The morning after

Going to try to get away from the computer for much of today – wish me luck – so here are some bullet points.

  • As anyone reading this site knows by now, the Dodgers pulled away from the Marlins with a five-run seventh for an 11-4 victory Friday. Andre Ethier went 4 for 4, and Luis Cruz delivered three runs on one play by hitting a 50-foot infield grounder with two on base and circling the bases on two Miami errors. Ethier, Hanley Ramirez and Juan Rivera all homered off former teammate Nathan Eovaldi in the first three innings.
  • An MRI on Chad Billingsley “revealed only right elbow inflammation and nothing worse,” reports Eric Stephen of True Blue L.A. ”He said his elbow felt similar to what it felt like in July, when he was placed on the DL, but that Saturday morning would be a better determinant for his immediate pitching future.”
  • Cruz went 2 for 4 to raise his batting average to an incomprehensible .299. Mark Saxon of ESPNLosAngeles.com gives us the backstory on the Dodger folk hero.
  • Chad Moriyama breaks down the big trade in detail, while here’s Dave Cameron’s take at Fangraphs and Jay Jaffe’s for SI.com.
  • Jaffe provides a chart of the Dodgers’ salary commitments, which I am going to pilfer and place here (all dollar figures in millions, and all annual salaries taken from Cot’s Baseball Contracts):
    Player 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
    Gonzalez $21.00 $21.00 $21.00 $21.00 $21.00 $21.50 $21.50
    Crawford $19.50 $20.00 $20.25 $20.50 $20.75 $21.00 Free Agent
    Beckett $15.75 $15.75 $15.75 Free Agent
    Subtotal $56.25 $56.75 $57.00 $41.50 $41.75 $42.50 $21.50
    Dodgers existing $105.42 $135.51 $76.66 $48.46 $46.96 $47.46 $29.00
    Total $161.67 $192.26 $133.66 $89.96 $88.71 $89.96 $50.50
  • Did the big trade actually happen, or will we find that it, like everything else, is a figment of Tommy Westphal’s autistic imagination?
  • I tweeted this mid-week but never put it on the site: The Dodgers signed 16-year-old lefthanded pitcher Julio Urias from Mexico, according to Ben Badler of Baseball America. “One of the better pitching prospects on the market, (Urias) has touched 92 mph and shown good feel for pitching for his age,” Badler writes.
  • Adrian Beltre became the second player ever and first since Joe DiMaggio in 1948 to hit three homers in a game and hit for the cycle in the same week.
  • Former Dodger lefty Eric Stults pitched seven shutout innings for San Diego, lowering his ERA to 2.68, and went 2 for 2 with three RBI to help put some distance between the Dodgers and Diamondbacks for second place in the National League West.
  • Josh Lindblom (15 baserunners, 7.88 ERA in eight innings) is having a bad time in Philadelphia, writes Ian Riccaboni of Phillies Nation.
  • Anonymous

    LAT’dTrades between the Dodgers and Red Sox through time, from Baseball-Reference.com. (Note that the Dodgers were not always called the Dodgers; other names included Robins and Bridegrooms.July 31, 2011: As part of a 3-team trade: The Los Angeles Dodgers sent Trayvon Robinson to the Seattle Mariners. The Boston Red Sox sent Juan Rodriguez (minors), Tim Federowicz and Stephen Fife to the Los Angeles Dodgers. The Boston Red Sox sent Chih-Hsien Chiang (minors) to the Seattle Mariners. The Seattle Mariners sent Josh Fields(minors) and Erik Bedard to the Boston Red Sox.
    July 31, 2008: As part of a 3-team trade: The Los Angeles Dodgers sent Bryan Morris (minors) and Andy LaRocheto the Pittsburgh Pirates. The Boston Red Sox sent Manny Ramirez to the Los Angeles Dodgers. The Boston Red Soxsent Craig Hansen and Brandon Moss to the Pittsburgh Pirates. The Pittsburgh Pirates sent Jason Bay to the Boston Red Sox.
    April 8, 2008: The Boston Red Sox traded Christian Lara (minors) and cash to the Los Angeles Dodgers for Eric Hull.
    July 31, 2004: The Los Angeles Dodgers traded Dave Roberts to the Boston Red Sox for Henri Stanley (minors).
    August 21, 1987: The Boston Red Sox traded Glenn Hoffman to the Los Angeles Dodgers for a player to be named later. The Los Angeles Dodgers sent Billy Bartels (minors) (December 8, 1987) to the Boston Red Sox to complete the trade.
    May 6, 1960: The Boston Red Sox traded Nelson Chittum to the Los Angeles Dodgers for Rip Repulski.
    September 10, 1950: The Boston Red Sox purchased Harry Taylor from the Brooklyn Dodgers.
    December 10, 1941: The Boston Red Sox purchased Mace Brown from the Brooklyn Dodgers.
    August 2, 1940: The Brooklyn Dodgers purchased Wes Flowers from the Boston Red Sox.
    February 12, 1940: The Brooklyn Dodgers purchased Joe Vosmik from the Boston Red Sox for $25,000.
    December 26, 1939: The Brooklyn Dodgers purchased Boze Berger from the Boston Red Sox.
    July 18, 1939: The Brooklyn Dodgers traded a player to be named later and $35000 and 3 players to the Boston Red Sox for Pee Wee Reese. The Brooklyn Dodgers sent Red Evans (September 1, 1939) to the Boston Red Sox to complete the trade.
    August 12, 1938: The Boston Red Sox traded Lee Rogers to the Brooklyn Dodgers for Johnnie Chambers.
    November, 1923: The Brooklyn Robins purchased Johnny Mitchell from the Boston Red Sox.
    March, 1920: The Brooklyn Robins purchased Bill Lamar from the Boston Red Sox.

