After Omar's mom called him and told him. Or after he read a tweet. Rosenturd is not Peter Gammons..........Then again, neither is Peter Gammons. He's really an alien. A sneaky one at that.
The Rockies want to add a veteran to their bench, and Michael Young may be available now that the Dodgers have re-signed Uribe, Troy Renck of The Denver Post writes. Young is reportedly looking for a starting role, however. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/12/west-notes-mariners-cruz-trumbo-dodgers-rockies.html ray:
SURPLUS GOODS: Why the Dodgers Shouldn't and Won't Trade an Outfielder by Mark Fabrick | Dodgers Nation -- 2 minutes ago The MLB hot stove has been sizzling this off-season. Huge deals have gone down all around the league from the Prince Fielder/Ian Kinsler trade to the Mariners snagging Robinson Cano for 10 years/$240 million. All the while, people have been waiting for the team with the biggest pockets in baseball to make a big move. That hasn’t happened yet. However, the rumor mill has made it seem that the Los Angeles Dodgers are destined to trade one of their four star outfielders. Most recently, things got so bad that Matt Kemp’s agent, Dave Stewart, even went so far as to say he expected Kemp to be traded. Dodgers GM Ned Colletti came out and promptly put out that fire, saying the team had no intentions of trading Kemp this winter. Allow me to translate that for you: the Dodgers aren’t actively shopping Matt Kemp, nor any outfielder for that matter, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t listening to offers. If you’ve watched the movie Moneyball, you know that GMs constantly call other GMs to inquire about the availability of guys, most of the time nothing comes of those discussions. Although the framework of future deals can be laid this way, as the famous Dodgers/Red Sox 2012 trade was. Over time, Colletti has gained a reputation as one of baseball’s shrewdest GM’s. He’s made big money moves for All-Star players and he’s found jewels in the rough via reclamation projects. So, let’s face it, Colletti isn’t shipping out one of his prized outfielders if it’s not for a good deal. The team would love to continue to replenish its farm system and trading one of the outfielders, especially Kemp, could bring back that haul. However, in today’s economic environment, teams have been more and more reluctant to trade young, controllable assets for expensive, long-term contracts. We’re to the point now, where teams are even reluctant to sign free agents because they would have to cede a draft pick to the team that free agent came from if he was extended a qualifying offer. This is why the Dodgers signing Dan Haren to a one-year, $10 million deal is amazing, in comparison to Ricky Nolasco receiving four years, $49 million from the Minnesota Twins or Jason Vargas getting four years, $32 million from Kansas City. That’s the economics of baseball, but now let’s look at all the team reasons why the Dodgers would be prudent to hold on to all of their outfielders. First and foremost is health. Everyone wondered what the Dodgers would do once they had four healthy outfielders, but that scenario never developed as none of the Dodgers four outfielders were ever healthy at one time last season. The struggles of Kemp over the past couple of years have been well chronicled. Kemp played in only 73 games in 2013 and he will be coming off ankle and shoulder surgeries. Kemp is still in his walking boot and his shoulder surgery appears to have been a success, so it’s tough for the Dodgers to pencil in the 29-year-old outfielder for all 162 games. However, still in his prime and with all of the talent in the world, a healthy Kemp could easily regain his MVP form of just two years ago. A healthy Kemp would give the Dodgers murderers’ row and he would be a prime candidate to come back and haunt the Dodgers for years to come if he’s traded. Next would be Andre Ethier. While he’s a solid major league player, Ethier endeared himself to fans and pundits last year as he successfully manned center field for most of the season. Prior to the season, as the legend of Yasiel Puig began to grow, it was widely considered that Ethier would be the odd man out and traded during the season. However, with Kemp never available and Carl Crawford also needing regular rest, Ethier became the Dodgers most dependable outfielder in 2013. __
Disagree with not trading an outfielder. If you don't want to move Kemp, I think moving Ethier makes sense. No sense spending 15 million on a fourth outfielder, especially when SVS and Joc are more than capable. If you don't want to "sell low" on Kemp, get something for Dre, as much as I'll miss him.
