2017-18 OFF-SEASON

[Takes5]

Of note, Kershaw will attain 10-5 status mid next year and can veto any trade after that.

[Quake Griffin]

Kershaw starts Game 1s vs. aces.

He’s not getting run support. Schilling always says you know in October it’s time to match zeroes. Schilling, Hall of Very Good, went out and matched zeroes because he had stuff and believed in himself.

A few times in Kershaw’s career he winked, didnt put up the zeroes and didn’t get the win in October or flat out lost but there’s more crap starts in October than those so they arent even worth discussing.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Ranma]

With the fake binary of with Blake/CP or without Blake/CP, it’s obvious we are worse without. Fortunately, it doesnt work that way and we made other accommodations for CP’s departure and the question is very much still in the air.

I’ve answered that question multiple times. I am not looking for Kershaw’s replacement. You will never trade Kershaw for Kershaw. You will never trade Kershaw for Position-Player-Kershaw. So I’m not interested in that. I’ve already told Neddy I’d take a step back to do this. Not sure why Sale came up. I HAVE NOT hidden the ball on how I feel about this situation.

Kershaw to Boston.
Back. Betts and Devers + a prospect.

I want to build around Corey and Cody with hopes Buehler and Urias arent chokes and put everything into making sure, Otani comes. With Betts and Devers, we can deal for an ace if need be.....if need be while holding onto favs like Kendall.

deGrom?

“Bleak” 2018 outlook?
deGrom
Hill
Wood
Ryu
Urias
Buehler
Otani

Strong 2019 outlook?
deGrom (who would be unseated in the coming years).
Otani with experience
Urias with experience
Buehler with experience
Hill (age 39 getting paid boku bucks)....yikes
Wood...

+ Jansen anchoring the pen and hoping we continue to find the Blantons and Morrows. More Morrow. Plus Maeda.
+ Seager, Cody, Taylor, and hopefully Harper/Machado.




I’m pretty sure I was against the years and money for Hill more than against Hill. Before the news of other suitors came out, I didn’t understand his deal and I thought (in the absence of news of other suitors) we bid against ourselves. No one ever objected to this line of thinking until Hill told reporters he had other suitors 2 weeks ago. Given that I wasnt aware of the other suitors, you can see how this contract looks dumb given his age, injury history, and our injured slew of pitchers. Plus, the optics looked bad to me given that we had just paid 3 prospects for him and Redick. None of this is short sighted AT ALL. It’s actually a full view and perspective of his deal starting from how he got here through all 3 years he is signed here. It’s also not like Hill is 200 IP pitcher that went over 5 innings at any point this October. He isn’t the strongest punch you have in this discussion tbh.

Question. If we weren’t paying him $16 million, would we have had room to take on Verlander’s deal at the deadline? (Note: I am not saying I was Team Verlander at the time).

Kershaw
Verlander
Wood/ Ryu
Ryu/ Wood

Yeah. In a world where the fake binary is Rich Hill or no Rich Hill, we are worse. In reality, we’d be looking for every way to get better if he wasn’t here.

The Dodgers are built to be good for a while but they have a perennial choke on the roster. You realize Stan built Atlanta - one ring. You realize he helped build Was. - no rings. Sustained success is great but if we aren’t going to have conviction on things other than the draft or int’l signings, then we might as well be robots and get comfortable with divisions and poor Octobers. You have conviction that guys like Utley help locker rooms but can’t see that all the twisting and turning we do from Kershaw keeps a LOSING element around. YOU and I both want these starts bad for Kershaw. Our guts sink when he fails. You think that type of thing is lost on Turner? Seager? Taylor?

Your perception of my all or nothing scenario is wrong. I never said we are in the same position as everyone. I mentioned BOTH ways that getting this close cuts - 2015 Royals who bounced back from a Game 7 loss and won it all and the Indians and Rangers who didn’t get back. I believe there’s more evidence that getting back is tougher. Hence, me saying all the teams I respect that I expect to get better.

My point is, I put no stock in being one game away. Teams get better. Injuries happen. One game away this year COULD BE 6 games away next year. So my approach to the Dodgers is to still get better in every way possible....les you want to stand pat and re-sign Yu Darvish because with him we were one game away. He was a part of our DS and CS success. Or should we evaluate him fairly and cut bait to get better?


_________

Nothing about his October resume or his back injuries is currently dependable.

Pretty wack to make a choking comparison of a 10 year vet to a rookie. Kershaw should be dragging Cody to a ring. Yet....we’re here...saying “nuh uh. It’s not Kershaw’s fault. The rookie messed up too.” We serious?

It's easy to say that not having Hill on the roster we would have done something to fill the hole. Guess what? Doing that cost assets whether it's prospects, players, or money. I never said that the Hill deal was going to be worth the life of the contract, but the trade-off of having him being a transition player that would allow us to compete in the short term without sacrificing assets while allowing our young players to develop was worth the cost. Hence, looking at the big picture instead of focusing on whether or not Hill was worth his contract. It was a premium but a relative bargain given the circumstances at the time and the savings in resources in other areas.

Futhermore, the team has less holes to fill with position players than it does with the pitching staff, so trading Kershaw for position-player prospects does more to add to the glut of good players we already have than addressing the actual area of need, which is starting pitching and solidifying our bullpen with anticipated departures.

Kershaw has one year left before he opts out, so it is questionable we would even get the return in your proposal. Not that say it wouldn't happen, just not assured. However, relying on young players--position players, at that--over a tried and true ace pitcher,
which is rarer and more valuable given the idea that good pitching beats good hitting, is a highly questionable strategy for a team trying to compete right now. You're making quite a lot of assumptions that Urias, Buehler, Seager, Bellinger, Betts, and Devers will improve significantly more than in the next couple of years than where they are now. Seager, Bellinger, Betts, and Devers are already advanced while Urias won't even be available until the 2nd half of the season and likely not even back to his previous levels the season after next. It's not even determined whether Buehler will be a starter or reliever for the Dodgers in 2018.

It's easy for armchair GMs to discount the value of chemistry but Utley made a significant contribution to the team and even Seager's development. The players (including Seager), front office, and manager state this. It's no coincidence that the chemistry of our team helped the Dodgers to a 104-win season and that camaraderie helped in re-signing Jansen and Turner. So excuse me if I find your lack of faith in such things to be trite. Again, look to the Clippers and the discord and lack of chemistry in the prevoius years and tell me again how chemistry doesn't matter much.

So in your preferred scenario, we're without Kershaw and Darvish but counting on rookies and Rich Hill, whom you didn't want to re-sign, to have us compete in 2018 and maybe 2019 if we can maybe get a Jacob DeGrom and Shohei Ohtani, neither of whom are sure things, by the way, since you even acknowledged with question marks. You're doing more to point us backward than moving forward. Even in your optimistic proposal that looks worse than what we have right now without doing anything else, which the Dodgers most certainly will not be doing.

Instead of building upon a reasonable sure-thing, you'd rather deconstruct it on the chance to build something that makes us worse off. My plan was always to pursue Machado and/or Harper but there is little in the away of available starting pitching to be available. Putting your stock on young arms still in need of development and health recuperation, to be frank, is the most irresponsible thing I've seen yet.

The only false narrative is that there is something wrong with this team. You don't believe in Kershaw. Fine. I'm not going to change your mind on the matter, but I'm absolutely flabbergasted that you would propose giving up on established, elite-level starting pitching in favor of young unproven arms in the hopes of signing free agents, who may not even available any time soon. And you think this makes us more competitive?!

