2016-2017 off season thread.

[Ranma]

The Dodgers’ top five returning starting pitchers, according to Fangraphs’ fielding-independent ERA.



Projected 2017 starting pitching, according to Fangraphs.

[Ranma]

3 and a half years of Hill:
3 Prospects (some of the wealth going to Reddick but IMO the deal was MOSTLY for Hill)....so 2 prospects.
$48 million.


I would much rather have stood pat at the deadline and threw some of those 3 into a deal for Sale.



and I don't even want to make a big deal tbh as I want to continue to build from within but it's not close to me.

That package of prospects was not going to get anything close for Sale or apparently even Adam Eaton based on what was given up to get those 2 players, respectively. I mentioned in the Rich Hill thread, how Montas and Holmes--the 2 primary pieces of the Hill-Reddick trade package--were prospects with declining value. This is why I want to trade both Verdugo and Calhoun when they are at peak value since I don't see them as long-term pieces to the Dodgers' future. Yeah, those prospects would not be the headliners in a Sale trade but it would have come down to giving up Urias and even Bellinger, which is a no-go from me.

The Red Sox paid a steep price to acquire Sale and he might well be worth it, especially since I think Moncada is a bit overrated despite being considered the game's top prospect. Likewise, I think Giolito is not as good as Urias despite him edging out Julio in last year's MLB Pipeline rankings. Still, I think the White Sox made out like bandits in getting him for Eaton, whom I'm not high on. He's a solid player, but his value is tied to his affordability in years of team control relative to his production. I certainly wouldn't have considered dealing Urias for him. I was reluctant to include him in proposals for Sale as it was.

Of course, it remains to be seen if Urias will fulfill his full potential, but I have more faith in counting on him than trading for Eaton or even acquiring Sale at the premium prices that were paid. I'm still fine with dealing the aforementioned prospects I view as primarily trade assets if we can get something of good value in return, but I'm inclined not to trade away our prospects right now. The current sentiment at the moment is that it is questionable whether De Leon is enough to even acquire Dozier. If that is the case, I'd be more content in focusing on dealing away Kazmir and whomever else for prospects in return.

[Ranma]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Neddy]

man the news from the other side of the pacific is getting out of control.

now I just read another conflicting report that Otani won't be coming until he turns 25 due to contractual issues surrounding the new MLB rule changes. not sure what to believe anymore.

[Quake Griffin]

3 and a half years of Hill:
3 Prospects (some of the wealth going to Reddick but IMO the deal was MOSTLY for Hill)....so 2 prospects.
$48 million.


I would much rather have stood pat at the deadline and threw some of those 3 into a deal for Sale.



and I don't even want to make a big deal tbh as I want to continue to build from within but it's not close to me.

That package of prospects was not going to get anything close for Sale or apparently even Adam Eaton based on what was given up to get those 2 players, respectively. I mentioned in the Rich Hill thread, how Montas and Holmes--the 2 primary pieces of the Hill-Reddick trade package--were prospects with declining value. This is why I want to trade both Verdugo and Calhoun when they are at peak value since I don't see them as long-term pieces to the Dodgers' future. Yeah, those prospects would not be the headliners in a Sale trade but it would have come down to giving up Urias and even Bellinger, which is a no-go from me.

The Red Sox paid a steep price to acquire Sale and he might well be worth it, especially since I think Moncada is a bit overrated despite being considered the game's top prospect. Likewise, I think Giolito is not as good as Urias despite him edging out Julio in last year's MLB Pipeline rankings. Still, I think the White Sox made out like bandits in getting him for Eaton, whom I'm not high on. He's a solid player, but his value is tied to his affordability in years of team control relative to his production. I certainly wouldn't have considered dealing Urias for him. I was reluctant to include him in proposals for Sale as it was.

Of course, it remains to be seen if Urias will fulfill his full potential, but I have more faith in counting on him than trading for Eaton or even acquiring Sale at the premium prices that were paid. I'm still fine with dealing the aforementioned prospects I view as primarily trade assets if we can get something of good value in return, but I'm inclined not to trade away our prospects right now. The current sentiment at the moment is that it is questionable whether De Leon is enough to even acquire Dozier. If that is the case, I'd be more content in focusing on dealing away Kazmir and whomever else for prospects in return.

They couldn't net Sale but they could certainly make up part of a package for Sale.

And my point is, I would have rather deal 2 (one elite, one good) prospects for one of the best pitchers in baseball than deal 3 decent prospects and sign an oft-injured pitcher to a $48 million deal.

Pay for quality.

Overall, none of these deals would have happened on my watch. I am invested in Urias and Bellinger growing into Dodgers and us keeping our overall depth....but I am answering the question of Sale vs. Hill's acquisition cost.
The Sox kept Benintendi and Devers. They made out like bandits to me. It's unfathomable how the White Sox robbed Rizzo blind for Eaton. The return they got was similar to what they got for Sale.

