2017 REGULAR SEASON LA Dodgers & international

[Ranma]

The reality is that a rental is going to be expensive for what you're getting. The Royals sent out a 2014 1st rounder and a 2013 2nd rounder for Cueto in 2015.
David Price's rental cost Toronto their top pitching prospect IIRC. Congrats to them.

There is no skating around it. If you want an ace, you are giving up a pound of flesh. If you want an ace, pony up. If not, move on.

Why do we need an ace when we already have Kershaw and Wood? I'm not necessarily against getting either Archer or Cole, but neither are doing better than either of the left-handers atop our pitching rotation right now. In fact, Wood has been our best pitcher all season.

Nobody in their right mind is going to ask for either what Cueto cost or Price for Matt freaking Harvey. Dude is struggling and probably still hurt. If the Mets are being unreasonable, we move on and and they likely lose him for nothing since they're not even inclined to bring him back, anyway.

I'm personally not inclined to make a trade, anyway, and I'm still of the opinion that the front office is reluctant to overpay a lot to do so as well. Yes, players traded at the deadline will be likely fetch a premium price relative to their worth whether they are a rental or not, but there's a significant difference in cost for what it will take to acquire a David Price than it would for Matt Harvey. Or at least there should be. Between the two options, I'm more inclined to pay the lesser of the two overly expensive prices and wash my hands of it after the season.

[Ranma]

I want to clarify that I do not value either Buehler or White as highly as I did Urias, Seager, or Bellinger when they were coming up our system, but our top healthy pitching prospects still represent high ceilings while under a good developmental system, which is why I am reluctant to part with them for short-term gains, philosophically. Alvarez is currently an unknown but presents so much upside and a high ceiling, we'd have to be crazy to give him up right now, especially given the monetary cost invested in him in the form of a signing bonus and the accompanying taxation.

Having said that, I wouldn't be opposed to giving up either Buehler or White straight-up for either Chris Archer or Gerrit Cole, but obviously, the problem is teams will ask for far more than that. If it's Buehler, Verdugo, and Calhoun, you'd probably convince me. However, if they're asking for Buehler, White, and Stewart, you're unlikely to get my vote. There's a decent likelihood that any one of the aforementioned pitchers can produce at what either Archer or Cole are currently doing within the next 4 years or so. If this was the cost for Shohei Otani, you'd probably have me at "hello".

I guess the bottom line is I'm not necessarily opposed to a deal but it appears I'm less inclined to do so as either of you, Neddy and Quake.

[Quake Griffin]

The reality is that a rental is going to be expensive for what you're getting. The Royals sent out a 2014 1st rounder and a 2013 2nd rounder for Cueto in 2015.
David Price's rental cost Toronto their top pitching prospect IIRC. Congrats to them.

There is no skating around it. If you want an ace, you are giving up a pound of flesh. If you want an ace, pony up. If not, move on.

Why do we need an ace when we already have Kershaw and Wood? I'm not necessarily against getting either Archer or Cole, but neither are doing better than either of the left-handers atop our pitching rotation right now. In fact, Wood has been our best pitcher all season.

Nobody in their right mind is going to ask for either what Cueto cost or Price for Matt freaking Harvey. Dude is struggling and probably still hurt. If the Mets are being unreasonable, we move and and they likely lose him for nothing since they're not even inclined to bring him back, anyway.

I'm personally not inclined to make a trade, anyway, and I'm still of the opinion that the front office is reluctant to overpay a lot to do so as well. Yes, players traded at the deadline will be likely fetch a premium price relative to their worth whether they are a rental or not, but there's a significant difference in cost for what it will take to acquire a David Price than it would for Matt Harvey. Or at least there should be. Between the two options, I'm more inclined to pay the lesser of the two overly expensive prices and wash my hands of it after the season.

My guess is that we would deal for an ace. Not sure why we'd search for anything below that.

I'm not inclined to make a trade either but if we're going to do it, go all in and do it with conviction. Don't put your toe in the water. I'm comfortable with waiting on Buehler, Yadier and Alvarez if that's the case.

