Just sucks that we are paying Brandon League closer like money. We can't have League/Jansen/Wilson all earning closer money in a bullpen, that's just ridiculous.
I think we should go after Wilson....he showed balls and did the job when he was supposed to. I never thought anything like this would ever come out of my...uh...finger, but it is what it is. The guy is good....and a whole lotta people will be after him. He should be Dodger prone, IMO, since we were the ones who gave him the shot. And we were on the stage almost until the end, and the whole world saw him do what he did. He could have languished with a lesser team...it was worth millions of future dollars to him to get that opportunity. I guess if he signs elsewhere, I can hate him all over again. And when I read that Kemp is now considered "injury prone', I felt it was unfair...don't you have to sustain it for a few years to be considered that?
I don't think League is part of it, or at best, a minute part, but if you've got a set up guy and a closer that are lights out, how much is that worth? Lots man...it shortens the game for the opposition, and saves , on a season-long basis, big time innings on the whole staff. Pay 'em whatever you need to...that is a powerful weapon there is no substitute for.
Today's MSTI is an interesting read. The many possible ways of rebuilding the Dodgers infield... http://www.mikesciosciastragicillness.com/
Brian Wilson wouldn't mind returning to the Dodgers as something other than a closer, as long as they pay him like one, Dylan Hernandez of the LA Times tweets. Wilson was excellent down the stretch for the Dodgers last season, but they already have a very good closer in Kenley Jansen. wilson is better than any rh reliever available better than any rh reliever on our roster not named jansen, and even that's debatable and if -- god forbid ray: -- kenley were to struggle or get injured... you would have -- not just another, but a capable (arguably, elite) -- closer immediately ready, willing and able to step in i get the exercising/maintaining financial responsibility thing, but in this case it shouldn't be a deterrent... guggenheim obviously has deep pockets, and if they mean what they said about wanting to win now, re-signing wilson should be a no-brainer imo as for league, well... do you want to trust him with a lead with the game on the line? league's presence on the roster should not factor into this decision in any way, shape or form... imo __
guess it all comes down to when seager is ready guy obviously has the tools, but you don't want to rush him forget drew -- he'd push hanley to 3rd (essentially blocking seager) and cost us a draft pick... peralta is intriguing because he's got a good bat and can play both ss and 3rd which brings us back to uribe -- was 2013 a breakthrough and a sign of things to come, or merely a repeat of his performing in a (contract) walk year like he did with the giants? my head hurts __
^I'd be willing to keep Hanley at SS for another year. After that, I'd like to move him into the OF, not 3b. Not sure he's willing to play OF - or 3b - for that matter. But there should be a Hanley plan in place to prepare for such things. Our pitching staff deserves a great defensive infield. I'd take a gamble on Uribe and give him his 2 yr. His defense is just killer. I think the coaches finally got him out of his funk and he can maintain reasonable numbers with the bat. And if he sucks for two years, well, we are used to it. We can blame it on Ned.
you'd hope that in the current contract extension talks that they would be discussing that part of his future
This kind of surprises me given the way he ended the season and that he was basically left off the roster for the NLCS. I like the fact that he's willing to come back because I do like him but I just hope we don't fall for the agent speak and give him more than 3 years. Add to the fact that Borasss is his agent and we know he tends to pit teams against each other by "leaking" stuff like this as a matter of practice. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/11/interest-in-ricky-nolasco-picking-up.html
My , given the above options, I'd overpay Peralta for two years (or 1 year if he'd take it). He's not spectacular but you know what you're getting and he doesn't break the bank. Gives time for Seagar to mature. My next choice is totally out of character for me. Fuck it, rush Seagar. Yeah, I said it bkitches. Put his ass in the lineup and see what he's got. If you knew me, you'd know I've never supported such a move before. But we need a solid and productive infield sooner, not later. Uribe would be my last (desparation) option. Although I like the defense he brings, it causes me physical discomfort to watch his AB's. I've spoke on this before, HATE his foot in the bucket move.ullhair::ranting:
CarolinaBlueDodger=CBD, ChadBillingsleysDad It Based off Codge's defense of Billingsley when he was hurt, the ESPN board gave him the nickname. It was a stupid nickname because he was arguing that they should not trade Bills for Clemens. Then to not trade him as a package for Sabathia or Halladay.
Report: Rangers inquire about Matt Kemp, talks don't progress by R.J. White | CBSSports.com November 15, 2013 12:02 am The Rangers and Dodgers discussed trades during the GM meetings, but the talks failed to progress, FOX Sports reports, adding that the Rangers inquired about Dodgers outfielder Matt Kemp but had concerns about his health and the remaining salary due on his contract. The Rangers are looking to free up a spot in the infield to give Jurickson Profar a regular role, while the Dodgers will be open to trading from a surplus of outfielders this offseason. However, the two sides couldn't manage to work things out this time around. http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/rumors
i don't know that trading Kemp for Andrus is " selling low ". sure, if Kemp's at his best and healthy we'd get a package of players for him, but #1) if Kemp were healthy and at his best we'd be keeping him, #2) Andrus is only 25 years old and our front office covets youth and getting younger, #3) Andrus is an improvement on our defense up the middle, #4) Andrus is a top of the order bat - which means Crawford could be pushed down in the order ( celebrating that), #5) Andrus just stole 42 bases this season, and #6) Dodgers want to win next year and Andrus helps more than a package of prospects does in that regard. basically, i think Andrus would bring enough to the Dodgers to make it a decent swap between the 2 teams. would also fit the latin culture that they're slowly building with this team. i think i'm for it. in losing Kemp we'd lose a lot of potential power, but between Hanley/Puig/AGon and maybe Ethier and Crawford being able to hit 10-15HRs a piece + Guerrero's power potential...i think the Dodgers can make up for it. our pitching deserves better defense and i can't say that having Hanley and Guerrero in the middle is providing the level a defense our pitching should have. Andrus makes sense. this is a move that'd possibly lock Seager out, however, so take that into account...maybe the Dodgers would move Seager for Price. seems like Price is the backup plan if they can't get the deal done with Tanaka ( or MLB can't strike a posting deal with Japan rather).
Not sold on Andrus at all. Yeah he stole a bunch of bases last year and would move Crawford into the 2 hole (which I think he is more suited for), however his average is ok sitting at 270/280 but his OBP is crap!!! 328 last year his best was 349. Yes he is an upgrade over Crawford. However, please take a journey back in the day with me when Juan Pierre was our lead off hitter. Anyone remember his OBP??? It was in the 330's and everyone hated him said he was the worst leadoff hitter in the history of dodgerdom. Everyone said we need a leadoff hitter that is at least 380 or better. If that is the case, someone explain why we are contemplating moving Kemp for an average hitter with crap OBP????
