2016-2017 off season thread.

[Quake Griffin]

Why do we need Verlander? It's a risk...us hoping his decline stays right where it is. It's the winter. Theres no pressure of a pennant race. No need to take on that risk.

How come we arent discussing deals where we bring in young talent that xan grow with Seager. We have a superstar SS and so far, no other up and coming position players to pair with him.

I like Boston's young guys. Can we get Benintendi? Moncada? We could eat Panda's deal to do it.

I dunno. Im just not interested in these old bats or giving up farm pieces I like...like Verdugo.

[Neddy]

Why do we need Verlander? It's a risk...us hoping his decline stays right where it is. It's the winter. Theres no pressure of a pennant race. No need to take on that risk.

How come we arent discussing deals where we bring in young talent that xan grow with Seager. We have a superstar SS and so far, no other up and coming position players to pair with him.

I like Boston's young guys. Can we get Benintendi? Moncada? We could eat Panda's deal to do it.

I dunno. Im just not interested in these old bats or giving up farm pieces I like...like Verdugo.

of course, I am not either. but was making various hypothesis based on this notion that we are wasting Kershaw's prime and the fact that Verlander himself is interested in coming over after the GM meetings, potentially suggesting something that is already brewing and possibly inevitable.

and No I don't think the Rox will sell any of their young promising players even if they get to dump Panda. although they are not ran by Theo Epstein or Cherrington now and Dombrowski can be Ned-like. and Besides, if we are willing to eat Panda's contract, I think we are gonna be fine with Verlander. to grab the youth from the Sox, it will still cost similar package from us to them as it would take to get Verlander.

yeah I do much much rather we hold on to Verdugo. it's just that I can't see the Tigers taking a package around Puig as they would with Verdugo, and with Gonzo's aging, Bellinger is more of a position of need, while De Leon is almost a necessity for the stability of our rotation with so many injured big multi-year contracts.

PS- I just really needed something else to keep my mind occupied after what happened the last Tuesday. Sorry I used this forum to do so. but essentially the off season is for a mental exercise of potentials and hypotheticals... no?

[Neddy]

We have a superstar SS and so far, no other up and coming position players to pair with him.

well, in another hypothetical world where we make no trades that removes any of our top 20 prospects, then we have a ton coming up.

I don't think the FO will do it since Adrian is a walking talking marketing machine for the latino fan base of the southern cal, but if we are willing to trade him in his contract year, Bellinger is going to be ready for 2018. probably by mid season of 2017.

assuming we let Ethier go after next season when his contract expires, and Puig is really a trade bait, Verdugo will be up at the same time as Bellinger.

De Leon and Urias should also be accounted for.

Otani nearly signed with us after high school and it took the Nippon Ham to promise him both pitching and batting to lure him back to make him #1 overall pick. I still believe we are the top team to attract him since his hero Nomo donned our uni.

too bad Willie's glove is not up to par, his bat surely is ready.

I also think Barnes should count as one.

**** maybe a few years in, but his age still have him as a part of the youth movement. his bat was terrible last year but he has been good in the past. looking at his AAA numbers, he is closer to 2015 **** than 2016 **** that went through his father's cancer and other difficulties. he is only now 25. same can be said for Toles.

don't forget Joc.

in essense, we have potentially

Barnes
Bellinger
Willie
Seager
****
Toles
Joc
Verdugo

all young, under 26 years of age today, and covers the entire lineup.

of course we will have to get Willie some D or trade him out to AL.

and there still is Puig...

[Ranma]

For me, WOOD is NOT a set up guy.
I say this, like Baez, at times their consistency and erratic pitch releases can change the momentum of the game.
I would not count on Wood being a solid reliever in the event we have neither AC or KJ.

didn't say setup, I said closer. I know what you meant, but you better look up his stats before you make up your mind from your 'eye' test. when going deep is not the main concern, his stuff and his control improves by a mile. all his peripheral stats jump up.

not trying to convince anyone, if anyone reads up on it, they'll see it too.

and Baez and Wood are not the same kind of players. Baez has no shot being a starter, is a one pitch pitcher who has control issues with that one pitch he does have. Wood is a 3 pitch guy who tries to stretch his stuff to last longer as a starter, trying to work with two until the second or third time around the lineup while throwing at less than 100% effort not to get tired too early. you give him only 3 outs to work with, he has all 3 pitches in his arsenal and his effort seems to rise.