The only reason you think there is something wrong with this team is because, again, you're focusing on Kershaw not being perfect. I'm just in utter disbelief that someone with your intelligence would choose to focus on such a microscopic view to basically lay all the blame for our postseason failures at the feet of a single player who has carried us for so long.

Like I said, there was plenty of blame to go around. I don't give an eff if Seager and Bellinger are young players or rookies. Their respective performances were downright disappointing given what was expected of them and the team's game plan, which they didn't adhered to. I'm further outraged that their manager didn't make the adjustments to the lineup to put the team in a better position to succeed with that respect. The Dodgers left a boatload of men on base but let's go ahead and just focus on just the pitching of our ace.

Yeah, he blew leads Game 5, which I was totally critical of Kershaw. He choked in that instance, no doubt, but it was a single game. Granted it was a significantly costly game, but we wouldn't even be in that position without him (see Game 1). He even did his part in Game 7.

Obviously, rival teams will improve. That's the nature of the business, so I never said that we should do nothing, but losing Darvish sets us back and I'm not even inclined to have him back, to be honest. This team will have to make moves to not only improve but maintain where we were. I just can't believe I'm reading a Dodger fan would actually call for us to basically scrap what we have and roll the dice on something I find to be outlandish.

I was going to post my plans for the off-season, but now find myself sidetracked unexpectedly having to defend the accomplishments of a 104-win team that was just in the World Series to a Dodger fan. Unbelievable.

[Ranma]

I’ve answered that question multiple times. I am not looking for Kershaw’s replacement. You will never trade Kershaw for Kershaw. You will never trade Kershaw for Position-Player-Kershaw. So I’m not interested in that. I’ve already told Neddy I’d take a step back to do this. Not sure why Sale came up. I HAVE NOT hidden the ball on how I feel about this situation.

I cited Sale because you've previously advocated for trading for him, so I wanted to illustrate how difficult it is to find a pitcher of Kershaw's caliber to begin with. However, you seem to be arguing in favor of improving our batting prowess at the expense of our pitching, which I find to be highly dubious, especially with your proposal relying heavily on the development of unproven arms and free-agents who may not even be available.

As I've mentioned many times before, a big part of the solution to fixing our once vaunted bullpen is to have more quality innings from starting pitchers. That should be obvious, especially given that we have more holes to address with pitching than position players on the roster. It seems to be a widely accepted truth that good pitching trumps good hitting and yet I find you emphasizing the latter instead of the former.

I suspect your overzealous criticism of Kershaw has you thinking irrationally. Everyone else seems to recognize how good this team already is. You claim that my "all or nothing" accusation is false by citing other teams' likelihood of improving and yet you're arguing to "step back" by deconstructing our starting pitching to roll the dice on question marks instead of building upon something that is already recognized to be strong and on solid foundation just because we lost Game 7 in a highly contested World Series against a historic offense that snapped out of its funk, by the way, when Darvish built up its confidence by throwing scared only after Kershaw dominated it the night before.

Like I've said previously, nothing is assured, so you can only do so much to limit the uncertainty. You don't however, take a gamble increasing the risk factor for the sake of minimal payout, especially while you're in the midst of an open championship window.

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Michael Baumann, TheRinger.com (11/2/17)

What could the Dodgers have done better? Nothing, and they lost anyway. Isn’t that cool?

What Did the Dodgers Do Wrong?

[Neddy]

My previous post forgot about Wood.


2018, rotation hinges on what happens with Otani and Kershaw.


scenario #1, if we keep Kershaw, which I believe our FO will, and Otani won't be a dodger, which I also believe is the most likely case, is

#1 L Kershaw
#2 L Hill
#3 L Wood
#4 R McCarthy
#5 L Urias
#6 L Ryu
#7 R Maeda

out of these guys, I believe Maeda has the highest chance to be a full time bullpen arm. too bad for his contract. Ryu could be sold, which I still think is a dumb move as his market value will be very low coming off his shoulder surgery and being in the last year of his deal. but we know the truth. McCarthy isn't better than Ryu.

the Scenario #2 where Otani is signed, and yet Kershaw is still here,

#1 L Kershaw
#2 R Otani
#3 L Hill
#4 L Wood
#5 L Urias
#6 R McCarthy
#7 L Ryu
#8 Maeda

if Kershaw, Otani, and Urias are on the active roster and healthy, I believe our FO will make every chance possible for them to succeed. even if that means much much higher paid players are on the pen or traded.

#3. Kershaw is traded for a position player and prospects and Otani is signed.

#1 L Hill
#2 R Otani
#3 L Wood
#4 R McCarthy
#5 L Urias
#6 L Ryu
#7 R Maeda

this odd lineup stems from the assumption that without a proven ace Kershaw, and Otani being still unproven, the dodgers will want two righties rather than 1 unproven righty in the rotation.

My problem in all these cases, I don't see a case where Ryu could be traded to bring in a decent or equal value, and I don't see a case where he could start in any of these circumstances.

I am starting to think we have no chance at Otani, and we have no chance at trading Kershaw.

[Neddy]

and as much as I have given crap to Corey during the WS, we have to acknowledge that he was playing hurt. wish he started early on his rehab or surgery and let Culberson have a full time gig for the series. at least we could have blame his inability to play for our loss.

[Neddy]

I personally think Ohtani should stay home for two more years. come to US when he can earn 200 million right out of the gate.

[Quake Griffin]

With the fake binary of with Blake/CP or without Blake/CP, it’s obvious we are worse without. Fortunately, it doesnt work that way and we made other accommodations for CP’s departure and the question is very much still in the air.

I’ve answered that question multiple times. I am not looking for Kershaw’s replacement. You will never trade Kershaw for Kershaw. You will never trade Kershaw for Position-Player-Kershaw. So I’m not interested in that. I’ve already told Neddy I’d take a step back to do this. Not sure why Sale came up. I HAVE NOT hidden the ball on how I feel about this situation.

Kershaw to Boston.
Back. Betts and Devers + a prospect.

I want to build around Corey and Cody with hopes Buehler and Urias arent chokes and put everything into making sure, Otani comes. With Betts and Devers, we can deal for an ace if need be.....if need be while holding onto favs like Kendall.

deGrom?

“Bleak” 2018 outlook?
deGrom
Hill
Wood
Ryu
Urias
Buehler
Otani

Strong 2019 outlook?
deGrom (who would be unseated in the coming years).
Otani with experience
Urias with experience
Buehler with experience
Hill (age 39 getting paid boku bucks)....yikes
Wood...

+ Jansen anchoring the pen and hoping we continue to find the Blantons and Morrows. More Morrow. Plus Maeda.
+ Seager, Cody, Taylor, and hopefully Harper/Machado.




I’m pretty sure I was against the years and money for Hill more than against Hill. Before the news of other suitors came out, I didn’t understand his deal and I thought (in the absence of news of other suitors) we bid against ourselves. No one ever objected to this line of thinking until Hill told reporters he had other suitors 2 weeks ago. Given that I wasnt aware of the other suitors, you can see how this contract looks dumb given his age, injury history, and our injured slew of pitchers. Plus, the optics looked bad to me given that we had just paid 3 prospects for him and Redick. None of this is short sighted AT ALL. It’s actually a full view and perspective of his deal starting from how he got here through all 3 years he is signed here. It’s also not like Hill is 200 IP pitcher that went over 5 innings at any point this October. He isn’t the strongest punch you have in this discussion tbh.