As part of my "be all in if you're dealing" school of thinking, my objection to Harvey isn't his cost. It's why would we do that in general? There's a reason his stock is low. Zipper on the elbow. Removed rib from thoracic outlet whatever. Declining velo. Oh and didn't he get suspended by his team for not showing up to the park or something? We're the Dodgers. Our fans deserve the best. We have a lot of money and assets in the farm. Why would we be dumpster diving for a bum (physically and locker room wise) like him at the deadline?

I'm tired of Mat Latoses and Rich Hills.
Aren't you? If we have to "settle" at the deadline, I'd rather just not make a deal at all. Our 2 best players are 29, 23, 21. Our window isn't closing. We arent in a rush to do anything imo.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Ranma]

My guess is that we would deal for an ace. Not sure why we'd search for anything below that.

I'm not inclined to make a trade either but if we're going to do it, go all in and do it with conviction. Don't put your toe in the water. I'm comfortable with waiting on Buehler, Yadier and Alvarez if that's the case.

As part of my "be all in if you're dealing" school of thinking, my objection to Harvey isn't his cost. It's why would we do that in general? There's a reason his stock is low. Zipper on the elbow. Removed rib from thoracic outlet whatever. Declining velo. Oh and didn't he get suspended by his team for not showing up to the park or something? We're the Dodgers. Our fans deserve the best. We have a lot of money and assets in the farm. Why would we be dumpster diving for a bum (physically and locker room wise) like him at the deadline?

I'm tired of Mat Latoses and Rich Hills.
Aren't you? If we have to "settle" at the deadline, I'd rather just not make a deal at all. Our 2 best players are 29, 23, 21. Our window isn't closing. We arent in a rush to do anything imo.

I think we're in the same boat, philosophically, but we seem to differ in our valuations of certain players and propositions. One could ask why be in a rush to overpay in assets when we're steamrolling through the National League, but conversely, our glorious season thus far could also add urgency to do what it takes to capitalize on this golden opportunity to put us over the top, especially given our World Series drought.

I was not at all a fan of the Latos deal from the very start as it cost us a draft pick in the lottery portion of the first round, but I still approve of the deal for Hill now even if I was not happy about it at the time of the trade.

You certainly paint an ugly picture of Harvey and I normally don't want a Boras client who represents such a proposition. Plus, I generally agree with you that the Dodgers should not go dumpster diving, in general. I'm admittedly being hypocritical in making this exception given the circumstances, but I'm curious what our organization can do with him provided he has the right attitude. The appeal is that I want to pay low, so that we can cut bait once he acts up or shows he's incapable of improving. It's more of a flyer situation where I'd give him a looksie.

If we can get him in exchange for Chris Hatcher, all the better since Friedman can't seem to find it in himself to move on from his 2014 acquisition from the Dee Gordon trade. However, I must again admit that I don't want to dump him for nothing either. I'm just glad he's currently on the DL.

Another point of difference seems to be with regard to Archer or Cole. I know you don't like Cole that much as another Boras client, but for the sake of argument for the "all-in" scenario, neither one excites me enough with their current respective performances to inspire me with the idea that we have to have them even though I like them as additions to our pitching staff if asset cost were not a factor.

[Quake Griffin]

I think we're in the same boat, philosophically, but we seem to differ in our valuations of certain players and propositions. One could ask why be in a rush to overpay in assets when we're steamrolling through the National League, but conversely, our glorious season thus far could also add urgency to do what it takes to capitalize on this golden opportunity to put us over the top, especially given our World Series drought.

But that's why I'm keeping my position malleable/ open. I am a fan of standing pat at this point and I love what we're doing in the draft and development side. Is it completely feasible to never tap into what would be termed the "win now" side of things? I doubt it. So even though I'm inclined to be stand pat, I am willing to hear out a win now trade because standing pat can't ALWAYS be the right answer.

My beef is...if we're going to go for the win...actually go for it.