4 to 1 ratio of K to BB is very good. that puts him right up there with Chapman's and Melancon's in this league. control is a none issue as a closer.

While I'm currently inclined to include Wood in a deal for Verlander, that doesn't mean that I value him lowly. In fact, I think he could be an underrated asset for us. I saw that MLB.com had a recent article of who could be the next Andrew Miller as a starter turned high-leverage reliever. Wood was not included in the discussion and I was thinking, "Why not?" I've been on the same page with Neddy in thinking he would be a great reliever for us.

As I mentioned before, he's been compared to Chris Sale stylistically and pitched on par with Max Scherzer this past season before going down with injury. He's not going to be as sturdy as Andrew Miller, healthwise, but he can pitch and fool batters with his funky mechanics. I'm inclined to include him in a trade if the team we're trading him to sees him as a starting pitcher, which an argument can be made for even if I don't see it happening with the Dodgers outside of spot duty.

[Ranma]

I know it's only a report from a guy not directly connected to baseball circles, but I actually believe that the Dodgers are working on a trade for Justin Verlander. Our front office is tight-lipped about this sort of thing, so getting this scuttlebutt from the periphery would be one way for this stuff to leak. Obviously, it's dangerous to put faith in these types of reports, but the guy does cover Detroit sports, albeit on the financial side of things, so it's conceivable that he has a connection within the Verlander camp.

Assuming it's true, then we can safely say that Verlander is at least open, if not pushing, for a move to Los Angeles, especially in light of Detroit's anticipated salary-shedding. Verlander has 10-and-5 rights, so he could squash any talks of going to the Dodgers if he was steadfast in wanting to stay in Detroit or opposed to joining the Blue Crew. Plus, his fiancee happens to be Kate Upton who's shown a desire to act in Hollywood movies.

I've already went over my misgivings in trading for him, especially if the cost will include De Leon given his remaining salary commitment and risk of decline. While it seems we have a unanimous sentiment against including De Leon for Verlander, I am genuinely concerned that we can't do a deal without giving him up and I'm afraid our front office won't mind as much as we do.

This also had me thinking about the cost of prospects. We gave up some notable names in Grant Holmes, Frankie Montas, and Jhared Cotton for both Rich Hill and Josh Reddick and it is looking increasingly likely that we won't retain either. Now I've mentioned in this thread that I'm not opposed to trading even more prospects--depending on the who they are--in order to acquire Verlander, Chris Sale, and/or Evan Longoria. While I've expressed my lack of concern in replenishing our depth fairly quickly as long as we don't deal those from the elite-potential pool of talent, the fact remains that we would have given up quite a lot of prospects if we moved on from Hill and Reddick only to trade for the aforementioned players who haven't been Dodgers. Even if I would have no love loss for any of the prospects dealt away, it would be disconcerting to give up so many assets in such a short period of time.

Having said that, I am now currently weighing the idea of re-signing Hill and trading for Verlander. Between the two, I'd rather have 3 more years of Verlander than 3 more of Hill. Hill will almost certainly get a 3-year deal for money comparable to Verlander's. Hill is arguably the best pitcher on the free-agent market, so it is quite conceivable that he'll be overpaid. I'd love to have him back on the team, but like Zack Greinke before him, there are limits with my disinclination to be saddled with a bad contract.

I've already stated that I have no qualms about giving up Verdugo, but I'm in the minority here. To his credit, he has apparently been balling for Mexico in the exhibition games in Japan in preparation for the World Baseball Classic for 2017. Giving up both De Leon and Verdugo in a package would likely be met with disdain on this board, but I think that is what our front office is willing to give up. However, I think we'd move on from that in relatively short order. I'm still personally against such a deal as I'd like to explore other options, which our brain trust obviously will do.