Question. If we weren’t paying him $16 million, would we have had room to take on Verlander’s deal at the deadline? (Note: I am not saying I was Team Verlander at the time).

Kershaw
Verlander
Wood/ Ryu
Ryu/ Wood

Yeah. In a world where the fake binary is Rich Hill or no Rich Hill, we are worse. In reality, we’d be looking for every way to get better if he wasn’t here.

The Dodgers are built to be good for a while but they have a perennial choke on the roster. You realize Stan built Atlanta - one ring. You realize he helped build Was. - no rings. Sustained success is great but if we aren’t going to have conviction on things other than the draft or int’l signings, then we might as well be robots and get comfortable with divisions and poor Octobers. You have conviction that guys like Utley help locker rooms but can’t see that all the twisting and turning we do from Kershaw keeps a LOSING element around. YOU and I both want these starts bad for Kershaw. Our guts sink when he fails. You think that type of thing is lost on Turner? Seager? Taylor?

Your perception of my all or nothing scenario is wrong. I never said we are in the same position as everyone. I mentioned BOTH ways that getting this close cuts - 2015 Royals who bounced back from a Game 7 loss and won it all and the Indians and Rangers who didn’t get back. I believe there’s more evidence that getting back is tougher. Hence, me saying all the teams I respect that I expect to get better.

My point is, I put no stock in being one game away. Teams get better. Injuries happen. One game away this year COULD BE 6 games away next year. So my approach to the Dodgers is to still get better in every way possible....les you want to stand pat and re-sign Yu Darvish because with him we were one game away. He was a part of our DS and CS success. Or should we evaluate him fairly and cut bait to get better?


_________

Nothing about his October resume or his back injuries is currently dependable.

Pretty wack to make a choking comparison of a 10 year vet to a rookie. Kershaw should be dragging Cody to a ring. Yet....we’re here...saying “nuh uh. It’s not Kershaw’s fault. The rookie messed up too.” We serious?

It's easy to say that not having Hill on the roster we would have done something to fill the hole. Guess what? Doing that cost assets whether it's prospects, players, or money. I never said that the Hill deal was going to be worth the life of the contract, but the trade-off of having him being a transition player that would allow us to compete in the short term without sacrificing assets while allowing our young players to develop was worth the cost. Hence, looking at the big picture instead of focusing on whether or not Hill was worth his contract. It was a premium but a relative bargain given the circumstances at the time and the savings in resources in other areas.

Futhermore, the team has less holes to fill with position players than it does with the pitching staff, so trading Kershaw for position-player prospects does more to add to the glut of good players we already have than addressing the actual area of need, which is starting pitching and solidifying our bullpen with anticipated departures.

Kershaw has one year left before he opts out, so it is questionable we would even get the return in your proposal. Not that say it wouldn't happen, just not assured. However, relying on young players--position players, at that--over a tried and true ace pitcher,
which is rarer and more valuable given the idea that good pitching beats good hitting, is a highly questionable strategy for a team trying to compete right now. You're making quite a lot of assumptions that Urias, Buehler, Seager, Bellinger, Betts, and Devers will improve significantly more than in the next couple of years than where they are now. Seager, Bellinger, Betts, and Devers are already advanced while Urias won't even be available until the 2nd half of the season and likely not even back to his previous levels the season after next. It's not even determined whether Buehler will be a starter or reliever for the Dodgers in 2018.

It's easy for armchair GMs to discount the value of chemistry but Utley made a significant contribution to the team and even Seager's development. The players (including Seager), front office, and manager state this. It's no coincidence that the chemistry of our team helped the Dodgers to a 104-win season and that camaraderie helped in re-signing Jansen and Turner. So excuse me if I find your lack of faith in such things to be trite. Again, look to the Clippers and the discord and lack of chemistry in the prevoius years and tell me again how chemistry doesn't matter much.

So in your preferred scenario, we're without Kershaw and Darvish but counting on rookies and Rich Hill, whom you didn't want to re-sign, to have us compete in 2018 and maybe 2019 if we can maybe get a Jacob DeGrom and Shohei Ohtani, neither of whom are sure things, by the way, since you even acknowledged with question marks. You're doing more to point us backward than moving forward. Even in your optimistic proposal that looks worse than what we have right now without doing anything else, which the Dodgers most certainly will not be doing.

Instead of building upon a reasonable sure-thing, you'd rather deconstruct it on the chance to build something that makes us worse off. My plan was always to pursue Machado and/or Harper but there is little in the away of available starting pitching to be available. Putting your stock on young arms still in need of development and health recuperation, to be frank, is the most irresponsible thing I've seen yet.

The only false narrative is that there is something wrong with this team. You don't believe in Kershaw. Fine. I'm not going to change your mind on the matter, but I'm absolutely flabbergasted that you would propose giving up on established, elite-level starting pitching in favor of young unproven arms in the hopes of signing free agents, who may not even available any time soon. And you think this makes us more competitive?!

The only reason you think there is something wrong with this team is because, again, you're focusing on Kershaw not being perfect. I'm just in utter disbelief that someone with your intelligence would choose to focus on such a microscopic view to basically lay all the blame for our postseason failures at the feet of a single player who has carried us for so long.

Like I said, there was plenty of blame to go around. I don't give an eff if Seager and Bellinger are young players or rookies. Their respective performances were downright disappointing given what was expected of them and the team's game plan, which they didn't adhered to. I'm further outraged that their manager didn't make the adjustments to the lineup to put the team in a better position to succeed with that respect. The Dodgers left a boatload of men on base but let's go ahead and just focus on just the pitching of our ace.

Yeah, he blew leads Game 5, which I was totally critical of Kershaw. He choked in that instance, no doubt, but it was a single game. Granted it was a significantly costly game, but we wouldn't even be in that position without him (see Game 1). He even did his part in Game 7.

Obviously, rival teams will improve. That's the nature of the business, so I never said that we should do nothing, but losing Darvish sets us back and I'm not even inclined to have him back, to be honest. This team will have to make moves to not only improve but maintain where we were. I just can't believe I'm reading a Dodger fan would actually call for us to basically scrap what we have and roll the dice on something I find to be outlandish.

I was going to post my plans for the off-season, but now find myself sidetracked unexpectedly having to defend the accomplishments of a 104-win team that was just in the World Series to a Dodger fan. Unbelievable.

You’re talking to the person who has been saying all year, “if you want an ace, it is going to cost, whether thats money for Greinke or prospects for trade.” I understand another move would cost us assets. The point is that it wouldn’t be this fake binary of a roster w/Hill vs. this roster w/o Hill in which its obvious that the roster w/o Hill is the worse option. It’s this roster w/ Hill vs. the number of things we’d do to get better if we didn’t sign hkm. In my fake scenario of having more room for Verlander, I didn’t even add Yu to the SP unit and the unit of Kershaw-Verlander-Wood-Ryu looks somewhere around what we had value wise....maybe better because we aren’t forecasting three World Series meltdowns (TWO from Yu)....just one from Kershaw.

I understand no Kershaw might mean a step back next year but we have 3fWAR players everywhere. Understand something. THAT IS WHY WE ARE A GOOD TEAM. We are good because there's 3+ fWAR players all over the diamond. This is why we have survived both of Kershaw's absences. IMO if Kershaw drops dead this team still competes for the division and , being in position to add, could probably win it with a replacement of Kershaw's starting slot that isn't anywhere near Kershaw level.