    • Anonymous

      That Reese guy turned out to be pretty good.

  • Anonymous

    Thanks, nsxtasy (in previous post), for noting the big trade between the Yankees and the Orioles in 1954. For those unfamiliar with the particulars, here they are:

    November 17, 1954: Traded by the New York Yankees were Gus Triandos, Harry Byrd, Jim McDonald, Willy Miranda, Hal Smith and Gene Woodling and players to be named later to the Baltimore Orioles for Billy Hunter, Don Larsen and Bob Turley and players to be named later.  The Yankees sent Bill Miller (December 1, 1954), Kal Segrist (December 1, 1954), Don Leppert (December 1, 1954) and Ted Del Guercio (minors) (December 1, 1954) to the Orioles to complete the trade. The Orioles sent Mike Blyzka (December 1, 1954), Darrell Johnson (December 1, 1954), Jim Fridley (December 1, 1954) and Dick Kryhoski (December 1, 1954) to the Yankees to complete the trade.

    • Anonymous

      Everybody, including me, was probably unfamiliar with the particulars.  

  • Anonymous

    “As of this writing, the final details on how much money the Dodgers were taking on were still being worked out, but it is believed to be about only $12 million.”-Kyle Fragnoli, Yahoo

    WHAAA??  No way.  We gave them a bunch of fresh meat, but not enough to get away from 262.5 and all the way down to 12, right?

  • Anonymous
    • Anonymous

      He paints with a broad brush, which is fine, but at one point he notes Gonzo relatively cheap contract, as compared to Pujols, Votto and Prince and then later says that the Bosox had to get rid of his financially untenable contract.  I think the dump was Beckett and Crawford and Gonzo was the price they felt that had to pay to do that.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7VN5CNNJSLBZQXS3NX7DTIUTA4 jasonu

    Any guesses on our new batting order? 

    • Anonymous

      I think Jon threw something up there yesterday that had Dre batting second and Hanley fifth.

      • Anonymous

        Ethier patient and level headed enough to hit 2 spot? He would see a boatload of fastballs tho.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7VN5CNNJSLBZQXS3NX7DTIUTA4 jasonu

        Saw that..i like the idea of Vic/AJ/Kemp/Gonzo/Hanley/Ethier/Cruz/Mellis

        • Anonymous

          The best thing about adding Gonzalez for Ethier is the 2nd LH power bat (let’s face it, Ethier is now the 2nd LH power bat, but whatever).  I don’t believe batting order matters, with one exception, and that is alternating LH-RH so that managers can’t match up every time through the lineup after,say, the 5th inning.  It seems that SF has three LH relievers, so maybe they can do whatever they want, but most teams have two or one.  So whatever Mattingly does, I just hope he alternates handedness among the 4 guys with pop: Kemp, Ethier, Ramirez, Gonzales.

  • Anonymous

    I won’t miss Loney’s production in Dodger Stadium or elsewhere in the NL, but it will be interesting to see if he takes advantage of the Green Monster with his off-field fly ball stroke.

    • Anonymous

      Moon shots?

      • Anonymous

         I dunno about that, but I could see him hitting lots of doubles.

  • Anonymous

    When I was a kid in Brooklyn, one of my favorite players was Reese.  He was both a fine player and human being.  His role in helping Robinson deal with racism, which has been well documented, was forthright and tremendous.  As a rookie sportswriter in 1972, I covered the World Series in Cincinnati and Oakland, and there, in Cincinnati, were both Reese, with whom I spoke briefly, and Robinson, whom I was in awe of.  He was ill and did not look good at all, ravaged by diabetes and other serious ailments — in fact, he would die nine days later — but he gave a remarkable speech about the need for baseball to have black managers, which at that point it had never had.

    • Anonymous

       Thanks for sharing that story.  I write and direct skits for churches and we did one on Jackie and his faith.  While researching it, I grew to admire him even more — and became especially proud to be a Dodger fan.  The climax of the skit was the game where Pee Wee walked over to Jackie and put his arm around him to silence the verbal abuse.

      I’m really looking forward to the upcoming movie on Jackie, “42.”

      • Anonymous

        Bob in Vegas:  Sounds like the skit you did is special and very educational.  I have always been proud of being a fan of the Dodgers, with Rickey’s decision to break the color barrier a big reason.  (Of course, being born in Brooklyn and living there as a boy didn’t hurt).  For some reason, I had not read Jackie’s autobiography, “I Never Had it Made,” until recently.  It is a fine, revealing book, perhaps more insightful about his years after baseball.  I highly recommend it.  An unusual novel about Robinson by the late crime/mystery writer, Robert B. Parker, is worth reading as well.  It is called “Double Play.”  From the book jacket:  ”An astonishing creation — part novel, part history, part memory — from the Grand Master of mystery.” I am looking forward to “42″ as well.

        • Anonymous

           Thanks for the suggestions, scooplew.  The kids who did that skit recently gave me “I Never Had it Made” — I look forward to reading it.  Jackie’s story BEFORE baseball — when he was fighting segregation in the military — is full of drama as well (I believe there was a play or TV movie, “The Court Martial of Jackie Robinson.”)  I’m going to the library today and will look for “Double Play”!

          • Anonymous

            The film “The Jackie Robinson Story,” made perhaps 60 years ago, is a bit corny, but it has its moments.  Robinson also plays himself in it.  Worth watching and definitely something that your church youngsters would enjoy.