I was not at all a fan of the Latos deal from the very start as it cost us a draft pick in the lottery portion of the first round, but I still approve of the deal for Hill now even if I was not happy about it at the time of the trade.

I was a fan of the Latos deal because I liked bringing Peraza back and I liked having Wood cost controlled. I also bought all the things that made Latos a hot pitcher from the analytic side, sorta like I bought into Chase Utley's exit velocity when we traded for him. Makes me cringe looking back on it. It's grown to be better than I expected with how we've redeveloped Wood.

I'm no Rich Hill fan but I'm not blind. I know he's a better pitcher and a better acquisition than Latos. I'm just not interested in dealing for his type. There's tons of solid pitchers out there that if, in another universe they were Dodgers, we would be slightly better than we are (you touched on this below in your Archer/ Cole paragraph). Are they all the type we want to deal for? No.

You certainly paint an ugly picture of Harvey and I normally don't want a Boras client who represents such a proposition. Plus, I generally agree with you that the Dodgers should not go dumpster diving, in general. I'm admittedly being hypocritical in making this exception given the circumstances, but I'm curious what our organization can do with him provided he has the right attitude. The appeal is that I want to pay low, so that we can cut bait once he acts up or shows he's incapable of improving. It's more of a flyer situation where I'd give him a looksie.

If we can get him in exchange for Chris Hatcher, all the better since Friedman can't seem to find it in himself to move on from his 2014 acquisition from the Dee Gordon trade. However, I must again admit that I don't want to dump him for nothing either. I'm just glad he's currently on the DL.

If the Mets would actually give up Harvey for that type of bullpen arm, sure. In a vacuum, is it a plus move? Sure. That's how I'd rationalize it. I'd never put my heart into that move thinking it's a win now-World Series move though. Wouldn't excite me much as a deadline deal.

Another point of difference seems to be with regard to Archer or Cole. I know you don't like Cole that much as another Boras client, but for the sake of argument for the "all-in" scenario, neither one excites me enough with their current respective performances to inspire me with the idea that we have to have them even though I like them as additions to our pitching staff if asset cost were not a factor.

I think we are in agreement here. I like Archer's make up and his stuff. I'm not sure how much I'm willing to give for him. I'd expect the Rays to ask for something slightly more than what they got for Matt Moore which is a turn off.

I don't hate Cole. He's an FA in 2020. Given that, the Boras thing in itself doesn't turn me off. It's his injury history + Boras when combined that turn me off. The injured pitchers are starting to weigh on me to be honest and I was fine with Kazmir, [initially] Richie, McCarthy, Anderson etc. etc. because I saw the bigger play was to get us to a point where Urias, Yadier, and hopefylly Otani can be groomed to take over. But given Urias's new injury and Buehler's TJS, I am interesting in seeing some pitchers with a clean injury history and clean mechanics.

[Ranma]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Ranma]

Read on Twitter

[Ranma]

My beef is...if we're going to go for the win...actually go for it.

That's certainly a fair point and one I can easily get behind given the argument that you've previously laid out. My only caveat is that there be a worthwhile target to go all in for. The funny thing is that since the draft, I've been thinking that we may have to make a trade, anyway, given how flush with prospects we are in the developmental pipeline right now. It's similar to what we did in the Hill-Redick trade by unloading multiple top-100 MLB prospects but not the very best in the Dodgers' system. It was akin to giving up quantity over quality, which I'm still open to doing.

Assuming we eventually sign Jeren Kendall, Alex Verdugo's time with the organization may be near the end as I've previously noted how I view him as more of a trade asset than long-term prospect for the Dodgers. This also takes into account that we have Yusniel Diaz making progress as well as D.J. Peters. Of course, they're all not in the same developmental leagues in the minors but a roster crunch is approaching the horizon.