I certainly think we could match the Red Sox offer to the White Sox and not be completely broken (broken but not completely)...I just don't want to.

[Quake Griffin]

Reports are that we won't match Miami's offer to Kenley.

Good.
Take the pick and let's move on.

[Neddy]

And my point is, I would have rather deal 2 (one elite, one good) prospects for one of the best pitchers in baseball than deal 3 decent prospects and sign an oft-injured pitcher to a $48 million deal.

Pay for quality.

Overall, none of these deals would have happened on my watch. I am invested in Urias and Bellinger growing into Dodgers and us keeping our overall depth....but I am answering the question of Sale vs. Hill's acquisition cost.
The Sox kept Benintendi and Devers. They made out like bandits to me. It's unfathomable how the White Sox robbed Rizzo blind for Eaton. The return they got was similar to what they got for Sale.

I certainly think we could match the Red Sox offer to the White Sox and not be completely broken (broken but not completely)...I just don't want to.

yeah but the problem with that assessment is that you have to assume the trade value of guys like Montas, Cotton, and Holmes would have held up through now and into this off season. has Montas even played this year? I don't know but I am quite certain he has been shelved the whole time. a full season of out of action at his age certainly will lower his value. nobody in our organization saw Cotton as a starter, we valued him and projected him as a closer type. only Billy Beane saw it and now he looks like the center piece of that deal. Holmes, even if he has performed somewhat lower than expectation, he is still so young that I only see him holding his value. I don't see us getting Sale without giving up at least one of the two you mentioned, I don't think Giolitto+more top flight guys the Nats gave up or MOncada+3top prospects the Sox made up would have been matched by us with say, Verdugo+those 3 pitchers. it would have taken Uiras or Bellinger, and probably De Leon in that deal too.

deals don't have to make sense to anyone or even fair, as long as there is 1 desperate/stupid GM willing, a la Dave Stewart.

but yeah I agree that we let Miami take Kenley and we should move on. people on dodgernation discussions are calling for our FO's heads for a 3 WAR player. let's see how much Greg Holland costs, and pretty sure already have internal options to compensate it. may not "replace" the value but enough to absorb it. most great closers are failed starters anyway. we have some of those fellas too.

[Neddy]

Otani was asked by a reporter yesterday about what his plans are now that Otani-exception was shot down. he did not give any clear answers and only stated he has no plans other than forcusing on the 2017 championship for the Fighters to repeat. I am thinking he is coming in 2020.

[Ranma]

And my point is, I would have rather deal 2 (one elite, one good) prospects for one of the best pitchers in baseball than deal 3 decent prospects and sign an oft-injured pitcher to a $48 million deal.

Pay for quality.

Overall, none of these deals would have happened on my watch. I am invested in Urias and Bellinger growing into Dodgers and us keeping our overall depth....but I am answering the question of Sale vs. Hill's acquisition cost.
The Sox kept Benintendi and Devers. They made out like bandits to me. It's unfathomable how the White Sox robbed Rizzo blind for Eaton. The return they got was similar to what they got for Sale.

I certainly think we could match the Red Sox offer to the White Sox and not be completely broken (broken but not completely)...I just don't want to.

We're on the same page in terms of giving up prospects for players, but where we seem to differ is responding to the current marketplace. Neither of us are inclined to include Urias and Bellinger for Chris Sale in trade yet that is arguably the equivalent of what the Red Sox paid to get him. Then, the Nationals pulled a Dave Stewart and overpaid for Adam Eaton. Tampa Bay is now emboldened to maintain and possibly even surpass their initial asking price by reportedly demanding a similar return for Chris Archer that was paid for Sale. The Tigers now find that interest in their offerings have dried up in light of their asking price on top of the financial cost required to pay for the players who would have been acquired.

Given that the cost to do business in terms of prospects is currently exorbitant, what would you have the Dodgers do? Sit on our hands and stand pat? Like you acknowledged, Montas, Holmes, and Cotton were not going to get Sale or Archer right now. Aren't we better off for having dealt them for Rich Hill and re-signing him rather than do nothing to address our void for a #2 starter?

Given how barren the free-agent market has been, it has been a seller's market as the prices for Sale and Eaton have shown. If we hadn't dealt for Hill, maybe we would have signed him as an UFA at the cost of a first-round pick, but he could have just as easily signed elsewhere like Boston, where he benefited from coaching in his renaissance season, which would have directed Sale to Washington instead at a still high price of likely Lucas Giolito, Victor Robles, and more. In that scenario, we'd be at the mercy of other teams' asking price using what was paid for Sale as a measuring stick just like what is currently going on.