For random example....this is a random example...not my dream scenario.
If we deal Kershaw to the highest bidder.
Then we turn and get Chris Archer, a pitcher who isn't close to Kershaw level, and a pitcher whose peripherals are better than his raw numbers.

Archer
Hill
Wood
Ryu
Urias/Buehler

^^^
That wins the NL West IMO with our current position players, Jansen, having Morrow re-signed, and bringing Maeda out of the pen.

fangraphs has Archer and Kershaw at 4.6 fWAR a piece. This is probably because Archer has 25 more innings than Kershaw. So there is ONE value system that would say, their impact COULD be somewhere near the same on a regular season basis.

So, yes....I am more interested in adding to our talent base and then being flexible to deal from there than keeping him around and building around him.



Btw, we aren’t keeping Yu because him being a good person/family man doesn’t matter - just his production and frail October mindset. We will be in the same position in a way. Any win now scenario in 2018 requires dealing for an ace anyway, so if it’s bleak dealing for an ace in my scenario (keep in mind I don't mind taking a step back), then it’s bleak for our rotation next year anyway.....come October at least:

Leader in HRs given up in a postseason.
5 IP Hill
Woodie
Ryu



I don’t doubt Utley’s positive locker room presence. I probably WAS more ready for Coach Utley before you were ready for Coach Utley as Dave kept throwing Shell-Of-Himself Utley out there but we view him the same more or less. I have been on record here saying the front office's emphasis on locker room has been important.

I’m saying if you believe he has a positive impact...if you believe Seager doesn’t want to let Utley down, then isn't it reasonable to believe that the team wants October bad for Kershaw? That they don’t want him to choke? They don’t want to miss plays for him in October? That they get crushed when he gets crushed? Do you think everybody in there believes in him come October? You think everybody in there agrees with quick hooks for Rich Hill w/o giving him a chance for a win but leaving Kershaw out there to get a win to decorate his October resume? Between that and some of his diva ways, I’m not sure his current presence is the perfect presence it is always made out to be.

As long as we’re in our offseason thread where we are going to sling ideas at the wall, the term “arm chair GMs” should be de facto off limits btw.

____________
I consider a number of perspectives, comparisons etc etc. when making my decisions. I’ve been talking trading Kershaw for a while, even as early as last winter, so this isn’t inspired by losing the WS. I won my first jury trial on the day of Game 7. It was literally one of the best days of my life. Game 7 DID NOT ruin me because of that. Game 5? Now, that was awful. I dragged ass at work the next day.

I think we owe it to ourselves to really push our beliefs on whether this team is flawed. Are we really close or are we the early 2000s Giants - soooo close but missing a little something? The easier position is not flawed because 104 wins, pennant, we like most of the players on the team....even for me because I don’t realky expect Kershaw to go anywhere and tbh, I am kinda happy to see something I’ve never seen - a pennant.

The tougher position is asking why our big ace continues to choke. The tougher position is asking whether it truly has an impact on our locker room and Dave’s managing.

I felt so bad for Dave. He made so many dumb moves and didn’t even get credit for it. What did he get credit for? Not starting Kershaw in Game 7. I want this element and pressure off of my team.

LOL. Unbelievable.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Quake Griffin]

I’ve answered that question multiple times. I am not looking for Kershaw’s replacement. You will never trade Kershaw for Kershaw. You will never trade Kershaw for Position-Player-Kershaw. So I’m not interested in that. I’ve already told Neddy I’d take a step back to do this. Not sure why Sale came up. I HAVE NOT hidden the ball on how I feel about this situation.

I cited Sale because you've previously advocated for trading for him, so I wanted to illustrate how difficult it is to find a pitcher of Kershaw's caliber to begin with. However, you seem to be arguing in favor of improving our batting prowess at the expense of our pitching, which I find to be highly dubious, especially with your proposal relying heavily on the development of unproven arms and free-agents who may not even be available.

As I've mentioned many times before, a big part of the solution to fixing our once vaunted bullpen is to have more quality innings from starting pitchers. That should be obvious, especially given that we have more holes to address with pitching than position players on the roster. It seems to be a widely accepted truth that good pitching trumps good hitting and yet I find you emphasizing the latter instead of the former.

I suspect your overzealous criticism of Kershaw has you thinking irrationally. Everyone else seems to recognize how good this team already is. You claim that my "all or nothing" accusation is false by citing other teams' likelihood of improving and yet you're arguing to "step back" by deconstructing our starting pitching to roll the dice on question marks instead of building upon something that is already recognized to be strong and on solid foundation just because we lost Game 7 in a highly contested World Series against a historic offense that snapped out of its funk, by the way, when Darvish built up its confidence by throwing scared only after Kershaw dominated it the night before.

Like I've said previously, nothing is assured, so you can only do so much to limit the uncertainty. You don't however, take a gamble increasing the risk factor for the sake of minimal payout, especially while you're in the midst of an open championship window.

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Michael Baumann, TheRinger.com (11/2/17)

What could the Dodgers have done better? Nothing, and they lost anyway. Isn’t that cool?

What Did the Dodgers Do Wrong?

It’s not improving our bats I’m concerned with. It’s adding to our talent base to remain flexible and possibly dealing from it. It’s obvious you are more invested in 2018 than I am because I think Kershaw will choke again and you think there’s another move that can blunt the pain of his choking. I think we’ve done enough of surrounding him with talent and picking up for him and we’re done there. I just proposed a potential win now move in 2018 that would appease the win now crowd if we traded Kershaw.

Well, you can believe every Game 7 WS loser is just a move or 2 away or, worse, that they should stand pat. The numbers dont suggest that each loser of that game is just fine and will be back AND see glory. Plus, the logic that follows suggests that we should keep Yu in the fold because, whether we like it or not, he was a part of our success getting to the World Series. I will proceed with the idea that this team needs to get better...at least 1 game better (or more) - the game Kershaw couldn’t give us.

It’s patently absurd to say “probably not” to that question. Not that Im reading that article right now but starting with some Dave Roberts moves, I can think of a number of things we could have done.

I wasn’t impressed by him being available Game 6 or pitching well Game 7. IMO..too little too late. We needed you in Game 5. Kershaw didnt want his last start of this year to be one if the most embarrassing starts of his career? Color me surprised. Of course he pitched well AFTER the choke happened and it wasn’t on him.


And since my point may be getting lost in my posts. I willsay this again.

I DO NOT want this slow walk to getting Kershaw a ring. I don’t want to FINALLY break through and celebrate for him finally getting his ring. The Los Angeles Dodgers deserve to not be the underdogs or heartbroken losers who pop up and FINALLY win one like we have been most of our history. WE DESERVE DOMINANCE! We deserve a run...a potential dynasty. We have the money. We have the smart front office. We have an ugly 3 in 5 year Giants run daring us to finally do something.

Buffalo Bills?
90s Braves?

No thank you. I want a 4 in 5 run like NYY in the 90s.
P.S. What kinda mentally tough person says "maybe one day I won't fail"??? Are we serious here?

[Quake Griffin]

Btw.

I could be disingenuous and beat the “back injury/not worth a huge contract after his age 30 season, so trade now instead of losing for pick” drum.

There’s literally no way around it except an emotional appeal.