  • Anonymous

    There’s got to be a morning after?

    • Anonymous

      Got to be a morning of first

  • Anonymous

    Some great points made here. Here’s the Official Pismo 2 cents worth, if it’s worth 2 cents. I keep reading about this reckless amount of money being tossed around. What exactly were the choices if this deal did not happen? Overpay in the offseason for Victorino or Hamilton? A hearty no thanks on both of those. And what free agent 1B worth a hoot are available? The Angels of Not LA will likely trade Morales, as he arb eligible, looking at a hefty raise, and they all ready way overspent to fill his position. The emergence of Trumbo to DH makes that a no brainer, especially with the albatross of Wells’ deal still on the books. Think Cousin Arte would do the Blue any favors? Me thinks not. Like want Kendrys, take Wells sucky deal. And give me Lee, Rubby, etc. People on this very sight were suggesting a trade for Wells recently, without Morales attached. I just threw up in my mouth a lil bit even considering that.

     If Crawford can stay healthy, and that’s a big if, he has the speed/power tools to make quite an interesting lineup with Kemp and Hanley. Of course expecting Hamilton to stay healthy is no more likely, and his psyche and substance abuse problems would prevent me from wheeling out 150MM there.

     And to Beckett, if Bills is out any length of time he may be the most critical of all short term. He does not have to be THE guy with the failures of DiceK and Lackey littering the floor, but a guy rejuvenated by new scenery on a team that wants to win, and players committed to it. He’s pitched in big games before. Of course, he could be another Joe Blanton.

    Gonzo is a So-cal born and raised Hispanic star, something surely not lost on the marketing folks in the front office either. Trading Rubby was not on my list of druthers, but here is a 23 yo coming off TJ surgery. Any more likely he’ll have a long storied career than he’ll be Hong Chi DLR? Who knows.  Surely Lopes will be giving Gordon a crash course in 2B this winter, to at least platoon with Mellis next year and take the job thereafter. When looking at the options both now and this offseason, I think this was the smart move. Will be a fun ride to watch.

    • Anonymous

      Agree.  Despite the rule 13 violation.

      • Anonymous

        Whoops, Wells’ deal got the best of me for a minute there

    • Anonymous

      A thing I don’t like about DT’s mechanics is that if I want to reply to Pismo my comment is placed above Bob’s
      Pismo writes as if he has discussed all available off-season options then concludes what they did is better. And, then adds Rubby could drop dead tomorrow (couldn’t we all) when Tommy John played for 18 seasons after his then unique surgery. Please read Chad Moriyama (linked by Jon) and tell me where his detailed view is wrong. Please read Dave Cameron (also linked above) for a very negative general view.

      • Anonymous

        >> A thing I don’t like about DT’s mechanics is that if I want to reply to Pismo my comment is placed above Bob’s

        That’s only true at the time that you are entering your reply on the web page.  As soon as you refresh the web page, you’ll see that your comment moves so that it appears below previous comments such as Bob’s and Pismo’s.

      • Anonymous

        Will do, but TJ never put the kind of stress on his arm with his 80 mph sinker that Rubby does.

      • Anonymous

        Will agree to disagree Mike. Chad states there were many better short and long term options in the OF, and then names exactly zero of them. Fangraphs has no suggestions either, just that they overspent. Name 1 FA deal that has not been a reach signed recently. Howard’s contract, anyone? Pujols?? Prince?? You could wait til this offseason and give Hamilton and Morales 225MM, if you could pry the latter from Arte without taking Wells. I respect others’ opinions, it’s the reason I read this site daily. I have seen nothing to change mine. I will be enjoying the ride like always; yelling at the tube, trading smack with my Gnat fan friends, etc. Hope you will be too.

  • Anonymous

    This reminds me of the Yankees in the 80′s where steinbrenner was buying a bunch of players…the results were not that good. It wasn’t until they fixed their farm system that they went on their run…
    I agree w/ the WIseman comparing this situation with the Pedro fiasco…

    This plan has a “throw money at the problem” business approach. I sure hope the dodgers do not ends up like the new York Knicks… Life could become very difficult up here in the bay area….

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7VN5CNNJSLBZQXS3NX7DTIUTA4 jasonu

       My take is that the current farm system (or team as constructed in April) was not gonna bring championships in the short term. So they do this now while revamping the farm for the long term. If we make the playoffs (big if still) we have as good as shot to go to the WS this year as anyone  now.

      If Ruby becomes Pedro I could careless as long as the Dodgers are in the hunt for WS Titles.

      • Anonymous

        I’m not sure about ‘care less’ but if the Dodgers had won the WS in 95 and 96 instead of 3 and done I would certainly feel somewhat different about that deal. I hated losing Welch to the A’s, but winning softened the blow.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7VN5CNNJSLBZQXS3NX7DTIUTA4 jasonu

           I’ll trade individual talent for team awards. That’s just what I meant by that..

          • Anonymous

            Absolutely.

    • Anonymous

      Yep, its a new ballgame.  As Pismo points out, if they were going to go this way (inevitable given what they have invested and pending media revenue – would we want them to sit on this?)  this was probably better than some of the options they might have faced in the off-season. Not sure what fixing their farm system means in the context of the Dodgers (not trading away prospects?  They don’t have many of the positional variety to begin with.), but the Dodgers have already started to upscale their international activities, though they face some new rule restrictions.

      D4P will always haunt us and it is a reason to pause, but we can’t let it dictate.

      • Anonymous

        If Solazzo calls, make the deal Sonny!

        • Anonymous

          And Sonny didn’t listen and look what happened to him.   He missed the World Series :(

    • Anonymous

      Stan’s resume should give you comfort there. A couple of trophies could also make it lotsa fun up there too.

