2017-18 OFF-SEASON

[Quake Griffin]

Btw.

Since Yu is gone in everybody’s mind, we are in the market for an ace in most people’s minds regardless. Again, in my step back scenario, I’m trying to get our young arms up and ready but dealing for an ace is possible. I actually hope we can get these guys up with Rick Honeycutt.

This is part of why I was and still am against Rich Hill’s deal. It is better to have paid for an ace (Cueto?) than a Kazmir and a Hill...a Brett Anderson...a McCarthy. We traded for Hill to be our #2 remind you.

But let’s unpack Yu leaving...which WE all want.

There’s almost no doubt in anybody’s mind that keeping Yu while with Honeycutt = more regular season success next year.
There’s no doubt in anybody’s mind that he was great in the DS and CS.

We literally all want to move on because he was frail in the WS....not the whole postseason...the World Series. Nobody is telling anybody to look at the bright side of his October, when he really does have a bright side to his October.

What’s the difference? One choke was drafted here and we’ve grown to love him over the last 10 years.

Worse? We all know it’s REALLY because Kershaw is kind of a choke. We can’t have TWO chokes here. We are looking for our Schilling behind Kershaw and Yu doesn’t fit that bill. More, in my opinion, of this team and fan base organizing and structuring this team around Kershaw’s stature and reputation when we can just move on and do something else.

Edit:
I can’t predict exactly how I’d feel about this matter if we won Game 7. But I am pretty sure I’d still be open to this idea as I’m not interested in giving him a fat contract when he opts out next year.

But as I said, I’m not super interested in a slow walk to his ONE glory moment or crying boo hoo tears as he walks off the mound one last time in Dodger Blue and into retirement.

I want a dynasty. He is in the way to me.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Neddy]

may I say something?

first of all, there is nothing wrong with you guys doing some mental exercise, but hope you two don't get too personal. we only have 3 regulars plus our mod kilroy, then a handful of occasional part timers. i don't want a forum where it is just 2 regulars plus our mod kilroy, and a handful of part time posters.

secondly. no matter what we argue, it is out of our control! we can talk all day and night about certain topics but there isn't a single decision making we can actually do to impact our beloved Dodgers.

lastly, as I said before, both of you guys are correct. this is baseball, not climate change science. the goal is to win the WS, and we are still the best team in NL. but that doesn't mean we will automatically get there and win it. adding to this team can help, stepping back and tear it down to rebuild, could be the answer to a better, long term sustainable future, but we don't have a clear and assuring guarantee either way. both could be wrong, and both could be right, maybe one is the better answer over the other. Quake's proposal is more radical, but understandable coming from a younger fan. Ranma's approach is more conservative, coming from ( I assume, don't know for sure) older fan who have seen and remember the 88. the O'Malley family and Tommy was never about radical changes but methodical management style that added and subtracted in increments. the Fox regime was obviously radical, trading our super star Mike Piazza for a one third of the lineup change that included Gary Sheffield, Bobby Bonilla, and Charles Johnson plus more. McCourt era was cheap, now the Guggenheim era is expensive. but the fact still remains that we haven't won since 88. there is nothing wrong with expressing different views when nothing seemed to have worked.

guess what im saying is don't get pissy and stay civil, guys. we are still the only dodger family we've got on line.

[Neddy]

consider my previous post an old guy worrying about nothing.

[Quake Griffin]

may I say something?

first of all, there is nothing wrong with you guys doing some mental exercise, but hope you two don't get too personal. we only have 3 regulars plus our mod kilroy, then a handful of occasional part timers. i don't want a forum where it is just 2 regulars plus our mod kilroy, and a handful of part time posters.

secondly. no matter what we argue, it is out of our control! we can talk all day and night about certain topics but there isn't a single decision making we can actually do to impact our beloved Dodgers.

lastly, as I said before, both of you guys are correct. this is baseball, not climate change science. the goal is to win the WS, and we are still the best team in NL. but that doesn't mean we will automatically get there and win it. adding to this team can help, stepping back and tear it down to rebuild, could be the answer to a better, long term sustainable future, but we don't have a clear and assuring guarantee either way. both could be wrong, and both could be right, maybe one is the better answer over the other. Quake's proposal is more radical, but understandable coming from a younger fan. Ranma's approach is more conservative, coming from ( I assume, don't know for sure) older fan who have seen and remember the 88. the O'Malley family and Tommy was never about radical changes but methodical management style that added and subtracted in increments. the Fox regime was obviously radical, trading our super star Mike Piazza for a one third of the lineup change that included Gary Sheffield, Bobby Bonilla, and Charles Johnson plus more. McCourt era was cheap, now the Guggenheim era is expensive. but the fact still remains that we haven't won since 88. there is nothing wrong with expressing different views when nothing seemed to have worked.

guess what im saying is don't get pissy and stay civil, guys. we are still the only dodger family we've got on line.