I’d just rather argue the side I am more interested in....getting losers and chokes out of our locker room.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Ranma]

and as much as I have given crap to Corey during the WS, we have to acknowledge that he was playing hurt. wish he started early on his rehab or surgery and let Culberson have a full time gig for the series. at least we could have blame his inability to play for our loss.

I'd have more sympathy except for the fact that the team has been pushing him to rest more. His hard-line reluctance to do so likely led to his back issue that cost us his availability in the postseason. This is particularly disturbing since he showed fatigue during his rookie season.

While it's admirable and understandable to a point that he wants to continue with is blue-collar routine, his stubbornness was a result of his misguided decision despite being provided evidence and advice to the contrary.

[Ranma]

You’re talking to the person who has been saying all year, “if you want an ace, it is going to cost, whether thats money for Greinke or prospects for trade.” I understand another move would cost us assets. The point is that it wouldn’t be this fake binary of a roster w/Hill vs. this roster w/o Hill in which its obvious that the roster w/o Hill is the worse option. It’s this roster w/ Hill vs. the number of things we’d do to get better if we didn’t sign hkm. In my fake scenario of having more room for Verlander, I didn’t even add Yu to the SP unit and the unit of Kershaw-Verlander-Wood-Ryu looks somewhere around what we had value wise....maybe better because we aren’t forecasting three World Series meltdowns (TWO from Yu)....just one from Kershaw.

I understand no Kershaw might mean a step back next year but we have 3fWAR players everywhere. Understand something. THAT IS WHY WE ARE A GOOD TEAM. We are good because there's 3+ fWAR players all over the diamond. This is why we have survived both of Kershaw's absences. IMO if Kershaw drops dead this team still competes for the division and , being in position to add, could probably win it with a replacement of Kershaw's starting slot that isn't anywhere near Kershaw level.

You keeps saying there's a "false binary" while recognizing it would cost to replace Hill and Kershaw and yet you gloss over what it would take to get Archer or even Verlander when Detroit was making unreasonable demands for him up until the non-waiver trade deadline. The Tigers only scaled back from their demands because the market collapsed for Verlander, which was further complicated by his no-trade clause. The Astros benefitted from that.

You've mentioned before that you were not "Team Verlander" and I've cited your reluctance in dealing Verdugo even as I was pushing early on how I viewed both him and Calhoun more as trade assets. And now you're saying, we would just go out and deal for Chris Archer? Who's to even say that he's more reliable than Kershaw when he's struggled in the regular season and has no postseason experience to speak of? On top of that, he is one of the hardest pitchers to trade for given his upside and team-friendly contract. Plus, I assume his fWAR is relatively helped by Kershaw missing games due to injury.

Even if we assume we traded for Verlander at the deadline without having Hill on the roster, it is unlikely that we reach 100 wins and have home-field advantage given all the injuries and question marks with our pitching staff in the meantime, which would further hurt our postseason chances as we benefited greatly from not losing games and sticking to a regular rotation while providing plenty of rest to our bullpen.

Again, it's easy to say that holes would be filled but what happens in the meantime affects how the team performs throughout the season in addition to the cost of acquiring such players as well. If the Tigers knew the Dodgers needed Verlander at that point, they would have likely got their steep asking price, which would eat into our assets to acquire other players and also hinder us in the years ahead whether it is trades or having cost-efficient players on the MLB roster that affords us to splurge in free agency.

You say you get this, but your plans of action don't reflect that.

So, yes....I am more interested in adding to our talent base and then being flexible to deal from there than keeping him around and building around him.

Btw, we aren’t keeping Yu because him being a good person/family man doesn’t matter - just his production and frail October mindset. We will be in the same position in a way. Any win now scenario in 2018 requires dealing for an ace anyway, so if it’s bleak dealing for an ace in my scenario (keep in mind I don't mind taking a step back), then it’s bleak for our rotation next year anyway.....come October at least:

Leader in HRs given up in a postseason.
5 IP Hill
Woodie
Ryu



I don’t doubt Utley’s positive locker room presence. I probably WAS more ready for Coach Utley before you were ready for Coach Utley as Dave kept throwing Shell-Of-Himself Utley out there but we view him the same more or less. I have been on record here saying the front office's emphasis on locker room has been important.

I’m saying if you believe he has a positive impact...if you believe Seager doesn’t want to let Utley down, then isn't it reasonable to believe that the team wants October bad for Kershaw? That they don’t want him to choke? They don’t want to miss plays for him in October? That they get crushed when he gets crushed? Do you think everybody in there believes in him come October? You think everybody in there agrees with quick hooks for Rich Hill w/o giving him a chance for a win but leaving Kershaw out there to get a win to decorate his October resume? Between that and some of his diva ways, I’m not sure his current presence is the perfect presence it is always made out to be.

As long as we’re in our offseason thread where we are going to sling ideas at the wall, the term “arm chair GMs” should be de facto off limits btw.

____________
I consider a number of perspectives, comparisons etc etc. when making my decisions. I’ve been talking trading Kershaw for a while, even as early as last winter, so this isn’t inspired by losing the WS. I won my first jury trial on the day of Game 7. It was literally one of the best days of my life. Game 7 DID NOT ruin me because of that. Game 5? Now, that was awful. I dragged ass at work the next day.

I think we owe it to ourselves to really push our beliefs on whether this team is flawed. Are we really close or are we the early 2000s Giants - soooo close but missing a little something? The easier position is not flawed because 104 wins, pennant, we like most of the players on the team....even for me because I don’t realky expect Kershaw to go anywhere and tbh, I am kinda happy to see something I’ve never seen - a pennant.

The tougher position is asking why our big ace continues to choke. The tougher position is asking whether it truly has an impact on our locker room and Dave’s managing.

I felt so bad for Dave. He made so many dumb moves and didn’t even get credit for it. What did he get credit for? Not starting Kershaw in Game 7. I want this element and pressure off of my team.

LOL. Unbelievable.

Adding to our talent base when we are already a stacked team with moves that you've acknowledged as a "step back"? Starting pitching is the most valuable commodity in MLB, because it is hard to find and expensive to acquire and yet you would add talent with our position players and have us trying to acquire pitching outside of the organization at a cost. How is that cost efficient?

You've rolled out names like Archer, whom I've cited is cost-prohibitive to acquire, and previously Sale, whom I've illustrated hasn't done as much as Kershaw. Both of these cases show how hard it is to replace Kershaw's production and yet you dismiss it as saying you're not interested in doing so, but would rather trade it in for the sake of "adding to the talent base" while making it all the more harder to replace or otherwise fill the one premium position that is the most valued in all of baseball? Again, do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

Part of the team's strength is how well-rounded we are. If you read The Ringer article, you'd remember that we are a solidly built team that got by with having an abundance of starting pitching to address injuries and struggles. The reference to the Dodgers not needing to do anything else pertains to how the team was built and not its performance or managerial decision-making.

I've always said that ideally we should have 2 aces fronting our rotation, which is why I understood the pursuit of Darvish. I've expressed my doubts on him, which is why I advocated for Gray because of his bulldog mentality despite him not fitting the ace profile. The failure of not having a 2nd ace, more than anything hurt the Dodgers. Darvish's contributions were practically non-existent, which further taxed our bullpen and the effects of which carried over from that game into the rest of the series.