      • Anonymous

        Please take a look at Jayson Werth’s contract before relying on Kasten for comfort. (Not that I know what role he played at Washington or plays here except for hiring the Wash. GM but then neither do you, I reckon)

        • Anonymous

          As noted in the comments in the previous topic to this one, Werth was signed two months after Kasten left the Nats.

          • http://veryolddodgerfan.blogspot.com/ veryolddodgerfan

            OUCH

          • Anonymous

            Still, he hired the GM.

    • Anonymous

      I see what you’re saying and have the same concerns. The Dodgers haven’t had much luck spending big on free agents, but maybe it will work out with trades. 

      • Anonymous

        Goltz and Stanhouse worked out pretty well! Ha

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Pruett/1707390003 Terry Pruett

      So…you’re saying you want them to be crappy until we have a complete farm system built?

  • Anonymous

    So what are the chances Gonzo plays for the Blue tonight?
    Will he get here in time?

    • Anonymous

      I think they’re pretty good. MLB Network reported about 20 minutes ago that all three were in the air even without the deal being official. I Think it’s officially official now. 

      • Anonymous

         The cost of a private jet charter doesn’t mean much to the Guggenheimers.

      • Anonymous

        This must drive the guys responsible for the uniforms nuts.  :)

    • Anonymous

      Hope he hoped on the red eye.

      • Anonymous

        The three-hour time gain heading from East to West should cinch his being in the starting line-up tonight.

  • http://www.linkmeister.com/wordpress/ Linkmeister

    I vaguely remember Repulski’s name and thinking in my ten-year-old mind that Rip was a great baseball name. I don’t think I really knew who or what the Red Sox were in 1960.

  • Anonymous

    The payroll doesn’t look as bad as I thought it would. We’re pretty much stuck next year, but after that we have some room to make moves. 

    • Anonymous

      FWIW, the big dollar amounts next year that drop in 2014 are:

      Mark Ellis: $5.25MM in 2013, $5.75MM in 2014, $1MM buyout
      Uribe: $7MM in 2013, then an end to the madness in 2014 (except for $1MM deferred)
      Hairston: $3.75MM in 2013, then FA
      Puig: $8MM in 2013, $2MM in 2014
      Lilly: $13.5MM in 2013, then FA
      Harang: $7MM in 2013, then $2MM buyout or $7MM vesting option based on IP
      Capuano: $6MM in 2013, then $8MM mutual option or $1MM buyout
      Guerrier: $4.75MM in 2013, then FA with $1MM deferred
      Gwynn: $1.15MM in 2013, then FA
      Manny: $4.04MM deferred in 2013, none in 2014
      Kuroda: $2MM deferred in 2013, none in 2014

      • Anonymous

        For me, at least, it would be more clear if it read Mark Ellis $1MM buyout or $5.75MM in 2014

  • Anonymous

    nsx,re: not knowing about Puig
    this season after the RC roster shown on-line was incorrect for weeks, I e-mailed the team and received a friendly reply from Mike Lindskog who writes their daily game notes, which are linked from their home-page, and is also the team’s radio broadcaster. If you ever feel like contacting him I think he will treat you well.

    • Anonymous

      Thanks Mike! I’d love to ask him why Puig hasn’t been in the lineup. Any idea how I can contact him? If you’d like to send me an e-mail with his e-mail address, you can reach me at my username at earthlink dot net.

      • Anonymous

        Your Puig obsessed! :-)   What this might mean for Puig was pretty much your initial reaction when we got Victorino and now Crawford.  Hope he does well.

        • Anonymous

          Bob, this isn’t like you, let him have his fun

          • Anonymous

            OK. but its up to you to talk him off the ledge if this Puig guy goes belly up.

          • Anonymous

            He may turn out to be nothing.

            But it’s not my $40 million on the line, so I’m not the only one who thinks he might turn into something.

      • Anonymous
        • Anonymous

          e-mail sent.  Thanks!

  • Anonymous

    The above link to Phillies Nation reminds me that the first inkling I had of a Phillies-Dodger trade in July was at MLBTR where it was said that the Phillies were interested in Lindblom. I thought that’s crazy because he is too much of a fly ball pitcher for their little ballpark. On this slim basis I have reasoned that Victorino cost us 4 players Lindblom and Martin to the Phillies (which I wrote was too much at the time of the trade) plus 2 pitchers to Seattle to replace Lindblom with League (along with League’s $5 million contract).
     All this an introduction to a well reasoned piece on Lindblom at Phillies Nation written at the time of the trade and linked from the above link which Jon has up. Here’s a direct link to that time of the trade piece: http://philliesnation.com/archives/2012/08/the-phils-didnt-get-home-lindblom/#comments
    it is followed by a few moronic comments which may amuse one of which answered by the writer of the piece

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MW2R2Q72LP22HKPEXB2ZZPHSZM dud dew

    I’ve already expressed my serious reservations that this was a good
    on-field deal.

    But it wouldn’t be fair if I didn’t cite the elephantine off-field issues.
    They are taking costly, calculated risks on the field in the hopes of
    refilling those empty seats, and recapturing all those seats represent.

    I’m ok with that.  Not enthused, but ok. Just think their approach is
    too hurried, too needy…

    RE: James Loney (along with Russell Martin, a huge hit on my rep
    as an armchair analyst who can spot kids who will prosper offensively:-):
    If he had used his first couple of seasons as a base (where he ascended,
    using memory only just now, to around 15 HRs, and 90 RBIs), instead of
    an all too quickly disappearing ceiling, there would have been no need
    for this trade.
    Those numbers are probably not (just checked Wikipedia) all that different
    fron Ethier’s typical season (many games lost to injury, terrible work against
    lefties, amazing stats against righties), and most of you seemed to think
    Andre’s contract was a good one.