[Quake Griffin]

Why do we need Verlander? It's a risk...us hoping his decline stays right where it is. It's the winter. Theres no pressure of a pennant race. No need to take on that risk.

How come we arent discussing deals where we bring in young talent that xan grow with Seager. We have a superstar SS and so far, no other up and coming position players to pair with him.

I like Boston's young guys. Can we get Benintendi? Moncada? We could eat Panda's deal to do it.

I dunno. Im just not interested in these old bats or giving up farm pieces I like...like Verdugo.

of course, I am not either. but was making various hypothesis based on this notion that we are wasting Kershaw's prime and the fact that Verlander himself is interested in coming over after the GM meetings, potentially suggesting something that is already brewing and possibly inevitable.

and No I don't think the Rox will sell any of their young promising players even if they get to dump Panda. although they are not ran by Theo Epstein or Cherrington now and Dombrowski can be Ned-like. and Besides, if we are willing to eat Panda's contract, I think we are gonna be fine with Verlander. to grab the youth from the Sox, it will still cost similar package from us to them as it would take to get Verlander.

yeah I do much much rather we hold on to Verdugo. it's just that I can't see the Tigers taking a package around Puig as they would with Verdugo, and with Gonzo's aging, Bellinger is more of a position of need, while De Leon is almost a necessity for the stability of our rotation with so many injured big multi-year contracts.

PS- I just really needed something else to keep my mind occupied after what happened the last Tuesday. Sorry I used this forum to do so. but essentially the off season is for a mental exercise of potentials and hypotheticals... no?

I dont mind. Lets stay at it. It makes the wait for ST better.


We aren't wasting that guy's prime. He's had his chances and he's proven that when we need him the most in October, you can flip a coin on which guy shows up.

$30 million per year for a coin flip in the playoffs....while lesser pitchers like Kyle Hendricks, Kluber etc etc nut up and perform their ass off.

I've waited for him. I've said small sample size. Blah blah blah.


But I tell you what. If he didnt have a no trade clause, I'd flip him to Boston so quick for Moncada + Betts + more or something like that....and I know stupid Dumb-Browski would do it.

Not drunk.
Not out of my mind.
Had that on my mind since Game 6.

[Ranma]

I'm not saying Clayton Kershaw is clutch like Madison Bumgarner, but is it really fair to criticize the guy after this postseason? The dude came in on short rest to close out a playoff game and then did so again to start another game in the postseason. Yeah, his competitive nature to go all out, all the time comes back to bite him, especially in terms of stamina, but our postseason problems have less to do with him than the team constantly having to rely on him all the freaking time to bail it out whether it is a lack of reliable starters in the rotation or his teammates literally dropping the ball at the worst of moments.

Kershaw may not be Hershiser or Koufax in the postseason, but he's still an ace you can reasonably count on in the playoffs. You just can't expect him to carry the load by himself. Heck, even Koufax had Drysdale to help him out.

[Quake Griffin]

Hes dug his own holes. In 2014 and 2015, he pitched on 3 days rest because he put up Ls in Game 1. In 2013 and 2016, those times werent his own doing.

Moreover, we're going to need a superhuman rotation (ex. kershaw - Bum - Hershiser - Koufax) to ensure that any manager we have doesnt feel pressured into using him on 3 days rest. Even the addition of Verlander or Archer wont help this. Concept isnt hard if I'm not being clear. By the time Game 4 cones around in the 2017 NLDS, Kershaw on 3 days rest will be our "best option" and we'll all feel that way.


I want another elite position player. We simply dont have enough. We have annoying holes and weaknesses in our lineup. We have guys not putting up the best ABs when they face good pitching.

Theres a few reasons I'd deal him:
1) Flip a coin on who is on the mound in October.

2) I don't think he's a leader.

3) This needs to be Seager's team.

4) I want elite position players and he can net us at minimum 2.

5) didnt like the whole Puig-Van Slyke thing. I dont even want Puig here but FOH at a guy who hasnt won anything and broken my heart anywhere from 3 to 5 times demanding someone else be traded.