Like I said, I got a Not Guilty on my first trial on the day of Game 7. It literally was one of the best days of my life. Game 7 didnt ruin me and still hasn’t when it would have otherwise.

I’m not upset. Any vitriol in my posts is towards Kershaw.

I’m willing to go all the way in a discussion I’m invested in. I can respect that in another person as well. I like it. I live for it tbh. But it’s not personal for me. Not one bit. I’m just literally willing to respond to everything and not yield until I think it is necessary. Did I not yield in the Barnes/Grandal discussion?

That’s what those losers at the ourdodgers forum do. If you think different, they call you stupid and ban you. **** most of them except TROBOB. I have absolutely ZERO problems being in completely different corners on a Dodger issue with another fan and I understand my position is the unpopular/radical one.

Andrew Friedman said no hard and fast rules. I approach EVERY part of our roster that way.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Ranma]

This is part of why I was and still am against Rich Hill’s deal. It is better to have paid for an ace (Cueto?) than a Kazmir and a Hill...a Brett Anderson...a McCarthy. We traded for Hill to be our #2 remind you.

Rich Hill was always a stopgap as a temporary #2 starter. I've said multiple times that part of his value is to help transition to our younger arms, which is now further complicated by Urias's recuperation from injury. We all knew that he was going to be overpaid in his last year or so, but it was a necessary premium we should pay in order to continue with our progress towards becoming one of the best teams in baseball.

Neddy recognized that he was not going to pitch as many innings for us moving forward and both he and I agreed he was still worth his contract given what would be available in free agency over the next few years as well as the benefits he still provides. Neither his presence or contract kept us from needing a co-ace as a #2 starter, so I don't get why you have to remind us.

What’s the difference? One choke was drafted here and we’ve grown to love him over the last 10 years.

Other than the fact that Kershaw is a 3-time Cy Young award winner who could have conceivably won 2 more as well as an NL MVP and assured Hall-of-Fame inductee who is still viewed as capable as continuing to post up multiple years of excellence worthy of more awards, Darvish has nowhere near the grit or mental toughness.

We all knew how mentally fragile Yu is as a flawed pitcher before his arrival to the Dodgers. His struggles with settling down in the 1st inning are also notorious, but despite his elite-level talent, he's not really a competitor. For all the talk about Kershaw's postseason disappointments and shortcomings, nobody questions his compete level. Yes, you can in fact lose and be respected as a competitor. Think Jim Kelly of the Buffalo Bills back in the day.

Kershaw is an undisputed ace of any pitching staff and has pitched many more good games in the postseason than Darvish has pitched in the playoffs. For all the flack you give him about his reputation, it was one built through excellence and hard-earned respect from his peers.

Rick Honeycutt is likely not even going to be with the Dodgers next season...at least not as pitching coach, so the appeal of bringing Darvish back is further eroded. Despite his success, Yu has only demonstrated it for only a brief stretch before reverting back to his old self. Any similarities to Kershaw are more coincidental and superficial at best.

Or do you really think that Darvish is ever capable of posting a Cy Young campaign at least once during his career?

[Ranma]

may I say something?

I've posted before in response to JGOJustin on the Clippers board that I can go overboard in having attitude to posts I strongly disagree with but that has to do with how the arguments aren't addressing the points I've made sufficiently. I would normally just put posters that I not only disagree with their viewpoints on but also the manner with which they post and note that in my signature.

But I can't do that...at least not yet. Just kidding, Quake.

Quake Griffin is a man of obvious intelligence and passion. I like and respect him. We're generally on the same page and even when we disagree, we usually understand that it's with a shared overall purpose of what's best for the team. It initially took some time with your help, Neddy, but I understood where we are both coming from.