You choose to focus on the Kershaw choke narrative to justify your tantrum for putting the loss of the World Series entirely on him when the fact of the matter is that he only lost us 1 game and provided us with highly valuable quality innings throughout the World Series including a dominating performance in Game 1. His choke of Game 5 doesn't and shouldn't diminish his vital contributions in that series. Would Chris Sale have given us those same quality inning overall? Or the inexperienced Chris Archer? Heck, Verlander lost 1 game and was close to losing both of his World Series outing. Kershaw even pitched more innings than he did in the World Series. At the very least, Kershaw canceled Verlander out, but he actually did more for the Dodgers than Verlander did for the Astros, but you won't see or even acknowledge that because you're still hung up on Kershaw not being perfect.

Again, he only lost us 1 game (just like Verlander) even if it is in dramatic fashion. Darvish's failure to launch in both games cost us more than anything and didn't provide the support that Kershaw or the Dodgers needed at all. Nothing is assured in the World Series and you've even recognized that Kershaw is no Bumgarner and yet you're holding him entirely responsible for the failure of the team despite the bad managerial decisions, impotent bats from the top of our order, and the non-existent performance from our so-called 2nd ace. Those negative factors produced more losses than Kershaw's single game and if you look at his contributions strictly from the numbers, he helped more than he hurt the Dodgers.

Instead, you're acting as if Kershaw was the one who choked away Games 2 and 7 that were the most monumental choke jobs I've ever beared witness to. It bears repeating, Kershaw got us 1 out of 2 World Series games. What the eff did the rest Seager,
Turner, Bellinger, Darvish, and Roberts do to get us the rest of those games?

By the way, Kershaw is not whining about failing, he's actually publicly holding himself accountable, which you won't get from many other professional athletes. At least he recognizes that he still has to prove something and isn't sugarcoating things when he comes up short. The fact that you and everyone else holds him to a higher standard is because he regularly meets those levels to begin with. Criticism of his postseason failures, while valid, are overblown when they diminish his overall contributions to a winning ballclub.

[Ranma]

Btw.

I could be disingenuous and beat the “back injury/not worth a huge contract after his age 30 season, so trade now instead of losing for pick” drum.

There’s literally no way around it except an emotional appeal.

I’d just rather argue the side I am more interested in....getting losers and chokes out of our locker room.

So in order to push this overblown narrative of Kershaw being a choker and a loser, you'd basically have the front office change what it's been doing in building a championship-quality roster with prospect assets and financial resources and change direction so that we can step back and have a market-inefficient plan of getting rid of quality starting pitching to add talent to areas where we don't need them while using those aforementioned assets and resources to replace and fill the area we traded from with more questionable targets and thus diminishing our flexibility to make trades and free-agent signings in the immediate future?

Again, how does this make sense when pitching is valued at a premium and hard to find? Why not look into actually finding a legitimate co-ace before we deal the one we already have?

Instead of taking an inefficient "step back" why not actually move forward given the Dodgers' enviable and advantageous position rather than change the proven and working strategy of our more expert front office?

[Quake Griffin]

You’re talking to the person who has been saying all year, “if you want an ace, it is going to cost, whether thats money for Greinke or prospects for trade.” I understand another move would cost us assets. The point is that it wouldn’t be this fake binary of a roster w/Hill vs. this roster w/o Hill in which its obvious that the roster w/o Hill is the worse option. It’s this roster w/ Hill vs. the number of things we’d do to get better if we didn’t sign hkm. In my fake scenario of having more room for Verlander, I didn’t even add Yu to the SP unit and the unit of Kershaw-Verlander-Wood-Ryu looks somewhere around what we had value wise....maybe better because we aren’t forecasting three World Series meltdowns (TWO from Yu)....just one from Kershaw.

I understand no Kershaw might mean a step back next year but we have 3fWAR players everywhere. Understand something. THAT IS WHY WE ARE A GOOD TEAM. We are good because there's 3+ fWAR players all over the diamond. This is why we have survived both of Kershaw's absences. IMO if Kershaw drops dead this team still competes for the division and , being in position to add, could probably win it with a replacement of Kershaw's starting slot that isn't anywhere near Kershaw level.

You keeps saying there's a "false binary" while recognizing it would cost to replace Hill and Kershaw and yet you gloss over what it would take to get Archer or even Verlander when his Detroit was making unreasonable demands for him up until the non-waiver trade deadline. The Tigers only scaled back from their demands because the market collapsed for Verlander,
which was further complicated by his no-trade clause. The Astros benefitted from that.

You've mentioned before that you were not "Team Verlander" and I've cited your reluctance in dealing Verdugo even as I was pushing early on how I viewed both him and Calhoun more as trade assets. And now you're saying, we would just go out and deal for Chris Archer? Who's to even say that he's more reliable than Kershaw when he's struggled in the regular season and has no postseason experience to speak of? On top of that, he is one of the hardest pitchers to trade for given his upside and team-friendly contract. Plus, I assume his fWAR relative is Kershaw is helped by Kershaw missing games due to injury.

Even if we assume we traded for Verlander at the deadline without having Hill on the roster, it is unlikely that we reach 100 wins and have home-field advantage given all the injuries and question marks with our pitching staff in the meantime, which further hurt our postseason chances as we benefited greatly from going not losing games and sticking to a regular rotation while providing plenty of rest to our bullpen.

Again, it's easy to say that holes would be filled but what happens in the meantime affects how the team performs throughout the season in addition to the cost of acquiring such players as well. If the Tigers knew the Dodgers needed Verlander at that point, they would have likely got their steep asking price, which eats into our assets to acquire other players but also hinders us in the years ahead whether it is trades or having cost-efficient players on the MLB roster that affords us to splurge in free agency.

You say you get this, but your plans of action don't reflect that.

So, yes....I am more interested in adding to our talent base and then being flexible to deal from there than keeping him around and building around him.

Btw, we aren’t keeping Yu because him being a good person/family man doesn’t matter - just his production and frail October mindset. We will be in the same position in a way. Any win now scenario in 2018 requires dealing for an ace anyway, so if it’s bleak dealing for an ace in my scenario (keep in mind I don't mind taking a step back), then it’s bleak for our rotation next year anyway.....come October at least:

Leader in HRs given up in a postseason.
5 IP Hill
Woodie
Ryu



I don’t doubt Utley’s positive locker room presence. I probably WAS more ready for Coach Utley before you were ready for Coach Utley as Dave kept throwing Shell-Of-Himself Utley out there but we view him the same more or less. I have been on record here saying the front office's emphasis on locker room has been important.

I’m saying if you believe he has a positive impact...if you believe Seager doesn’t want to let Utley down, then isn't it reasonable to believe that the team wants October bad for Kershaw? That they don’t want him to choke? They don’t want to miss plays for him in October? That they get crushed when he gets crushed? Do you think everybody in there believes in him come October? You think everybody in there agrees with quick hooks for Rich Hill w/o giving him a chance for a win but leaving Kershaw out there to get a win to decorate his October resume? Between that and some of his diva ways, I’m not sure his current presence is the perfect presence it is always made out to be.

As long as we’re in our offseason thread where we are going to sling ideas at the wall, the term “arm chair GMs” should be de facto off limits btw.

____________
I consider a number of perspectives, comparisons etc etc. when making my decisions. I’ve been talking trading Kershaw for a while, even as early as last winter, so this isn’t inspired by losing the WS. I won my first jury trial on the day of Game 7. It was literally one of the best days of my life. Game 7 DID NOT ruin me because of that. Game 5? Now, that was awful. I dragged ass at work the next day.