    I just heard the canard on MLB (Plesac), that a winning team “has to have
    a big power guy” at first base.
    Wrong, Grasshopper!!!!
    A winning team has to have a productive lineup, usually including a
    reliable bench.  Where that production is generated is accidental and
    unimportant, re: positions.  Check champions and World Series participants
    the last twenty years (even the last few)…..

    Finally, though many of you are tone deaf to this reality, there are some
    fascinating clubhouse dynamics in the offing.  I hope Donnie does better
    with these than he does lineups:-).
     

    • Anonymous

      Do you read here every day? I feel the consensus on Andre’s deal was that is was an unnecessary in-season overpay but good business in introducing the new ownership since he is so popular. 
      In that light, I have to think Gonzalez’s family roots were a significant factor in the deal.

      • Anonymous

        There’s no consensus on Andre’s contract extension.

        I thought it was a good deal.

        • Anonymous

          I meant the consensus here which I thought was quite clear since I was replying to dud dew’s comment on Ethier’s contract. I put in the word here to be even more clear.

  • Anonymous

    ESPN reporting Adrian is on a plane and expected to play tonight..

    • Anonymous

      Flight should get in around 2.

  • http://veryolddodgerfan.blogspot.com/ veryolddodgerfan

    I have now been a Dodger fan for more than 50 years. I can say (and this isn’t hyperbole) that this is one of my worst days following this baseball club. I never thought the Dodgers would become the evil empire, George Steinbrenner’s silly rich black sheep brother. Absorbing 250 M in mostly bad contracts not because it’s smart, not because it’s a crafty way to use dollars and sense, not because anybody has ever done such a foolish thing before. But simply because they could.

    On top of making the largest overpay in baseball history they also decided it was OK to give away a rising star for a very good 1b, a broken down pitcher and a guy who isn’t going to play for a year.  

    At least when George S. blew tens of millions on players those players were good. He never once spent 100 million on a player who wasn’t at least good the year before. The Dodgers spent more than that on 2 players who haven’t been good in a while.

    How many teams with a 200 million payroll have only one really good starting pitcher. Ladies and gents meet your 2013 Dodgers. Of course there’s always the chance they’ll pick up someones past their prime 180 million pitcher in the off season.

    I don’t give a hoot that the Dodgers get Adrian if this is how you have to do it. The Red Sox have to be laughing their heads off. “They took all those killer contracts. Can you believe. And wait they gave us good prospects and one of the best baseball on top of it. Hahahahahahah. Do we have anything else we can sell them. Can you believe it.”

    I think it’s disgusting. Just a little bit it has to be how you play the game.

    • Anonymous

      An actual Boston fan comment:”imagine beckett and crawford had team opt-outs in their current contracts for this upcoming offseason. the deal with the opt-out is that you either let the player go and cannot resign him to any kind of deal, or you bring him back for 2/$31M in beckett’s case and 5/$110M in crawford’s case. what would the red sox do?

      even though i like the players, it’s pretty clear that they’d cut ties and happily let them walk. in that light, this trade is effectively adrian gonzalez for de la rosa, webster, sands, dejesus

      that’s a solid return, but not a great one. straight up, the dodgers win that trade. but when you add back in the opt-outs they are also being granted and factor in money saved, the red sox have to be ecstatic overall”

      • http://veryolddodgerfan.blogspot.com/ veryolddodgerfan

        i have not read anywhere that the team can opt out of the crawford, beckett contracts. is that what you mean?

        • Anonymous

          no, the writer says “imagine” at the top but should have put opt-outs in ” at the bottom.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Pruett/1707390003 Terry Pruett

      Crawfird will be in the lineup by May. He’s not a pitcher. Previous evidence with position players indicates an 8-9 month gap between surgery and full time play.

      • http://veryolddodgerfan.blogspot.com/ veryolddodgerfan

        can’t wait. he was pretty damn good 3 years ago.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Pruett/1707390003 Terry Pruett

          2 years ago, in 2010. It’s not out of the question that there is ability left in there.

          • http://veryolddodgerfan.blogspot.com/ veryolddodgerfan

            when he plays again it will be 3

      • Anonymous

        But will he have an arm?  Will he be able to throw anyone out?

    • Anonymous

      You certainly are due your opinions and I understand them, but apparently Tink  is on your side, so he hasn’t bothered to correct some of the liberties you take in your post.  The Yanks gave A.J Burnett $80 million the year after he posted. an ERA + of 104.  Beckett posted an ERA+ of 150 last year, so he has been good quite recently.

      • Anonymous

        It’s a full time job to correct his liberties, Bob, give me a break

        Beckett has never had 2 consecutive good years btw

        • Anonymous

          In 2007-2009, he had three consecutive years with WHIP under 1.2

          • Anonymous

            edited mine

      • http://veryolddodgerfan.blogspot.com/ veryolddodgerfan

        well let’s see Bob. Beckett has an era over 5 this year. He had an era over 5 the year before your reference so i’m going to call that a wash. over 5 is pretty bad. and if you read the post more carefully i talked about G Steinbrenner. he was not involved with the Burnett signing.

        • http://veryolddodgerfan.blogspot.com/ veryolddodgerfan

          i should have made the point that i believe the evil empire days for the yankees are mostly over. obviously they still had the highest payroll in 2013 until the dodgers passed them but they’ve been on a more conservative (yankee speaking) approach for a few years now. 