It just makes it all the more frustrating. I'm open to the possibility of moving on from Kershaw, as I stated before, but I don't see the point in doing that right now, especially even if he were to present such a bad proposition, we can move on from him if and when he opts out next year. I get we can try to get something of value for him rather than nothing, but given our position as still a favorite to win the World Series and the likely assets we'd get back in return for 1 year of his services, it doesn't make any sense to me to even discuss it as a realistic possibility.

Now I'm obviously attached to Kershaw even as I am disappointed in him like the rest of us, but that disappointment is shared with the team and its manager, but I digress. I'm open to hypotheticals but there hasn't been anything presented so far that is either appealing or makes much sense, in my opinion.

What I find funny is that I had no intention of defending Kershaw this winter since I am disappointed in the Dodgers as a group and the individual shortcomings, but when Clayton became the focal point in the aftermath of our World Series loss, I couldn't help but point out his value and contributions to the organization.

I'm going to exaggerate to illustrate the point, but if Kershaw and his agent were to ask for $50 million per yer over 7 years in a contract, I'd move on from that. In fact, I've done so in the past. Yes, I am an old-timer, Neddy. For instance, Mike Piazza's demand to be the first $100-million free agent didn't sit well with me at all. You want to talk about a diva, well pizza boy's catching abilities were deteriorating during his final days with the Dodgers and he ended up getting less than his asking price from the Mets. I still harbor resentment against Piazza.

Adrian Beltre was another player I initially was disappointed in when Scott Boras took him to greener pastures. I don't hold the same ill will towards Beltre mostly because of hindsight with his subsequent performance and in retrospect to how the Dodgers were run at the time.

In any case, I tend to take certain things personally even if I try not to, so yeah, Quake is right with respect to my having a problem about certain viewpoints. However, like I said, it depends on the arguments presented and how points are addressed.

The thing that aggravates me is that we have a guy out there who competes every night and has carried us for many years. That deserves some loyalty and respect. Yes, there are limits to how far that should go, but when I hear him being called a diva, cancer, and a--for lack of a better word right now--worthless player, it sets my blood boiling a bit and insults me.

As I've said before, my loyalty to players and teams goes beyond just winning and losing. I appreciate effort, hard work, and conduct of character. Again, there are limits to such appreciation, but when you consider what Clayton Kershaw has done for this organization in the past and what he's capable of in the coming years, it boggles my mind that a fellow Dodger fan would be so quick to devalue or discard his contributions whether it is an emotional response or not.

We all want what's best for the Dodgers, but I've made it known before that I hold people accountable for their posts and I can admittedly be intolerant of responses when I find them lacking in support. It just baffles me that we're seemingly seeing two different things in this argument.

I didn't intend for me to take this personally for whatever reason and, like Quake said, I tend to look forward to the occasional moments of disagreements we have since they usually provide some enlightenment for my sake, but this, unfortunately, is not one of those moments.

I'll see what I can do to tone down my overzealous engagement in this discussion. I should probably take a break from the board to calm my nerves or whatever.

Anyway, thanks, Neddy, for trying to play peace keeper (again). It shows how much we really need you around.

[Neddy]

[Neddy]

Free agents:
Yu Darvish - I say let him walk unless he liked us so much he wants to play for us at steep discount on fewer years. 4 years at 22 mil per year. that still is doubling his current deal. he won't take it tho.
Logan Forsythe ($8.5 million club option with a $1 million buyout), obvious keeper. he takes over the team leader role from Utley, assuming Utley would retire.
Curtis Granderson - So Long!
Franklin Gutierrez - good bye, and good luck. ankylosing spondylitis is a tough, tough disease.
Andre Ethier ($17.5 million club option with a $2.5 million buyout) - just retire man. not gonna be a dodger for 2018 season, that's for sure. he may go back home to Arizona, that's gonna be fun and look weird but he is an easy way to dump salary off the payroll.
Brandon Morrow- some of the money we save from Ethier, should go to this guy. 3 year deal for 14 million total?
Chase Utley - please be a coach.
Tony Watson - not worth the salary. let him go.

Arbitration-eligible players: Luis Avilan, Pedro Baez, Tony Cingrani, Josh Fields, Yimi Garcia, Yasmani Grandal, Enrique Hernandez, Joc Pederson, Alex Wood.