Speaking of trades, Buster Olney and Jerry Crasnick both stated during today's ESPN Baseball Tonight podcast that the Dodgers don't need to make a trade to fill any big holes on the team because we don't have any. Olney mentioned that based on his conversations with GMs, baseball people think the organization is potentially an opportunity buyer where we'll look for value deals instead of overpaying for any particular type of player in the trade market. Olney goes on to suggest relievers Brad Hand and Tommy Kahnle as possible trade targets. However, Crasnick does mention that the starting pitching will be key and that he sees the team being interested in a dominant bullpen piece.

If the Mets would actually give up Harvey for that type of bullpen arm, sure. In a vacuum, is it a plus move? Sure. That's how I'd rationalize it. I'd never put my heart into that move thinking it's a win now-World Series move though. Wouldn't excite me much as a deadline deal.

The more I think about it, the more you've convinced me that Matt Harvey is not a good idea. In fact, Crasnick mentioned in the podcast how some of his problems are self-inflicted with off-field concerns. At the same time, I've heard his velocity is still up there while the anticipation is that the Mets will have to sell him at 20¢ or 30¢ on the dollar in trade.

I don't hate Cole. He's an FA in 2020. Given that, the Boras thing in itself doesn't turn me off. It's his injury history + Boras when combined that turn me off. The injured pitchers are starting to weigh on me to be honest and I was fine with Kazmir, [initially] Richie, McCarthy, Anderson etc. etc. because I saw the bigger play was to get us to a point where Urias, Yadier, and hopefylly Otani can be groomed to take over. But given Urias's new injury and Buehler's TJS, I am interesting in seeing some pitchers with a clean injury history and clean mechanics.

I totally agree with you as I've been uncomfortable with Billy Gasparino's seeming approach to proactively go after pitchers with Tommy John surgery in their past or future. One of the things I liked about Logan White was his preference for clean mechanics and pristine arms. I certainly wish we would take more of White's approach than Gasparino's in that regard. Taking a risk here and there as value propositions is fine in moderation but I don't like tempting fate with our prolific drafting and free-agent signings favoring damaged goods over healthy arms.

I was a fan of the Latos deal because I liked bringing Peraza back and I liked having Wood cost controlled. I also bought all the things that made Latos a hot pitcher from the analytic side, sorta like I bought into Chase Utley's exit velocity when we traded for him. Makes me cringe looking back on it. It's grown to be better than I expected with how we've redeveloped Wood.

I absolutely love the Hector Olivera trade that netted us Alex Wood, Jose Peraza, Luis Avilan, and others...from the Braves. We didn't really have to involve Miami at all since we had to rent Mat Latos, pick up Michael Morse's contract, and forward Miami's draft pick in the competitive-balance portion in the first round to Atlanta all while giving up Jeff Brigham, Victor Araugo, and Kevin Guzman to give the Marlins salary relief. I wasn't a believer in Latos and I hated his well-known bad attitude, which showed itself during his brief and ineffective time with us.

Outside of Zachary Bird, who was already earmarked to the Braves, none of the prospects we gave up were worth fretting over. Still, it was an expensive price to pay for a questionable rental like Latos was at the time. The only thing the Braves received from Miami was the aforementioned draft pick, which I felt should have been in our possession for taking on the bad contracts from Miami. Not involving the Marlins would not have been a deal-breaker for the Dodgers to acquire Wood and Peraza as we could have easily replaced the Marlins' draft pick with any of our lower level prospects or even any and all of the 3 prospects we did end up sending to Miami. The Braves may have been asking for Miami's pick but I seriously doubt that it would have caused talks to break down given how smitten they were with Olivera at the time.

Catherine Slonksnis, SBnation.com (7/30/15)

Dodgers receive

From Marlins: RHP Mat Latos, OF/1B Michael Morse, cash considerations

From Braves: LHP Alex Wood, RHP Bronson Arroyo, LHP Luis Avilan, RHP Jim Johnson, UT Jose Peraza

Marlins receive

From Dodgers: RHP Jeff Brigham, RHP Victor Araujo, RHP Kevin Guzman and salary relief from dealing Latos and Morse

Braves receive

From Dodgers: IF Hector Olivera, LHP Paco Rodriguez, RHP Zack Bird

From Marlins: Marlins' 2016 competitive-balance draft pick, currently listed at No. 35 overall (fifth pick in Round A, after the first round and supplemental first-round picks)

Dodgers Acquire Mat Latos, Trade Hector Olivera in Complex 3-Team, 13-Player Trade

[Ranma]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Ranma]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Quake Griffin]

Finally went 7 innings.