The bottom line is that we've addressed our need for a #2 starter without giving up our premium prospects and getting the best free-agent pitcher on the market. We still have holes to fill at 2B, 3B, and closer but we'd have had to deal with those, anyway. I think we're certainly better off having made the trade for Hill than not.

[Ranma]

It looks like at this point, Kenley Jansen is deciding between Miami's $80-million, 5-year offer or the Dodgers' with the Nationals also in the fold. I have to think Jansen will take the Marlins' offer, which is the highest on the table, especially with the savings of having no state taxes in Florida. I guess I could stomach paying him under $15 million per season but that 5th year concerns me at that price.

Meanwhile, the sense I get is that Justin Turner and the Dodgers are still in line for a reunion with Turner seeking a 5th year while the organization is offering only 4. The Cardinals and Giants are apparently the only other notable suitors but neither seems particularly serious about prying him away from the Dodgers. San Francisco seems more like kicking the tires while St. Louis was semi-serious before and just signed Dexter Fowler. However, that may give them more of an incentive to pursue Red Beard harder since the draft pick lost would be a second-rounder now with their first-rounder already given up for Fowler.

While I'm not inclined to give up Jose De Leon for Brian Dozier, I'd be up for including him in a trade for Evan Longoria. Alex Colome also seems to be a hot name, so if we can put together a package of De Leon, Alex Verdugo, Willie Calhoun, and filler for them both, I'd pull the trigger on such a deal. However, the Tampa Bay front office should be familiar with what prospects we value highly having worked with Andrew Friedman so I'm not sure if we can work something out with them. Also, I'm reluctant to pay a lot for relief arms right now. Just look at what the Rays had in both Brad Boxberger and Jake McGee. I was high on McGee despite his basically 1-pitch offering and he struggled in Colorado, but Boxberger has also done the same staying in Tampa Bay with Colome now emerging in his place.

In addition to the Tampa Bay Rays, the Chicago White Sox also line up as an ideal trade partner if their asking price is not too high, but after dealing away both Chris Sale and Adam Eaton for big returns, I doubt they'll settle for less than a premium price right now. Names like David Robertson and Todd Frazier may be the ones being bandied about, but I'm more interested in Nate Jones as a relief arm.

Signing Sergio Romo as a specialist against righthanders also appeals to me as does Greg Holland as a rehabilitation proposition. I also find it funny that Buster Olney notes that the Nationals were reluctant to part with Lucas Giolito for Andrew Miller previously only to include him in a trade for Eaton while still needing to address their spot for a closer. He goes on to quote an evaluator saying that their view of Giolito has changed as they've apparently been working to move him.

I'm also pondering the possibility of having Cody Bellinger handle 3B some time next season as quirky as that sounds. He's a defensive whiz at 1B and is a capable OFer who can help contribute there as A-Gon winds down his Dodger career, so why can't he play 3B? He has Gold-Glove projection at 1B and the arm in the OF, so I'm curious if he could handle fielding duties at the hot corner. Of course, it's not that simple and I certainly don't want to wreck is development, but this is something that I've been curious about for the past few days.

Read on Twitter

[Neddy]

I would be all in for Sergio Romo taking over the Coleman's role as a righty specialist. I think he would thrive in that situation.

we would have to be an idiot to give up De Leon for Dozier alone, but I doubt that is even the deal. the Twins are probably asking for more. I say we walk away from that deal.

we still need a right handed batter who can actually hit lefty arms and Turner ain't it. I hope Puig can fill that void but we still need help. doesn't mean I don't want Turner back, just that he still can't hit the lefty arms.

[Quake Griffin]

Ken Rosenthal ‏@Ken_Rosenthal 11m11 minutes ago
Among those who had initial reports on Turner closing in with #Dodgers: @Buster_ESPN, @Joelsherman1, @JonHeyman.
16 replies 36 retweets 68 likes
Reply 16 Retweet 36
Like 68
More


Ken Rosenthal ‏@Ken_Rosenthal 15m15 minutes ago
Sources: #Dodgers close on both Turner AND Jansen.
43 replies 622 retweets 507 likes

[Quake Griffin]

Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal
Source confirms: Jansen and #Dodgers in agreement on five-year, $80M contract.

[Quake Griffin]

Turner is back as well

[AGAVE]

Neddy....
I'm in on bringing in Romo as a setup guy.
He has NL knowledge of players.
Who else would we rely on fronting KJ in late innings?

[Quake Griffin]

And my point is, I would have rather deal 2 (one elite, one good) prospects for one of the best pitchers in baseball than deal 3 decent prospects and sign an oft-injured pitcher to a $48 million deal.

Pay for quality.

Overall, none of these deals would have happened on my watch. I am invested in Urias and Bellinger growing into Dodgers and us keeping our overall depth....but I am answering the question of Sale vs. Hill's acquisition cost.
The Sox kept Benintendi and Devers. They made out like bandits to me. It's unfathomable how the White Sox robbed Rizzo blind for Eaton. The return they got was similar to what they got for Sale.