I was on the 'trade Joc' train until the WS performance... still may not have a room for him in the long run. however, if Seager is out for a long time with probable elbow surgery, Taylor may need to man the SS. that opens a room for Joc back into the CF.

Yaz in a package for an upgrade at somewhere else is desired. Grandal is a quality catcher, one of the best in the league. he will be a strong commodity in the trade market. but also, we don't have to trade him. we can have one of the best catchers backing up Austin. he won't be happy about it, but as long as it doesn't spill over in the locker room and distort the chemistry, we don't have to trade him, thus what comes back should dictate this deal.

that now leaves the elephant in the room... Gonzo. I would love to see him retire, but 20 some million is a lot of money just to walk away from. the more I think about it, Quake is right. only way to dump him is to eat most of his money unless we want to cuff up quality prospects and that is not the way to go. Gonzo is still a quality human being and a teammate, even if he becomes 20 million dollar pinch hitter, he won't ruin things for the kids. he won't just sit and pout. but the time is now. Cody shouldn't have to look over his shoulder. if we eat some thing like 17 million dollar out of 22.3 million he is owed, someone will take a chance at him for 5.3 million dollar 1 year rental. a team like KC could take a shot at him as a DH.

[Ranma]

The Dodgers have a few days left to exclusively negotiate with our pending free agents, so I figure now would be the time to address concerns about maintaining or improving our bullpen in order to keep that as a strength for the team. Given the front office's reluctance to spend on relief arms, we'll be limited in free agency but I hope it makes an exception this winter in splurging a bit by bringing back Brandon Morrow and signing either Jake McGee or Mike Minor.

Brandon Morrow: He has health concerns, which is why the Dodgers took care to handle use him sparingly during the regular season. However, it seemed like they almost went out of their way to ride him into the ground in the postseason. To his credit, Morrow not only answered the bell each time, but went above and beyond the call of duty in proactively making himself available on short rest as well as providing great performances throughout the playoffs.

Morrow may be a risky proposition, but all the free-agent relievers are, to be honest. He is a premier arm talent with a bulldog mentality as a gamer. Hopefully, the Dodgers make him their top free-agent priority and will bring him back on a 3-year, $21-million deal.

Tony Watson: I appreciate his contributions during the stretch drive and postseason, but I'm not really inclined to commit to him long-term. Maybe we salvage and make the most out of Scott Kazmir's final season and use him as Watson's replacement as the team's primary left-handed reliever. It's doubtful that Kazmir has any appeal as a trade candidate.

Pedro Baez: Personally, I'd rather deal him. He has a live arm, but if he won't throw anything else besides fastballs, we have similar and better options with younger pitchers like Wilmer Font, Josh Ravin, Shea Spitzbarth. Walker Buehler could be another option but I'd prefer we give him a chance as the 5th starter in our rotation.

However, I'm willing to see if he's able to improve his pitches and approach while measuring his progress to reconsider trading him either in the winter or at a later date.

Josh Fields: He's arbitration-eligible, but I'm not inclined to have him back. Like Baez, I'm fine with sticking with him for now but I don't see a fit for him long-term and would prefer packaging him in a deal just for assets in return.

Jake McGee: I've wanted McGee in the past but he got injured before settling down with the Rockies. I think he still has good velocity as a southpaw, but he's worked in the past as predominantly a fastball pitcher and his effectiveness as a one-pitch pony has waned. I'm still interested in him if his medicals check out, so I'm probably going to be okay with giving him 3 years at $6 million per.

Mike Minor: MLBTradeRumors.com ranks him as the 18th-highest free agent this winter (just ahead of Morrow) and projects him to the Dodgers at 4 years and $28 million. He's a couple of years younger than McGee but I'm uneasy with giving him a deal longer than McGee as a left-handed relief option. If his medicals are better than McGee than I guess Minor should be the choice as it's one or the other, if that.

[Quake Griffin]

This is part of why I was and still am against Rich Hill’s deal. It is better to have paid for an ace (Cueto?) than a Kazmir and a Hill...a Brett Anderson...a McCarthy. We traded for Hill to be our #2 remind you.

Rich Hill was always a stopgap as a temporary #2 starter. I've said multiple times that part of his value is to help transition to our younger arms, which is now further complicated by Urias's recuperation from injury. We all knew that he was going to be overpaid in his last year or so, but it was a necessary premium we should pay in order to continue with our progress towards becoming one of the best teams in baseball.