    • Anonymous

      Going from a skin-flint con like McCourt to this extreme. Yechh!! No happy medium.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MW2R2Q72LP22HKPEXB2ZZPHSZM dud dew

    Just read Dave Cameron (the graphics on Chad’s site make it unreadable to these ancient eyes).

    He presents the puzzle very nicely….

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Pruett/1707390003 Terry Pruett

      Except he ignores the media rights deal.

      • Anonymous

        completely unfair, which I have never seen from you
        ignoring and not mentioning are not the same, Cameron says in summary:
        “There’s no getting around the fact that the Dodgers likely just paid $20 for a gallon of milk. Given the prices everyone else is paying for milk, that seems pretty silly. If you happen to have lots of $20 bills and no milk, however, and there’s only one guy selling milk in your immediate vicinity, maybe you just complain about price gouging and hand over the $20. Depending on just how many $20s the Dodgers ownership has, this might not end up being quite as nuts as it looks on the surface. 
        that’s not ignoring’

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Pruett/1707390003 Terry Pruett

          A fair point. Clearly I did not read it carefully enough

          • Anonymous

            appreciate your reply

        • Anonymous

           As far as I know, revenue from MLB merchandise is evenly shared by the league. 

  • Anonymous

    RIP, Neil Armstrong

  • Anonymous

    My first reaction was a big thud in my stomach. I too felt that the Ds took on way too much money and gave up way too many prospects – with little or no cash back from Boston. Would love to hear all the background to this trade, esp how/why it took Rubby and Webster to make it work.

    Like many other comments, I too dread the thought of the Ds become the Yankees under Steinbrenner – both in the short and long term. There are countless examples of owners spending madly and the team performs badly.

    Honestly, this trade was all about Gonzalez and to alesser degree Beckett. I don’t like or trust Beckett a little bit. He seems to have Brad Penny’s bad attitude, albeit with better stuff and a WS ring!
    Right now, he will probably slide into Bilz’s slot because of the elbow. but where does Blanton go – the bullpen.

    The other issue for me – that I haven’t heard discussed yet – is how does Donnie begin to even manage these guys with just over 30 games to go in a hot pennant race? This could be the Ravine of Misfit Toys in a hurry, esp if the Giants stay locked in and focused.

    I wish we had seen more of Sands and IDJjr and of course the promising career of Rubby and Webster. Farewell Nice Guy Loney and man, when will the Ds ever DFA Uribe?!?

    • Anonymous

       Beckett is far more talented than Bad Penny.

    • Anonymous

      Talk about atititude, apparently Penny didn’t even bother to show up the day that they passed out the rings to the 2003 Fish.

    • Anonymous

      >> Right now, he will probably slide into Bilz’s slot because of the elbow. but where does Blanton go – the bullpen.

      Then, assuming Bills isn’t available for a couple of weeks (sounds like it’s not something longer than that, let’s hope), if Blanton goes to the ‘pen, who becomes the fifth starter (joining Kershaw, Capuano, Harang, and Beckett)?  Fife again?

  • Anonymous

    Amidst all the pros and cons, I find it ironically pleasing that the Gnats have to put so much money into paying their mortgage. Though I admire them for not bilking the public to build TPBTBNL, it never would have been built otherwise.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Pruett/1707390003 Terry Pruett

    God…the hand-wringing and naval gazing is intense around here (by the way, Jaffe’s chart above seems to assign the Dodgers with the TOTAL value of all the 2012 contracts. This is not correct…they only owe for the rest of the season). The only year when payroll appears to be at it’s logical ceiling is next year…after that, with the media rights deal kicking in, there’s plenty of flexibility. What counts is total performance vs. total payroll, more than one or two “bad contracts”. We did the best we could with what we had and we’re a much better, much more interesting, and much more capable team than we were yesterday. Unless you just enjoyed hanging around Dodger Stadium to watch Loney be a nice guy.

    • Anonymous

      my last Boston fan quote I hope, I could quote a Giant fan who hated it and who had good arguments but I think too much of Rubby to like the deal:
      AGon USED to be a top 10 hitter. His power never seemed to translate to Fenway and the AL East the way people believed it would. Couple that with nagging back issues and who knows how he is going to age. At the level he was producing in Boston, no way is he worth the $20+ million/year that he was due to make for years to come.Beckett is having a terrible year by his (and a lot of other people’s) standards and will likely benefit from a change of leagues and a new start after the chicken and beer fiasco last year. He definitely isn’t worth the huge contract that he has for years to come with the way he has performed lately.Crawford I think will wind up being the player that might make this whole deal worthwhile for LA. Paying him what Boston was paying him for production that didn’t even match what mighty Daniel Nava accomplished the last 2 years was a bit of an overpay, don’t you think?I think a better question is “how did Boston pull this off while only sending $12m to LA and getting back good young talent in return?”

  • Anonymous

    Hi there. Very long time DT reader, but first comment. I’m pretty excited with this deal, and am a little puzzled the RDLR is being compared to one of the historic great pitchers in the game. I think he is an exciting young pitcher, but he really hasn’t proven anything.

    Also, whatever happened to TINSTAAPP?

  • Anonymous

    25-man roster – adds Gonzalez, Beckett, Punto; subtracts Loney, ??, ??
    60-day DL – adds Crawford
    40-man roster but not 25-man – subtracts DeJesus, Sands

    Apparently they are calling Rubby a PTBNL, perhaps because he hasn’t cleared waivers. So his spot on the 40-man won’t be freed up until after the season.