Still could move 1 before the trade deadline. Having said that, I must reiterate the point that we had surplus starting pitching last year guys.
Disagree. What's 15 million to this payroll? If the only reason to make a trade is money, then that's not a good reason.
Not sure Dodger management has ever said we wanted to trade one of the four outfielders. It is mostly sports media sorts saying it. Even other GM's say Ned doesn't seem interested. Oh well you gotta write a story about something and with the McCourts gone not a lot of off season Dodger drama. Rosendouche out of desperation was just trying to stir something up between Kemp/Stewart and some unknown Dodger Exec who for some unknown reason was ticked at Kemp. Hmmm to many unknowns for my taste to give him any credibility at this point.
It seems like the team is more likely to let these guys come to camp and fight for the 3 spots. They may all talk the talk now, but IF they are all healthy to start the year, one of Kemp, Ethier and Crawford are not going to be happy about not playing everyday. We see every year a team comes to camp with an idea of what they are going to do and then someone goes down or someone is not ready and that team is left scrambling looking for someone to fill that spot. Maybe we can be fortunate and take advantage of a desperate team early in the season. Another good reason to wait until camp is to see how SVS and Pederson look. SVS was not the same after his injury and Pederson will still be a question mark on where he is at. If either or both look ready to step in and be viable option's for if the time comes and one of the remaining 3 go down, the FO may be more comfortable making a move. I'm on the fence, I'd like the team to move one of either Crawford or Ethier, but I don't want them to trade a guy just to trade him. Only move one if the return is right, otherwise hold on to them for now.
plus the demand from other teams needing of's might increase ideally all three will tear it up in spring training further enhancing our potential return but i agree that ultimately someone -- perhaps all three -- won't be happy about not being in the lineup every day and while some may say to them, "tough shit, deal with it"... unhappy players are seldom productive players
And to be fair to them, I think they'd have a good reason/right to be angry if they are on the bench and healthy
LOL, now there are reports that the team has decided to post Tanaka. This will be my last update until he is actually posted as I am tired of this shit.
Exactly, when you are paid superstar money, you expect to be playing everyday. There is not a single team in the league that has an OF situation where one of those guys wouldn't be a starter. They see that and are allowed to be pissed. We can preach being a good teammate, but in the heart a true competitor would want to play everyday.
There seems to be a consensus out there that we aren't really interested in Tanaka, could just be real interest disguised as indifference?
Exactly, when you are paid superstar money, you expect to be playing everyday. There is not a single team in the league that has an OF situation where one of those guys wouldn't be a starter. They see that and are allowed to be pissed. We can preach being a good teammate, but in the heart a true competitor would want to play everyday. There are a lot of everyday players who are miserable where they and are away from family. The opportunity to play close to home, wife and kids for a family guy can play a major role. The opportunity to play for a winner can play a role and perhaps most importantly our four outfielder just like us and management realize they don't have great track record of late all being healthy at the same time. They are probably more willing to have one of the other three traded then themselves. I suspect none of the four wants to walk the plank and request a trade. You know how that would play out with the media and most importantly forum fans who love to find the negative in anything. Not in this forum but you know the Times etc etc. Can you imagine if Kemp, Crawford or Dre requested a trade because they wanted to play everyday what naysayers and folks who didn't like that player would say about them? Hmmm aren't there some hardcore Kemp haters in this forum?
Folks, we are not a rebuilding team. We were in the NLCS and a couple games away from the WS. Sports writers are confusing our desire with rebuilding our farm system with trading talent to do so and field a young home grown team down the road. Why and what thinking would have us have Four outfielders tearing it up in the Spring and want to trade one of them away when we are needing to win inter league games and WS games with a DH. That advantage in interleague play could mean the difference in home field advantage in the playoffs. Barring locker room discord I suspect we will have all four unless we have something go wrong and need a quality major league ready player or David Price. Any trade would be to win additional games next year.