Neddy recognized that he was not going to pitch as many innings for us moving forward and both he and I agreed he was still worth his contract given what would be available in free agency over the next few years as well as the benefits he still provides. Neither his presence or contract kept us from needing a co-ace as a #2 starter, so I don't get why you have to remind us.

What’s the difference? One choke was drafted here and we’ve grown to love him over the last 10 years.

Other than the fact that Kershaw is a 3-time Cy Young award winner who could have conceivably won 2 more as well as an NL MVP and assured Hall-of-Fame inductee who is still viewed as capable as continuing to post up multiple years of excellence worthy of more awards, Darvish has nowhere near the grit or mental toughness.

We all knew how mentally fragile Yu is as a flawed pitcher before his arrival to the Dodgers. His struggles with settling down in the 1st inning are also notorious, but despite his elite-level talent, he's not really a competitor. For all the talk about Kershaw's postseason disappointments and shortcomings, nobody questions his compete level. Yes, you can in fact lose and be respected as a competitor. Think Jim Kelly of the Buffalo Bills back in the day.

Kershaw is an undisputed ace of any pitching staff and has pitched many more good games in the postseason than Darvish has pitched in the playoffs. For all the flack you give him about his reputation, it was one built through excellence and hard-earned respect from his peers.

Rick Honeycutt is likely not even going to be with the Dodgers next season...at least not as pitching coach, so the appeal of bringing Darvish back is further eroded. Despite his success, Yu has only demonstrated it for only a brief stretch before reverting back to his old self. Any similarities to Kershaw are more coincidental and superficial at best.

Or do you really think that Darvish is ever capable of posting a Cy Young campaign at least once during his career?

Let’s get on the same page here. Didn’t you say you didn’t want Verlander’s contract? Why is it unfair to assume that the other money we owe to players isn’t a part of what would give you cause to pause with taking on Verlander’s contract?

Further, the Rich Hill discussion is one that you brought up to demonstrate my apparent shortsightedness. Of course I disagree. My response on Hill was not intended to go through the ins and outs of his deal. It’s to show you I have considered the beginning, middle, and end of his deal (aka not shottsighted at all) and this idea that it was this great idea just because of this fake binary (that I’d rather have him on our roster the day you posted it than not) is nonsense. It was to demonstrate that I still have reservations about his deal. I also expressed to you that I def think the FO would have done something else and there’s tons of evidence to prove that they would have whether you think it was difficult or not.

I can like Rich Hill and not like his deal.
I probably will never like his deal. He’s not worth whatever portion of the 3 prospects went for him + $48 million and he probably NEVER will be. An argument that you are comfortable operating at a loss w/ him to be a stop gap isnt persuasive to me. I can wrap myself in the “i dont care about the bad parts of this or that deal” cocoon as well. That’s not what we’re here for.

—————
Whatever you said about loyalty is the real discussion we are having. You are smart enough to understand my ideas and motivations behind them. They simply frustrate you and we simply do not agree. You believe we owe Kershaw [more] loyalty. I believe I gave him all of my loyalty for a decade and he’s done nothing but break my heart in big moments. I honestly dont care about hs work ethic, his orphanage, or that he “guts out” (incredible euphemism for stinking it up on the mound) performances. Our fans deserve more.

Not gonna go deep on Yu Darvish. We all want him gone.


I think he is capable of a Cy. Will he get one? I dunno. I also think in the weird completely super off (even more off than what I am suggesting) chance that Friedman starts smoking crack, trades Kershaw and signs Yu to a $200 million deal....no matter how dumb that is...I believe that weird 2018 version of the Dodgers would win the division.

___________
I want a dynasty and I want to beat the Giants 2010-2014 run.

I’m completely uninterested in dragging Kershaw to his first ring.

You have a God or supernatural being that hops out of the sky and says, “yo Quake...keeping Kershaw around will lead to a dynasty and a better run than the Giants 2010-2014 run,” I will put my guns down. Until then, I expect chokes. A good start here. A bad start there. Big flies all October.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Quake Griffin]

Call me nuts but I think F&Z will bring back Darvish.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Neddy]

You have a God or supernatural being that hops out of the sky and says, “yo Quake...keeping Kershaw around will lead to a dynasty and a better run than the Giants 2010-2014 run,” I will put my guns down. Until then, I expect chokes. A good start here. A bad start there. Big flies all October.

well, then, it will never happen.