    • Anonymous

      Can’t you subtract Rubby and then, well, you know who.

      • Anonymous

        You can’t subtract Rubby from the 40-man if he’s a PTBNL.

        Sorry, but it’s likely they’ll just send down Tolleson and Castellanos till the roster expansion next weekend.

        • Anonymous

          I meant from the 25-man.  In that case it would be Castellanos who replaced him, no? 

          • Anonymous

            Castellanos already replaced Rubby on the 25-man, before yesterday’s game.

    • Anonymous

      25-man subtracts Castellanos, Tolleson
      60-day DL- adds Hairston
      40-man subtracts three adds three later may add Lilly and Guerrier needs one more spot Matt Angle most likely

  • Anonymous

    Read a nice story about Cruz this morning, how he quit listening to his managers and coaches and, Voila!, he’s a good hitter. For some time I’ve felt that the Dodger manager and coaches were ruining some good hitters, guys who hit well before Mattingly started helping them. Makes sense to me, I’m one of those guys who does things a little different than the majority of people. Maybe Jerry Sands would be a good hitter if he did his own thing, not everybody can hit like Mattingly does. Maybe Loney should not have listened to his coaches. You know the only downer for me on Loney leaving? We might have turned down some good trades three or four years ago while we “were waiting for him to develop…”

    • Anonymous

      Hindsight is 20-20.  Three or four years ago, when he might have been worth something in trade, for all we knew he would go on to fulfill his potential, so trading him looked like a bad deal at the time.  After all, four years ago we could have just as easily traded the guy whose numbers were similar to Loney’s (.290 BA vs .289, .799 OPS vs .772) and had we done that we would now be without Kemp instead of without Loney.  Back then there was no way to know which would become a superstar and which would become a dud.

      Everybody always says we should trade the players who aren’t worth anything back, and we shouldn’t trade the players who are good (or look like they will be good).  Everybody regrets not trading the players who regressed, and nobody regrets not trading the players who turned out to be good.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Pruett/1707390003 Terry Pruett

        Excellent commentb

      • Anonymous

        I can recall the Bills and Loney for Gonzo rumours from a few years ago.  Don’t know if there was anything to it from our side, but Pads surely didn’t want an inside-the-division trade.

        • Anonymous

          Boston dweeb said Loney was an ‘untouchable’ a few years ago. I must have slept through that year.

        • Anonymous

          British rumours?

          • Anonymous

            I have got to stop reading the Daily Mail!

      • Anonymous

        my comment is above yours after I refreshed?

    • Anonymous

      Cruz changed his stance after the 2009 ML season. The people he stopped listening to were not Dodger people which a reader cold not tell from what you wrote

  • Anonymous

    The Gnats are trying to acquire Houston’s Steve Pearce, your next best option when Alfonso Soriano says “no, thank you.”

  • Anonymous

    Eugenio Velez 2011 – 0 for 37
    Juan Uribe August 2012 – 0 for 12 and counting

    Just sayin’…  :)

    • Anonymous

      Uribe is also 4-for-58 presently.

  • Anonymous

    HR has hit 5 HR in his last 8 G.

  • http://twitter.com/MJKing805 Morgan McReynolds

    I’m not expecting Gonzales to put up MVP-type numbers, but hopefully he can hit 25-35 HRs a year. Having him in the lineup sure beats seeing Mattingly run Loney out there.
    In my opinion, the best-case scenario with Crawford is that he plays well for a couple/few months or until the 2014 trade deadline, reinstills some trade value in himself, and becomes tradable for some good pitching prospects.
    I’m not fond of Beckett, but I have some hope that he will pitch well against the NL, and reduce Blanton’s appearances.

    • Anonymous

      But if Crawford plays well, why would you deal him?  Puig?

      • http://twitter.com/MJKing805 Morgan McReynolds

        Yep. And of course if Crawford plays well, and Puig doesn’t, there isn’t a reason to let him go. While Puig doesn’t have the same promise as Mike Trout, maybe plays well enough to get as much playing time as Trout did in 2011 and we can get a somewhat decent idea of his Major League talent.

      • Anonymous

        I agree Bob. I don’t see Crawford going anywhere anytime soon. If he doesn’t play well, or is only average, no one will want him and his contract. If he plays like he’s capable of, The Dodgers won’t want to trade him. Somewhat lost in all this is the fact that Crawford was doing pretty well this year before he went out for surgery. 

        On another note, the lead photo that introduces the trade story on the Sox Website features Loney finishing his swing on a ball that he no doubt drive out of the park. I always liked James, and as a New Englander, hope he does well in Boston.

    • Anonymous

      I don’t know, but I am expecting Gonzalez to have MVP-type numbers. 

  • Anonymous

    Justin Heyward just hit a 3-run homer off Madison Bumgarner in the top of the 3rd.  It’s 3-0 Braves over the Giants in the 3rd.

    • Anonymous

      looks like the Gnats are nervous about the signings already

  • Anonymous

    Here’s what the big trade made me think of.  You go into the restaurant that you like the most and you order your favorite entree for dinner.  Perhaps lobster, filet mignon or baked halibut.  It is extremely expensive, but you know it will be very good.  When the waiter serves it, the waiter also brings two side dishes — vegetables that you simply don’t like, and they are also quite expensive.  The waiter tells you that you must eat all of the vegetables as you are eating your entree — no ifs, ands or buts.  And, the two desserts, which you were looking forward to, are removed from the menu.

    • Anonymous

      Haha, that’s a good one. 