I certainly think we could match the Red Sox offer to the White Sox and not be completely broken (broken but not completely)...I just don't want to.

We're on the same page in terms of giving up prospects for players, but where we seem to differ is responding to the current marketplace. Neither of us are inclined to include Urias and Bellinger for Chris Sale in trade yet that is arguably the equivalent of what the Red Sox paid to get him. Then, the Nationals pulled a Dave Stewart and overpaid for Adam Eaton. Tampa Bay is now emboldened to maintain and possibly even surpass their initial asking price by reportedly demanding a similar return for Chris Archer that was paid for Sale. The Tigers now find that interest in their offerings have dried up in light of their asking price on top of the financial cost required to pay for the players who would have been acquired.

Given that the cost to do business in terms of prospects is currently exorbitant, what would you have the Dodgers do? Sit on our hands and stand pat? Like you acknowledged, Montas, Holmes, and Cotton were not going to get Sale or Archer right now. Aren't we better off for having dealt them for Rich Hill and re-signing him rather than do nothing to address our void for a #2 starter?

Given how barren the free-agent market has been, it has been a seller's market as the prices for Sale and Eaton have shown. If we hadn't dealt for Hill, maybe we would have signed him as an UFA at the cost of a first-round pick, but he could have just as easily signed elsewhere like Boston, where he benefited from coaching in his renaissance season, which would have directed Sale to Washington instead at a still high price of likely Lucas Giolito, Victor Robles, and more. In that scenario, we'd be at the mercy of other teams' asking price using what was paid for Sale as a measuring stick just like what is currently going on.

The bottom line is that we've addressed our need for a #2 starter without giving up our premium prospects and getting the best free-agent pitcher on the market. We still have holes to fill at 2B, 3B, and closer but we'd have had to deal with those, anyway. I think we're certainly better off having made the trade for Hill than not.

I would have stood pat.

There's no need to enter into a crappy deal where we take on all the risk and make him rich. None of the pundits even discuss him in the space of "if he gets injured." It's discussed as if it's a certainty that he will get injured and that we are prepared to make up the innings with other pitchers or a deep pen. That doesn't bother me as much if I knew I could schedule his injury for June but I can't. What if he is injured for the playoffs or injured in September but sucks in the playoffs because he is not prepared.

There's NO END to the risk of this deal. Even if he had a limited injury history, the age is a concern.
So we are playing a 36 year old man an average annual value of $16 million per year over 3 years because we are waiting for Urias to develop into a #2 which could honestly happen in one year.

Why not a 1 year deal? Why not a 1 year deal with a vesting option or a team option? Why not an incentive laden deal like Kenta Maeda? Who were we bidding against?


Meh...with all those questions...I'd just wait for Urias to develop into a #2.
What's Urias gonna be...worse than Kazmir was last year behind Kershaw?...lol, doubt it.
brb won the division last year too btw with a sucky #2 and Kershaw out...I'm certainly not scared to enter a season with Kershaw and Urias as a 1-2...not "ideal"...but not scared of it at all.

[Ranma]

Read on Twitter

[Neddy]

Neddy....
I'm in on bringing in Romo as a setup guy.
He has NL knowledge of players.
Who else would we rely on fronting KJ in late innings?

yeah I want him too, it all matters if he is willing to take a single year deal on our roster. if he excels, I would think we can offer him a multi year deal in that setup role too.

[Neddy]

man it snowed like hell was freazing over and couldnt even get out of the house let alone to go to work. was thinking about our lefty heavy bats and better than last season's opening day rotation, and yes we are a rich team (whether the ownership s making money or not is irrelevent) with a huge payroll, but rather than giving away prospects such as De Leon, Stewart, and Calhoun, why not just play Calhoun and keep the two pitchers? I feel like if the Orioles sink by the August of 2017, they may entertain trading Machado away and we can use them in that deal. besides, we did win 2 World Series Rings with a defensive black hole in the second base... does anybody remember Steve Sax? I feel like Willie is clearly the better batter and not any worse than Saxy on 2nd. I mean, there was a time Stevie Saxy couldnt even throw the ball to the first base on a routine ground ball.

[Neddy]

say we don't entertain the Machado trade and wait for him to hit the free agency, as then Gonzo's money is finally off the books, Turner moves to first, Machado at 3rd, and Bellinger to the RF until Turner's contract comes off the books for Cody to take over at first, or even we don't account for Machado at all and only devise our plan based on the guys we already have, and WIllie is defensively shot and not usuable on 2nd, I still believe **** is in for a big bounce back season. he is still very young, has already been in the majors for some time, he is overdue to hvae his shot at being an everyday player. ****'s career OPS against LHP is right around .850.