#1 I doubt there is god.

#2 if there is one, I doubt that god cares about baseball, or the dodgers' chances at the championship

#3 you have A gun, not guns. of course unless you made another purchase since. in that case, I wanna know what you got.

#4 Im just having a little fun, nothing to see here, carry on with your conversation

[Neddy]

by the way, dudes and dudettes, ( it would be cool to one day, have a female dodger fan poster in here, eh we sausage fest champions )

talking about why we didn't go get Verlander is really about hindsight. I don't believe none of us actually campaigned all that hard for Justin Upton. he was aging, and his stats until the trade wasn't stellar. none of us knew JV had that another gear and would just kick it up a notch with a contender.

and also didn't Cueto just completely blew up as a bust this year? glad we didn't go out and signed him. knew that was a major stink bomb just waiting to explode. despite their 3 rings, I am so glad to have Andrew and Co. over Brian Sabean who was dumb enough just only to sign Johnny C, but Shark as well. LOL! trading for Mr. Upton carried Johnny and Shark's level of reg flag at the time of the trade talks. I was glad we had gotten Yu instead. of course that didn't work out the way I hoped, but if tipping his pitches is what got us, that is on our coaching staff and it falls on the shoulders of the catcher not to notice.

which brings me to the next devil's advocate Q of the night.

Would Grandal have spotted the tipping if he was behind the plate?

[Ranma]

Let’s get on the same page here. Didn’t you say you didn’t want Verlander’s contract? Why is it unfair to assume that the other money we owe to players isn’t a part of what would give you cause to pause with taking on Verlander’s contract?

I'm going to try to briefly address some points since we've covered a lot of ground previously and in order to avoid escalating things (from my part). Yes, I didn't want Verlander's contract, however, if you recall, I did in fact, professed my preference for him as a trade target. The difference was how much money the Tigers were willing to offset and the prospects they were asking for.

I initially said that I wanted Detroit to eat about half his remaining deal, but the Tigers finally came off their ridiculous demands and ended up trading him for 3 prospects, $8 million in cash, and somehow was able to void the 2020 vesting option. However, I'm getting conflicting reports saying that they're paying off some of that $22-million salary instead if it vests. Whatever the case, Spotrac.com has Detroit on the hook for $8 million for each season of Verlander's contract for 2018 and 2019, so at the very least the Astros are only paying $20 million a year for him and maybe $22 million for 2020 at age 37.

While it's not as much as the half I was initially asking for, $16 million in cash and possible further offsets of his 2020 option is more appealing than paying him $28 million in each of the next 2 seasons on top of that 3rd-year option. Also, my initial disdain for his contract was when he was struggling and showed signs of wear and tear on his body. While those are still concerns, his improved performance and rediscovered life around the deadline has obviously made it more appealing.

The bottom line is that $20 million a year is more palatable a proposition than nearly $30 million per year. Even $24 million per season is acceptable compared to $28 million as long as there is some significant offsets for that 2020 option that limits the amount of commitment due for his age 37 season.

Further, the Rich Hill discussion is one that you brought up to demonstrate my apparent shortsightedness. Of course I disagree. My response on Hill was not intended to go through the ins and outs of his deal. It’s to show you I have considered the beginning, middle, and end of his deal (aka not shottsighted at all) and this idea that it was this great idea just because of this fake binary (that I’d rather have him on our roster the day you posted it than not) is nonsense. It was to demonstrate that I still have reservations about his deal. I also expressed to you that I def think the FO would have done something else and there’s tons of evidence to prove that they would have whether you think it was difficult or not.

I can like Rich Hill and not like his deal.
I probably will never like his deal. He’s not worth whatever portion of the 3 prospects went for him + $48 million and he probably NEVER will be. An argument that you are comfortable operating at a loss w/ him to be a stop gap isnt persuasive to me. I can wrap myself in the “i dont care about the bad parts of this or that deal” cocoon as well. That’s not what we’re here for.

Yes, the Dodgers would have done something else if we didn't pursue Hill, but that is precisely the point. There were less appealing options available. As I keep saying, it's easy to say that we would do something else, which is exactly why I ask for those alternatives to be named. I don't get why you would be taking offense to such a simple and obvious point.