    • Anonymous

      Well, I like Crawford a lot. So maybe Crawford is like twice baked potato, or some nice pasta. On the bright side, there still is some dessert: Lee, Gould. It just may not be our favorite. I like chocolate cake a lot, so Rubby is like a really good chocolate cake. Lee is like apple pie. I can eat it, but it’s not my favorite.

      • Anonymous

        I like Crawford a lot too.  I just hope that by the time the twice baked potato, which I also like, is served, it hasn’t been in the fridge too long.

    • Anonymous

      very funny
      I didn’t understand your Uribe 4 for 58 comment below-what time period if that is what it was?

      • Anonymous

        ok 4 for last 58; 5 for last 59

        • Anonymous

          That’s it.

    • Anonymous

      And the meal costs 50% of your budget for the next 3 years.

  • Anonymous

    “Trade a player a year too early rather than a year too late.”
    I’ve been looking for a way to use this quote and haven’t found one but I’m putting it up anyway.

    • Anonymous

      Well hopefully Boston management is saying this as they’re laughing at the end of 2015 season after Gonzalez puts up a great year in 2013, and then drops off to 10 hrs in each of the next two years. 

  • Anonymous

    Comments below from a Boston fan on mlb.com, which I think sums it up nicely (particularly the last line.

    ‘Anyone who thinks this was a bad move for the Red Sox clearly has no clue what they’re talking about. Beckett, the bad apple of the clubhouse and source of corruption in the pitching staff, is gone. Gonzalez has underperformed since coming to Boston where it had been said for years how great his swing was here; $170 million isn’t worth a bunch of singles. Punto is a backup. Crawford is the only piece of this deal I wish wasn’t involved but dumping his contract isn’t a bad thing. The Red Sox now have plenty of money to spend if they want to resign Ellsbury or go out and sign a guy like Josh Hamilton. Not to mention the attitude on the team might start to get better now. And hey, if the Dodgers can straighten some of these guys out they make out huge on the deal. It’s a win win.’

    • Anonymous

      Funny, doesn’t even mention what they get in return.

      • http://underdog.typepad.com/ underdog

        Yeah exactly. More important is the Red Sox got some good players, at least two excellent pitching prospects. We’ll see how they pan out but they got huge money relief PLUS some good young players, potentially at least. Someone on twitter today ignorantly classified the trade as “The Red Sox got James Loney and some prospects.” Seriously?

        Anyway, Boston has a history of making players the bad guys and it’s all their fault and good riddance, once they’re gone. We’ll see. but I remember at least hearing many great things about AGon as a person in addition to a player and it’s not like he was crummy for them this year. That person seems slightly one-sided delusional, but yes, ultimately he’s right that this could really be a win-win trade for both sides, which is fine. 

        • Anonymous

          I think Beckett will really enjoy the change of scenery, in the same way that Ramirez has so far

  • Anonymous

    latest stuff at MLBTR: go there for some of the links
    Buster Olney of ESPN.com (Insider sub. req’d) looks at the winners and losers of the deal.  The Dodgers of 2012 are unsurprisingly among the winners while the Dodgers of 2017, Olney writes, appear to be losers in the trade.  Olney also notes that this is the first time in MLB history in which two players with $100MM remaining on their contracts were involved in a trade.The Red Sox will have $260MM to spend, but two best free agents this winter, Josh Hamilton and Zack Greinke, don’t appear to be fits for Boston, tweets Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com (via Twitter).One rival executive told Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports (via Twitter) that he didn’t feel that this was the best use of $250MM+ in future spending for the Dodgers.Rival executives are wondering why the Dodgers didn’t simply tell the Red Sox that they would eat their hefty contracts but would not give up notable prospects, Olney tweets.A National League executive opined to Peter Gammons of MLB.com (via Twitter) that “The Dodgers so wanted [Adrian] Gonzalez they took [Carl] Crawford and [Josh] Beckett’s money and traded two great arms to get him.”  Gammons also opines (Twitter link) that between the limited free agent market and caps on international and draft spending, it won’t be easy for Boston to reinvest all the money that they have saved.The trade talk all started with a call from the Dodgers to Red Sox president Larry Lucchino about Gonzalez, Heyman tweets.One overlooked aspect of the trade, Adam Kilgore of the Washington Post tweets, is that it could potentially net the Dodgers a more lucrative TV contract.

  • Anonymous

    Meanwhile, at TPBTBNL, Gumbarner enjoyed a Lincescumian meltdown and trails the Bravos 3-0 in the fifth.

  • http://underdog.typepad.com/ underdog

    Kemp  just tweeted this picture with only one word added : “Wow.”

    RT @TheRealMattKemp: #wow http://instagr.am/p/OxA5jPmzQH/ 

    • Anonymous

      nice lineup

  • Anonymous

    With the time difference, is it likely that Gonzalez will be in the starting lineup tonight? I’d also like to see Beckett, who is slated to go tonight, start in Blamton’s spot. Not sure when his turn comes up. Then Joe could start in Bills’ spot. 

    • Anonymous

      Thank you Matt Kemp for answering my question in the affirmative. I like the idea of Kemp, Gonzalez, Ramirez, Ethier – R-L-R-L.

  • Anonymous

    My Loney has a first name
    It’s J-A-M-E-S
    My Loney has a second name
    It’s L-O-N-E-Y
    Oh, I love to watch him every day
    And if you ask me why, I’ll say
    ‘Cause James Loney has a way With H-I-T-T-I-N-G

    Best Wishes, James Loney.

  • http://www.dodgerthoughts.com/ Jon Weisman

    NPUT

  • Anonymous

    The Bravos have knocked out Gumbarner (aka “Bad Mum”) and now lead 4-1 in the seventh.