That's like what...twice since he's been a Dodger.
Yay!

Too bad Ricky Nolasco of Game 4 2013 NLCS fame shut down our hot offense.

[Ranma]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Ranma]

Assuming Bellinger becomes the regular at 1B, Taylor maintains his position as a regular starter for the team, and the eventual signing and call-up of Jeren Kendall in CF, the Dodgers could employ a speed game in the not-too-distant future. We can only hope that Bellinger will have a Canseco-like 40-40 season. Taylor and Barnes are just scrappy players and runners. Kendall could be an ideal leadoff hitter if he can implement more contact into his hitting game. That doesn't even include Puig since we're still waiting to see if the Wild Horse can find some sustained consistency.

Mike Petriello, MLB.com (6/27/17)

It's not something you've ever truly been able to measure, until now, as we've added Sprint Speed to the list of publicly available Statcast™ metrics. You can, and should, read the introduction here to get a sense of how it works, but the short version is that we measure speed in "feet per second, in a player's fastest one-second window," and 27 feet per second is the Major League average. The elite speedsters touch 30 feet per second, and the slowest of the slow are down around 23-24 feet per second. Olympian Usain Bolt, by comparison, has reached up to 37 feet per second in his first 40 meters.
...

CATCHER

1. J.T. Realmuto, 28.7 ft/sec
2. Willson Contreras, 27.5
3. Austin Barnes, 27.3
Position average: 25.9

MLB's Fastest Baserunners by Position


J.P. Hoornstra, Orange County Register (6/27/17)

The Dodgers’ fastest baserunner also has more home runs than anyone in the National League.

Cody Bellinger’s unusual combination of power and speed came into sharper focus Tuesday, when Major League Baseball published baserunning data for the entire league on its Statcast website. According to the data, Bellinger entered play Tuesday with a top sprinting speed of 28.7 feet per second. Only 21 players in baseball were faster.

Utility player Chris Taylor (28.5 ft/second) and injured outfielder Andrew Toles (28.4) were the second- and third-fastest Dodgers according to the Statcast metric. Speed was measured in a player’s fastest “one-second window,” an attempt to capture a player’s maximum effort on the basepaths.

Dodgers Notes: Cody Bellinger’s ‘Sneaky’ Speed a Surprising Asset

[Ranma]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Ranma]

Dustin Nosler, DodgersDigest.com (6/27/17)

Barnes has the 11th-best WAR among all catchers in baseball. He would start for at least half the teams in baseball, if not more. This is a luxury the Dodgers have, and they’re using him more. But freeing him up to be used even more off the bench in crucial situations would behoove them.
...

During the 2016 offseason, the Dodgers had a “lack of infielders” issue. I thought Barnes might be the answer to that. Clearly, the Dodgers valued him too much behind the plate (and as Grandal’s eventual successor) to risk moving him to a more utility role. And that was just fine. But in this situation, the Dodgers would stand to benefit from Barnes being available so the likes of Mike Freeman aren’t forced to perform in key situations.

It’s Time for the Dodgers to Free Austin Barnes

[Ranma]

Read on Twitter

[Neddy]

Dustin Nosler, DodgersDigest.com (6/27/17)

Barnes has the 11th-best WAR among all catchers in baseball. He would start for at least half the teams in baseball, if not more. This is a luxury the Dodgers have, and they’re using him more. But freeing him up to be used even more off the bench in crucial situations would behoove them.
...

During the 2016 offseason, the Dodgers had a “lack of infielders” issue. I thought Barnes might be the answer to that. Clearly, the Dodgers valued him too much behind the plate (and as Grandal’s eventual successor) to risk moving him to a more utility role. And that was just fine. But in this situation, the Dodgers would stand to benefit from Barnes being available so the likes of Mike Freeman aren’t forced to perform in key situations.