You have a God or supernatural being that hops out of the sky and says, “yo Quake...keeping Kershaw around will lead to a dynasty and a better run than the Giants 2010-2014 run,” I will put my guns down. Until then, I expect chokes. A good start here. A bad start there. Big flies all October.

I actually anticipate Kershaw to come up short again at some point in the postseason, but I still want what he provides, which is many more instances of success and quality innings that will be hard to replace.

[Neddy]

hey there CF55! sup!


and oh, you came in at the most emotionally charged week of this forum ever, and due to the heat of the conversations it went without much ceremony, but WELCOME! we haven't had a new poster for some time, or like, ever. hope you continue to frequent this place as often as we do. I am sure you have noticed by now, the regulars here are a handful at this point, but Kilroy does a killer job at modding, and Ranma and Quake have many interesting POVs and not shy about debating them. we have a few more guys that stop by time to time for game thread and stuff, but for now, as for daily posters, it is a fearsome foursome or a power trio if you don't count the mod.

and what's up with your name dude? CF 55? your initials and were you born in 55? that would make you nearly as old as my father in law and a half a dozen-ish younger than my old man and a full 20 years ahead of myself. it's gotta have a reason or meaning. do you care to share?

I agree completely on C taking a toll on the body but that's one of the reasons I mentioned Farmer who is actually gonna be 27 next season and killed it in triple A and fits same mold as Barnes. I think Farmer is ready to handle the C position behind Barnes and like Barnes he can play other positions 3B and LF in the minors last year. The current FO has a type of C they like and Farmer fits it and it allows for more versatility on the bench.

and Yes I do agree that Kyle can do the job. doing it well is the sticking point, but he can swing the bat for a back up catcher. but what we need to consider in a back up catcher is whether he can handle the staff well and get guys out behind the plate. not saying he can't, but if we could have a much better option, we shouldn't limit ourselves. Kyle will get a chance to play at this level, whether it is with the dodgers or not.

[Quake Griffin]

by the way, dudes and dudettes, ( it would be cool to one day, have a female dodger fan poster in here, eh we sausage fest champions )

talking about why we didn't go get Verlander is really about hindsight. I don't believe none of us actually campaigned all that hard for Justin Upton. he was aging, and his stats until the trade wasn't stellar. none of us knew JV had that another gear and would just kick it up a notch with a contender.

and also didn't Cueto just completely blew up as a bust this year? glad we didn't go out and signed him. knew that was a major stink bomb just waiting to explode. despite their 3 rings, I am so glad to have Andrew and Co. over Brian Sabean who was dumb enough just only to sign Johnny C, but Shark as well. LOL! trading for Mr. Upton carried Johnny and Shark's level of reg flag at the time of the trade talks. I was glad we had gotten Yu instead. of course that didn't work out the way I hoped, but if tipping his pitches is what got us, that is on our coaching staff and it falls on the shoulders of the catcher not to notice.

which brings me to the next devil's advocate Q of the night.

Would Grandal have spotted the tipping if he was behind the plate?

Like he said, we covered a lot of ground.

I brought up Verlander as a thought experiment. If we didnt pay Rich, would we have felt more comfy eating Verlander’s money? Then I immediately said I was NOT #TeamVerlander at the deadline so you would know I’m not pretending to have wanted that all along. I don’t regret not going for him either. Was just a thought experiment.

I was #TeamStandPat at the deadline, so I mostly wanted none of them.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Quake Griffin]

Brandon Morrow should be retained. He has stuff and he shouldn’t be burned out.

I like Neddy’s numbers and figures. That kinda contract works in either scenario Ranma and I are discussing, so I’d do it.

I dunno what the market wants for Watson, so I’ll abstain from saying yes or no to him.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Neddy]

Brandon Morrow should be retained. He has stuff and he shouldn’t be burned out.

I like Neddy’s numbers and figures. That kinda contract works in either scenario Ranma and I are discussing, so I’d do it.

I dunno what the market wants for Watson, so I’ll abstain from saying yes or no to him.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

the market for relievers this year is a crap shoot for sure. but some projections seems my numbers are way too low.

Mike Minor at 28 million for 4 years to the Dodgers?
Brandon Morrow to the Rockies for 3 years, 28 million?

Bleacher report is inflating the hell out of the relievers market, but I do also remember when Big Mac was just 2 bucks and when Gas was 97 cents a gallon.