[Quake Griffin]

I'd definitely do Kershaw for Betts, Moncada, and Devers (not sure Dumb-Browski would go this far)....or Betts, Benintendi, Devers.

Then tell CWS...everybody we got from Boston is off linits, so is Urias. Let's talk Sale.

Get the mental weakness out of our locker room!!!!111

I know I'm a heretic and this is blasphemy (hope Im using both words correct) but I would do it. Just my thoughts. I want a ring and there's NOTHING I wouldnt consider to bring one in.

[Neddy]

Betts alone is already near 8 WAR player. I don't think even the "dumb"browski would pile on Moncada and another young stud for Kershaw even if we take their Panda's whole contract and take Hanley back, what we can reasonably assume is the package you mentioned minus Betts plus the entire Panda's contract for Kershaw, which we would have to be idiots to take.

Kershaw may not be "superhuman" as you say but without him, we miss two out of the last 4 division titles and playoffs. before we worry about winning in the post season, we need to get there first.

also, I do believe trading for Verlander, if De Leon and Urias are not included, is the deal that will give us 4 top starters to make the team "manager-proof" as you say. I believe if we give Urias a month off in july, or mid July to Mid August and keep his innings down for the playoffs, Kershaw-Verlander-Urias-De Leon is that 4 headed monster that can withstand Kershaw's tendencies and never have him pitch on short rests either.

[Ranma]

I want another elite position player. We simply dont have enough. We have annoying holes and weaknesses in our lineup. We have guys not putting up the best ABs when they face good pitching.

Hey, I've been with you there, which is why I've made it a priority to swing for the fences in the draft. However, I'm not against still drafting young arms with big potential. I just don't see us getting an elite position player in the short term. Trading for one now will cost Urias and the farm and that's assuming one would even be made available. Free agency doesn't look to help this offseason or the next. Our best bet is to wait 2 more offseasons for the winter free-agent class of 2018 where Manny Machado, Bryce Harper, Andrew McCutchen, A.J. Pollock, and Josh Donaldson could all be available to sign as UFAs.

Until then, we have to make do with what we got. I'd love to trade for Evan Longoria but I don't consider him elite anymore. If we lose both Kenley Jansen and Justin Turner in free agency, the silver lining is that we'd have the potential to have 3 first-round picks to possibly make a big splash by implementing my plan to go over our allotted draft pool budget in what is shaping up to be a good-looking 2017 draft class. The key is to have suitable replacements for such departures, hence, the idea to trade for Longoria and sign Aroldis Chapman.

Trading Kershaw away doesn't really help us as it creates a huge hole in the rotation only to address holes in the field and batting order that would be easier to fill, relatively speakingl. Good pitching beats good hitting, which is why teams place a premium on pitchers in general and the postseason.

[Neddy]

I really hope we don't lose De Jung to the rule 5 draft.

[Quake Griffin]

To Neddy's post....there's not a chance in hell (imo) that we'd choose DeLeon over Kershaw on 3 days rest in Game 4 of the 2017 NLDS.
He's too great of a pitcher and the minute the question gets brought up/ he tells Dave he's available, we're going to pick him iver DeLeon.


To Ranma's post...
I think it would be much easier to fulfill Kershaw's role at the top of the rotation than to acquire an elite position player. Will you get 7-8 fWAR Kershaw? No. But I could live with 5 fWAR and nails in the playoffs.

To prove my point...Sale (and to a lesser extent Archer because hes just good not elite) and Trout are in similar situations. No other team in the league has a shot at Trout. The Sox constantly field offers on Sale.

We can also kill the notion that Kershaw and his big WAR numbers mean we need him to make the playoffs...and we cant win if we don't get there. We DID just watch the 2016 season happen where he missed 2 months of the season, correct? I wont **** on what Kershaw did when he did play, he did keep us afloat early in the year. But we didnt need 230 innings of excellence from him....and you havevto ask how much value we lost in those 2 months. 1 fWAR? 2 fWAR? 3fWAR?

If we don't get elite position players now, we will live behind the Cubs forever. Please look at Rizzo's team friendly contract. With all their guns, they'll be in a good spot to pay Machado in 2018 just like us.