I think we owe it to ourselves to really push our beliefs on whether this team is flawed. Are we really close or are we the early 2000s Giants - soooo close but missing a little something? The easier position is not flawed because 104 wins, pennant, we like most of the players on the team....even for me because I don’t realky expect Kershaw to go anywhere and tbh, I am kinda happy to see something I’ve never seen - a pennant.

The tougher position is asking why our big ace continues to choke. The tougher position is asking whether it truly has an impact on our locker room and Dave’s managing.

I felt so bad for Dave. He made so many dumb moves and didn’t even get credit for it. What did he get credit for? Not starting Kershaw in Game 7. I want this element and pressure off of my team.

LOL. Unbelievable.

Adding to our talent base when we are already a stacked team with moves that you've acknowledged as a "step back"? Starting pitching is the most valuable commodity in MLB, because it is hard to find and expensive to acquire and yet you would add talent with our position players and have us trying to acquire pitching outside of the organization at a cost. How is that cost efficient?

You've rolled out names like Archer, whom I've cited is cost-prohibitive to acquire, and previously Sale, whom I've illustrated hasn't done as much as Kershaw. Both of these cases show how hard it is to replace Kershaw's production and yet you dismiss it as saying you're not interested in doing so, but would rather trade it in for the sake of "adding to the talent base" while making it all the more harder to replace or otherwise fill the one premium position that is the most valued in all of baseball? Again, do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

Part of the team's strength is how well-rounded we are. If you read The Ringer article, you'd remember that we are a solidly built team that got by with having an abundance of starting pitching to address injuries and struggles. The reference to the Dodgers not needing to do anything else pertains to how the team was built and not its performance or managerial decision-making.

I've always said that ideally we should have 2 aces fronting our rotation, which is why I understood the pursuit of Darvish. I've expressed my doubts on him, which is why I advocated for Gray because of his bulldog mentality despite him not fitting the ace profile. The failure of not having a 2nd ace, more than anything hurt the Dodgers. Darvish's contributions were practically non-existent, which further taxed our bullpen and the effects of which carried over from that game into the rest of the series.

You choose to focus on the Kershaw choke narrative to justify your tantrum for putting the loss of the World Series entirely on him when the fact of the matter is that he only lost us 1 game and provided us with highly valuable quality innings throughout the World Series including a dominating performance in Game 1. His choke of Game 5 doesn't and shouldn't diminish his vital contributions in that series. Would Chris Sale have given us those same quality inning overall? Or the inexperienced Chris Archer? Heck, Verlander lost 1 game and was close to losing both of his World Series outing. Kershaw even pitched more innings than he did in the World Series. At the very least, Kershaw canceled Verlander out, but he actually did more for the Dodgers than Verlander did for the Astros, but you won't see or even acknowledge that because you're still hung up on Kershaw not being perfect.

Again, he only lost us 1 game (just like Verlander) even if it is in dramatic fashion. Darvish's failure to launch in both games cost us more than anything and didn't provide the support that Kershaw or the Dodgers needed at all. Nothing is assured in the World Series and you've even recognized that Kershaw is no Bumgarner and yet you're holding him entirely responsible for the failure of the team despite the bad managerial decisions, impotent bats from the top of our order, and the non-existent performance from our so-called 2nd ace. Those negative factors produced more losses than Kershaw's single game and if you look at his contributions strictly from the numbers, he helped more than he hurt the Dodgers.

Instead, you're acting as if Kershaw was the one who choked away Games 2 and 7 that were the most monumental choke jobs I've ever beared witness to. It bears repeating, Kershaw got us 1 out of 2 World Series games. What the eff did the rest Seager,
Turner, Bellinger, Darvish, and Roberts do to get us the rest of those games?

By the way, Kershaw is not whining about failing, he's actually publicly holding himself accountable, which you won't get from many other professional athletes. At least he recognizes that he still has to prove something and isn't sugarcoating things when he comes up short. The fact that you and everyone else holds him to a higher standard is because he regularly meets those levels to begin with. Criticism of his postseason failures, while valid, are overblown when they diminish his overall contributions to a winning ballclub.

I'm saying it's a fake binary because it is, not to insult you. We simply would have done something else. Nothing is along the spectrum of what "something else" means but given the attempted FA signings, the fact that Hill was signed, the rumors of us listening on pitchers, and the trade for Darvish, I'd assume this front office would have done something. Given that Hill wasn't good for much of the year, the idea of being a staff without him and adding Verlander at the deadline doesn't make me think we'd be far off from where we finished. Yes, given the team has money and assets, it's kind of easy to say they would have done something else.

You are typing under a direct quote of me saying acquiring an ace costs. What do you want me to put after that? That acquiring an ace costs a pretty penny. I'm not glossing over anything.

We agreed on Calhoun. Neddy wanted to actually "see" him at 2nd because he liked how his bat profiled. I simply did not like the flippant attitude of Verdugo being trade bait like a Calhoun, who didn't have a position. It's obvious I wouldn't hold up a deal for a Trout because of Verdugo, so it's not even worth this paragraph tbh.

Archer is a random thought experiment, demonstrating their regular season value and how this team POSSIBLY wouldn't be that far off WITH A LESSER PITCHER.

What you want to do is kind of wack tbh. You want me to come up with a specific scenario in which I trade Kershaw and win you a 2018 WS so you can try to poke every last hole in it that you can. So I gave you ONE specific scenario because I know for sure one GM who we all think would take the bait as of today. The reality is if Kershaw was REALLY for sale, I'd have more scenarios that you couldn't shoot down because more teams would say, "he's for real for sale, ok let's talk". These scenarios wouldn't be plausible on 11-03-17 and this honestly just waste our time. This is why I said I am interested in adding to our talent base....IN OUR ORGANIZATION...I never said only position players....you want to marry me to ONE scenario, a Dombrowski trade where I mentioned Benintendi and Devers.


Please explain when and where I put the World Series on Kershaw? I want a direct quote of me saying the WS loss is all of his fault. Please, go show me where I said Yu Darvish is off the damn hook. Bring Yu back, trade Kershaw. When you provide that quote, only then can you say I have thrown a tantrum about his WS choke job.

You won't be able to do it.

Kershaw will provide you with a great start and then he will break your heart for a game. See 2016 NLCS. See this year's WS. There will always be a Ranma saying that other players cost you the other 3 while other teams don't have to deal with these kind of choke jobs.

And...
I'm going to respond to everything you say. If you can't handle the push back, then that's your problem. I'm not angry at you or saying you are throwing a tantrum. I'd ask you to show me the same respect.

[Quake Griffin]

Btw.

I could be disingenuous and beat the “back injury/not worth a huge contract after his age 30 season, so trade now instead of losing for pick” drum.

There’s literally no way around it except an emotional appeal.

I’d just rather argue the side I am more interested in....getting losers and chokes out of our locker room.

So in order to push this overblown narrative of Kershaw being a choker and a loser, you'd basically have the front office change what it's been doing in building a championship-quality roster with prospect assets and financial resources and change direction so that we can step back and have a market-inefficient plan of getting rid of quality starting pitching to add talent to areas where we don't need them while using those aforementioned assets and resources to replace and fill the area we traded from with more questionable targets and thus diminishing our flexibility to make trades and free-agent signings in the immediate future?

Again, how does this make sense when pitching is valued at a premium and hard to find? Why not look into actually finding a legitimate co-ace before we deal the one we already have?