[Ranma]

by the way, dudes and dudettes, ( it would be cool to one day, have a female dodger fan poster in here, eh we sausage fest champions )

talking about why we didn't go get Verlander is really about hindsight. I don't believe none of us actually campaigned all that hard for Justin Upton. he was aging, and his stats until the trade wasn't stellar. none of us knew JV had that another gear and would just kick it up a notch with a contender.

and also didn't Cueto just completely blew up as a bust this year? glad we didn't go out and signed him. knew that was a major stink bomb just waiting to explode. despite their 3 rings, I am so glad to have Andrew and Co. over Brian Sabean who was dumb enough just only to sign Johnny C, but Shark as well. LOL! trading for Mr. Upton carried Johnny and Shark's level of reg flag at the time of the trade talks. I was glad we had gotten Yu instead. of course that didn't work out the way I hoped, but if tipping his pitches is what got us, that is on our coaching staff and it falls on the shoulders of the catcher not to notice.

which brings me to the next devil's advocate Q of the night.

Would Grandal have spotted the tipping if he was behind the plate?

I didn't really campaign hard for anybody, to be honest. The closest one was Sonny Gray, I guess, since I was championing him over Darvish. I mean I wanted Gray over Darvish but I wasn't ready to just fork over whatever it took in prospects to get him. As I've said before, I initially brought up Verlander but the contract and Detroit's demands were off-putting, but he was the one pitcher I wanted above the others based on talent and the idea that we could get a relative bargain because the Tigers were in salary-dump mode. I'm not sure I would have paid what it took in prospects to get him from the Tigers since their asking price was higher during the non-waiver trade deadline, but based on what the they received from the Astros, Verdugo is currently ranked higher than Franklin Perez and Calhoun is higher than either Daz Cameron or Jake Rogers.

At the same time, Detroit's stubborn insistence on sticking with their bluff forced the Dodgers to consider something else. To be fair, it is not certain at all that our front office was inclined to pursue Verlander, but I do seem to recall the Dodgers being mentioned among the teams who at least expressed cursory interest in him.

Having said that, the Dodgers had to make another deal with such things in limbo and, objectively speaking, trading for Darvish for essentially Calhoun was arguably the best trade made at the time. Hindsight would devalue the worth, but strictly speaking from a cost and flexibility perspective, the trade cost the Dodgers little in the way of prospects who are unlikely to have significant roles with the Dodgers for several years even if it pained to lose A.J. Alexy for me.

I actually wanted to trade for Cueto when he was available from the Reds a couple of years ago with the intention of re-signing him, so I have to own up to that miscalculation.

Maybe Grandal would have spotted the tipping of pitches but I have my doubts. Yasmani had the worst body language during his brief time in the postseason and he had his newborn child on his mind, so he likely had other matters on his mind including the lack of playing time. Granted, he may have seen things better behind the plate than in the dugout and on video, but Barnes has a higher regard for handling pitchers than Grandal. That doesn't mean Yas wouldn't have noticed it but he's not any likelier than anyone else, in my opinion.

[CF55]

As for the whole Verlander thing I don't see any scenario where the front office would have considered a 35 year old who is due 30 M for next two seasons. Our front office is smart would spend that on a 35 year old who has shown signs of decline.

As for potential off season moves one team I didn't think about at first is Milwaukee being a good trading partner. They need 2B and C and looked like borderline contenders and we have Forsythe and/or Grandal who should interest them and they have a couple of interesting P prospects in what is a solid farm system. So I could see Milwaukee becoming a potential trading partner.

As for the OF next season I say Puig is only one with a job I think we should play Taylor at his more natural 2B position since we have a surplus in the OF. Guys don't like him but I really think Verdugo will win a job out of ST if hes not dealt he provides what this team didn't have. Verdugo doesn't go up there trying to hit a homer in every situation he wants to get base hits and rarely strikeouts.

I just think Verdugos profile is what the team was missing we have big bats but when we got runners on base in game 7 everyone wanted to hit a homer none went for the single to chip away at the lead. Verdugo is the type of guy who could keep rallys going instead of striking out swinging at everything. I still don't think Verdugo got a fair crack I know he showed up late to a game but for all of September when the team was playing Granderson instead was sickening Granderson was sucking the whole month and we never really got to see what Verdugo brought to the table.