It’s Time for the Dodgers to Free Austin Barnes

yeah, Barnes is a real good catcher. but too bad for him, Grandal is the best catcher in all baseball according to fangraphs defensive runs above average.

[Ranma]

yeah, Barnes is a real good catcher. but too bad for him, Grandal is the best catcher in all baseball according to fangraphs defensive runs above average.

The problem isn't so much that he's backing up Grandal. It's Roberts's reluctance to play him just in case Grandal gets hurt. As Nosler pointed out, we could alleviate that by having a 3rd catcher on the roster instead of a scrub like Freeman. The team has plenty of versatile players already on the roster, but is ironically prevented from using another one in Barnes because we don't have someone to back him up as a specialized 3rd catcher.

[Neddy]

yeah, Barnes is a real good catcher. but too bad for him, Grandal is the best catcher in all baseball according to fangraphs defensive runs above average.

The problem isn't so much that he's backing up Grandal. It's Roberts's reluctance to play him just in case Grandal gets hurt. As Nosler pointed out, we could alleviate that by having a 3rd catcher on the roster instead of a scrub like Freeman. The team has plenty of versatile players already on the roster, but is ironically prevented from using another one in Barnes because we don't have someone to back him up as a specialized 3rd catcher.

yeah i get what you are saying, but as the article says, you can't bring up Kyle to be our third string catcher because although he isn't exactly a young buck, he still is a prospect who needs to play everyday, and unlike what the article says, you can't waste 25th roster spot on a third string catcher who has no other abilities to add to the roster's flexibility. Bobby Wilson can't play any other position on the field, and regardless what he is doing at AAA, he has proven he can't hit at the major league level. the auther states Mike Freeman is a classic AAAA player who has proven to be a none major leaguer, but Bobby Wilson is exactly the same guy who's only difference is that he is a catcher. at least Mike is still relatively unproven. Bobby is absolute garbage at the plate with more than 800 major league at bats under his belt. MIke has hit better consistently at the minor level than Bobby and has been given like 60 at bats at the majors.

[Ranma]

yeah i get what you are saying, but as the article says, you can't bring up Kyle to be our third string catcher because although he isn't exactly a young buck, he still is a prospect who needs to play everyday, and unlike what the article says, you can't waste 25th roster spot on a third string catcher who has no other abilities to add to the roster's flexibility. Bobby Wilson can't play any other position on the field, and regardless what he is doing at AAA, he has proven he can't hit at the major league level. the auther states Mike Freeman is a classic AAAA player who has proven to be a none major leaguer, but Bobby Wilson is exactly the same guy who's only difference is that he is a catcher. at least Mike is still relatively unproven. Bobby is absolute garbage at the plate with more than 800 major league at bats under his belt. MIke has hit better consistently at the minor level than Bobby and has been given like 60 at bats at the majors.

I totally get not calling up Farmer as a prospect who needs regular playing time, but if Doc is going to sit Barnes because Freeman is on the roster instead of Wilson, then I want Wilson up because Barnes should be getting the playing time over any one in that 25th roster spot regardless of it's Freeman or Wilson. Yes, Freeman is better and more versatile at least as a pinch runner than Wilson, but Barnes is better than either of them.

If we're concerned about not giving enough playing time to someone on the roster, then Wilson should be the one sitting. He's the experienced vet and we don't have to worry about him while having someone who can free bu up Barnes to play more. Our offense is good enough to carry a non-offense catcher on the off-chance he would play. It's a danger of being complacent to do what other teams are doing, but we can minimize such exposure by having Farmer and Wilson take turns shuttling back and forth from the minors just like what we do with our pitchers.

Again, it shouldn't be a big deal since movement for this spot should be minimized as we shouldn't need to go to the player that occupies that spot much at all. It just seems like a waste to not utilize Barnes, who would start for at least half the teams in the league just because of an fairly insignificant roster spot on the ballclub.