Again. I am talking tough cuz I'm on the net...and unlike this morning, I'm boozy now. But I'll do anything to build a juggernaut that wins multiple rings (consecutive unlike our friends up north)....anything...

Btw...arent Pollock n Donaldson FAs next offseason?

[Ranma]

Btw...arent Pollock n Donaldson FAs next offseason?

Spotrac has Pollock as an UFA in 2019 while Donaldson is listed as arbitration eligible in 2018 with unrestricted free agency presumably available to him the following season. Personally, I don't think Pollock will be worth what it will take to sign him as an unrestricted free agent while Donaldson will be 33 during his 2019 season. I only listed both because they are considered among the 10 best free agents of that class.

I'm not sure what Kershaw's fWAR is since I'm not much of a stat-head but Baseball-Reference has him with 5.6 WAR for 2016 in an abbreviated season and he's had between 7.5 - 7.8 WAR the 3 seasons prior to that, so I suspect Kershaw is certainly capable of posting the fWAR number you listed. The question is will his back be healthy enough to allow for that, which admittedly is an increased concern.

Plus, I'm willing to ride or die with Kershaw in showing personal loyalty. He's a genuinely great person who does charity work with his wife and is inarguably one of the most talented pitchers in the game. The dude won an MVP and Cy Young award not too long ago for crying out loud. If we don't win a World Series title during his tenure as a Dodger, then so be it, but I'm rooting for it to happen with him leading the way. Like I've said before, I hold his teammates, the front office, and his manager as being more responsible for our failures than I do Clayton.

Also, if Mike Trout were to be made available, I'd give up quite a lot to get him. Would that include Kershaw? No, but I can see the other side of the argument, especially with Clayton's health issue. However, I'm not counting on Trout being available any time soon, so I have to approach the offseason planning with what is anticipated to be available to us. While I've proposed some arguably unrealistic trade proposals before, I also don't want to force things.

I think we're close to winning the World Series, but I agree with you that some deadweight--high profile and otherwise--needs to be dropped but I'm not going to trade the face of the franchise to change the dynamic of a ballclub that has just finished its most recent season winning its 4th consecutive National League West title.

We can also kill the notion that Kershaw and his big WAR numbers mean we need him to make the playoffs...and we cant win if we don't get there. We DID just watch the 2016 season happen where he missed 2 months of the season, correct? I wont **** on what Kershaw did when he did play, he did keep us afloat early in the year. But we didnt need 230 innings of excellence from him....and you havevto ask how much value we lost in those 2 months. 1 fWAR? 2 fWAR? 3fWAR?

That was an anomaly and a situation where the Dodgers were counting on him to return back to form, which actually gives him credit for performing as well as he did after enduring a back problem that took out a sizable chunk of his 2016 season. From my understanding, back issues tend to linger for a while after injury and it was fairly extraordinary for him to return to form so quickly. One would assume he was still dealing with those issues contrary to his public statements given the need to keep the team's confidence intact for the playoffs.

As a comparison, the Clippers made the playoffs as the 4th seed in the Western Conference last season with Blake Griffin missing over half the 2015-16 season. You're not going to see anyone argue that we'd be better off trading Griffin away for equivalent trade value in the form of replacement starters at the SF and PF roster spots. Kershaw is undoubtedly the more dominant figure in baseball than Griffin is for basketball despite Blake playing in a sport that typically places more value on individual performance.

[Neddy]

To Neddy's post....there's not a chance in hell (imo) that we'd choose DeLeon over Kershaw on 3 days rest in Game 4 of the 2017 NLDS.
He's too great of a pitcher and the minute the question gets brought up/ he tells Dave he's available, we're going to pick him iver DeLeon.


To Ranma's post...
I think it would be much easier to fulfill Kershaw's role at the top of the rotation than to acquire an elite position player. Will you get 7-8 fWAR Kershaw? No. But I could live with 5 fWAR and nails in the playoffs.

To prove my point...Sale (and to a lesser extent Archer because hes just good not elite) and Trout are in similar situations. No other team in the league has a shot at Trout. The Sox constantly field offers on Sale.

