading anyone of real substance for a one year rental.

Agree, you don't pay big for a 1/2 yr rental.

SEALgep
01-27-2004, 01:27 PM
Your assumption is that the Sox are out of contention, which is a stretch (especially this early). By keeping him the entire season, at least keeps him as an option to resign. Otherwise he could offer arbitration and at least get a first round pick. But to assume we are in need of trading him, regardless of the Sox position in the Central is simply not true. There is still the hope to resign him at the end of the season. I guess we would both be better off keeping who we have, but don't be surprised if Maggs isn't dealt and resigns with the Sox.

LATruBlue
01-27-2004, 01:33 PM
I guess we would both be better off keeping who we have, but don't be surprised if Maggs isn't dealt and resigns with the Sox.

I won't be suprised either way.

Good luck in '04

SEALgep
01-27-2004, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by LATruBlue
I won't be suprised either way.

Good luck in '04
Good luck to you as well.

maurice
01-27-2004, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by LATruBlue
Then KW thinks well, I'd hate to lose him and not get anything in return. KW then says ok, I hate to do this but I don't really have a choice.

That certainly was true when KW was unsure about draft pick compensation (e.g., Durham trade), but this offseason he let a number of quality free agents go, getting nothing in return but draft picks for Colon and Gordon. I expect him to take a similar tact next offseason, unless somebody offers him a solid package for Maggs. If the Sox are out of contention in June (which is unlikely, given the lack of talent in the AL Central), contending teams will be lining up for that big bat.

SEALgep
01-27-2004, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by maurice
That certainly was true when KW was unsure about draft pick compensation (e.g., Durham trade), but this offseason he let a number of quality free agents go, getting nothing in return but draft picks for Colon and Gordon. I expect him to take a similar tact next offseason, unless somebody offers him a solid package for Maggs. If the Sox are out of contention in June (which is unlikely, given the lack of talent in the AL Central), contending teams will be lining up for that big bat.

I agree, and even if they aren't or we're unwilling to trade him still, keeping him isn't the liability people are perceiving. Draft pick compensation is adequate when you equate the potential of resigning. It's worth the risk. If he decides to leave regardless, we could use the extra payroll for another bat. Maybe even Beltran? Most likely it will be broken up for several solid pitchers. Again though, there is no need to do anything regardless of the standings, which compliments my thoughts of KW being in the driver's seat. We'll keep him unless someone makes an offer we can't pass up.

LATruBlue
01-27-2004, 04:24 PM
Check out the photos.

http://losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/la/history/photo_album_2004/current.jsp


Just FYI.

Since Greg Miller, Edwin Jackson, Franklin Gutierrez and James Loney's names keep popping up, I thought I would post some pictures of them at the Dodger's Winter Workout in Los Angeles, in case anyone was interested.

SEALgep
01-27-2004, 04:25 PM
It's not working.

LATruBlue
01-27-2004, 04:29 PM
It's working now.

LATruBlue
01-27-2004, 04:32 PM
Franklin Gutierrez can stand a few pounds. Especially if he's supposed to be a power hitter.