We can also kill the notion that Kershaw and his big WAR numbers mean we need him to make the playoffs...and we cant win if we don't get there. We DID just watch the 2016 season happen where he missed 2 months of the season, correct? I wont **** on what Kershaw did when he did play, he did keep us afloat early in the year. But we didnt need 230 innings of excellence from him....and you havevto ask how much value we lost in those 2 months. 1 fWAR? 2 fWAR? 3fWAR?

If we don't get elite position players now, we will live behind the Cubs forever. Please look at Rizzo's team friendly contract. With all their guns, they'll be in a good spot to pay Machado in 2018 just like us.


Again. I am talking tough cuz I'm on the net...and unlike this morning, I'm boozy now. But I'll do anything to build a juggernaut that wins multiple rings (consecutive unlike our friends up north)....anything...

Btw...arent Pollock n Donaldson FAs next offseason?

hmmm. you might want to look at De Leon's minor stats and compare them to Kershaw's. he may not ever be what Kershaw is, but in playoffs, De Leon with a season in the majors under his belt with full rest versus Clay in 3 days rest, I will take De Leon every time, assuming his next year's projection falls within my personal expectation.

[Neddy]

^ if Trout was made available straight up for Kershaw, I will trade for Mikey every time. Trout is a modern day Joe DIMazio, a regular Mickey Mantle. Clay is modern day Koufax, but how long did Sandy last? with equal or similar WAR value, I will take a position player every time.

[Ranma]

yeah you are correct and it is by design. Theo strongly believes in farming your own bats and buying your arms as you go. it obviously has its strength, I think that growing arms is more unpredictable, and require a lot more pile of young arms to see which one can come out on top. then there are injury concerns. position players, especially the high draft picks, seem more predictable and projectable faster whether a kid has it or not, thus in a short run it can turn a franchise around quicker through its rebuilding process.

If we don't get elite position players now, we will live behind the Cubs forever. Please look at Rizzo's team friendly contract. With all their guns, they'll be in a good spot to pay Machado in 2018 just like us.

While the Dodgers and Cubs will be competing with each other as high-powered organizations led by forward-thinking brain trusts and armed with big money to spend, I don't see the Cubs competing with the Dodgers for Machado. As Neddy pointed out, they're likely going to continue to spend most of their money on starting pitching, Jason Heyward and Dexter Fowler notwithstanding. Besides, they already have Kris Bryant and Addison Russell manning the left side of the infield. Yeah, things could change but given the youth of both of those players, it is unlikely Chicago will be looking at spending free-agent dollars at 3B or SS any time soon.

However, your point is taken that there will be competition for Machado and Harper, but it is anticipated that there will also be plenty of other bats available and the Dodgers are one of the few big-money teams ready to spend with so much money coming off the books by then, especially as you pointed out, with a clear need to upgrade the fielding positions.

The point is that it seems that we have a clear plan in place to address our positional shortcomings through the marketplace in 2 offseasons as well as having Cody Bellinger ready to take over. We don't have any other elite level starting pitchers ready to compete for a rotation spot any time soon beyond Julio Urias. De Leon has a chance to be a good mid-rotation starter, but he's better off at 4th or 5th in the rotation for now. We're likely pursuing a trade for Verlander because of the lack of available opportunities and apprehension at the costs of other options.

That also doesn't mean that we won't trade for a Longoria should he be available. It also seems likely that we'll address 2B with a player outside of the organization, which I hope will be Brandon Phillips at an inexpensive cost in trade assets.

[Ranma]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Ranma]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Quake Griffin]

^ if Trout was made available straight up for Kershaw, I will trade for Mikey every time. Trout is a modern day Joe DIMazio, a regular Mickey Mantle. Clay is modern day Koufax, but how long did Sandy last? with equal or similar WAR value, I will take a position player every time.

This is the premise I am working from.

I know a lot of the other points I've made have been out there but my main premise is that if theres a choice between an elite player and elite pitcher, I'm going player in most cases (unless other variables ruin it)....and I'd trade the elite pitcher for the elite player to do it.