Instead of taking an inefficient "step back" why not actually move forward given the Dodgers' enviable and advantageous position rather than change the proven and working strategy of our more expert front office?

There's nothing overblown about the most dominant regular season pitcher I've ever seen not being anywhere close to dominant in October.

Again, has he ever even pitched into the 8th inning of an October contest?

I'm not sure how you are trying to misstate my position and I'm not going to continue to read it.
I am willing to take a step back, develop our young talented pitchers, pursue Otani, and possibly add an arm if via trade need be. The goal here isn't to deal Kershaw so that I can deal for Archer or deGrom. Those are just a long list of possibilities...one of 100 things we could do to get better. For now, I'd trade him to add more talent to our organization. BOOM. You can leave it there and go no further. 6 months or a year later or so if I think it's right at the deadline or in the winter, I may consider deGrom ro Archer. I am typically #TeamStandPat because I typically think the talent we have is enough. This winter? I said put Barnes at 2nd. This deadline? I was the only one saying #StandPat. I was only ok with Yu AFTER. So, NO. I am not trading Kershaw to get to Archer or deGrom. Sorry.

Why take a step back? Why not go forward? Because I want the choke out of the locker room. Go back to the end of the 2016 season. My entire thing last winter is getting losers out of the locker room.
I don't want Dave or our franchise catering to him anymore. He's received EVERYTHING from this team and this fan base to help him since the new FO got here and he's done nothing but be a diva and fail in the postseason.

Do I blame Kershaw for not being perfect? No. Do I blame Kershaw for the fact that Dave (and any other manager tbh) leaving him out there to try and force him to get a win when they shouldn't have? No. But that's the type of dynamic he brings to our team. He chokes and gets the benefit of a non choker. A manager, in one of our most crucial hours, trying to force him to get a CRAPPY win when WE ALL know what the better move was. It's not fair to the team, the fans, and IMO, is worse than just watching someone fail when it matters. I won't ever wonder what could have been of Game 3 or Game 7. Yu went Yu. We tried our best to clean up his abysmal, pathetic, WS buzz killing (do you want more adjectives to feel better?) failure. I will ALWAYS wonder what could have been if Doc just let Maeda face Springer in Game 5.

I edited the bottom portion out of this post.

[Quake Griffin]

Watch on YouTube

^^^
When this guy has 5 straight years of postseason failure and doesn't hit a HR like this that should have saved Kershaw's bacon, we can compare their failures.

[Ranma]

When this guy has 5 straight years of postseason failure and doesn't hit a HR like this that should have saved Kershaw's bacon, we can compare their failures.

Bellinger helped win a World Series game just like Kershaw, but he was bad much longer than Kershaw was. Obviously, the infrequency and influence of a starting pitcher provides different weighted value in that, but it also doesn't excuse Bellinger. Not only he did strike out 17 times in the World Series, which I believe to be a record, and batted well below .200, he made that knuckleheaded throw to Darvish at 1B that can't even be blamed on Yu, which basically led to the Game 7 being out of reach.

Does that mean that I want to trade Bellinger? No, I expect him to progress and improve. However, what is further frustrating is that he has shown that he can make the necessary adjustments and knew that those pitches he was swinging at were out of the strike zone and he shouldn't have been going after them.

I've followed Cody's career and he's actually been a pretty good hitter and one adept at making adjustments prior to his power surge and altered swing. I even read a recent article that stated that batters such as Cody think they can all of sudden get to every pitch after their newfound fascination with the increased pop, which is obviously not the case.

While I think he has it in him to be better than he is, he's stalled his own progress with his now misguided approach. He may be a rookie but he should know better. Unfair or not, I expect more out of Bellinger given his makeup and advanced development. As I've previously mentioned before, I'm not just picking on Cody to defend Kershaw because I've cited how I was quite critical of Kershaw's lack of control similarly because of the potentional and advanced makeup I saw in him as well. This also applies to Corey Seager, by the way.

[Kilroy]

And then there's this:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/yu-darvish-may-have-been-tipping-his-pitches-in-nightmare-world-series-performance/ar-AAumC7M?li=BBnba9I

[Ranma]

I'm saying it's a fake binary because it is, not to insult you. We simply would have done something else. Nothing is along the spectrum of what "something else" means but given the attempted FA signings, the fact that Hill was signed, the rumors of us listening on pitchers, and the trade for Darvish, I'd assume this front office would have done something. Given that Hill wasn't good for much of the year, the idea of being a staff without him and adding Verlander at the deadline doesn't make me think we'd be far off from where we finished. Yes, given the team has money and assets, it's kind of easy to say they would have done something else.

You are typing under a direct quote of me saying acquiring an ace costs. What do you want me to put after that? That acquiring an ace costs a pretty penny. I'm not glossing over anything.

We agreed on Calhoun. Neddy wanted to actually "see" him at 2nd because he liked how his bat profiled. I simply did not like the flippant attitude of Verdugo being trade bait like a Calhoun, who didn't have a position. It's obvious I wouldn't hold up a deal for a Trout because of Verdugo, so it's not even worth this paragraph tbh.

Archer is a random thought experiment, demonstrating their regular season value and how this team POSSIBLY wouldn't be that far off WITH A LESSER PITCHER.

What you want to do is kind of wack tbh. You want me to come up with a specific scenario in which I trade Kershaw and win you a 2018 WS so you can try to poke every last hole in it that you can. So I gave you ONE specific scenario because I know for sure one GM who we all think would take the bait as of today. The reality is if Kershaw was REALLY for sale, I'd have more scenarios that you couldn't shoot down because more teams would say, "he's for real for sale, ok let's talk". These scenarios wouldn't be plausible on 11-03-17 and this honestly just waste our time. This is why I said I am interested in adding to our talent base....IN OUR ORGANIZATION...I never said only position players....you want to marry me to ONE scenario, a Dombrowski trade where I mentioned Benintendi and Devers.


Please explain when and where I put the World Series on Kershaw? I want a direct quote of me saying the WS loss is all of his fault. Please, go show me where I said Yu Darvish is off the damn hook. Bring Yu back, trade Kershaw. When you provide that quote, only then can you say I have thrown a tantrum about his WS choke job.

You won't be able to do it.

Kershaw will provide you with a great start and then he will break your heart for a game. See 2016 NLCS. See this year's WS. There will always be a Ranma saying that other players cost you the other 3 while other teams don't have to deal with these kind of choke jobs.

And...
I'm going to respond to everything you say. If you can't handle the push back, then that's your problem. I'm not angry at you or saying you are throwing a tantrum. I'd ask you to show me the same respect.

The point I'm trying to make is that your way puts us in a worse position than what we are doing now. If we had won the World Series, we'd be talking about how to repeat and how difficult it would be with teams gunning for us and improving. Losing a single game of the postseason doesn't change that. We've talked before about how the Dodgers are not only well positioned to win now but in years to come both immediate and down the line, so why exactly has that changed? Just because Kershaw lost 1 freaking game? The only difference is that it is entirely clear that we can't count on Darvish to be our co-ace. We'd have to make additions in order to maintain and improve regardless of what happened in Game 7. The fact that we could have won even with Darvish's non-existent contributions shows clearly that we don't need to make drastic changes. I don't know how much clearer that can be.

The cost of doing it your way puts us in a worse position than what we're currently doing. It's as simple as that. Just because you recognize that it cost something doesn't excuse the fact that you're calling for us to step back and change direction from what is working and doing it in a less efficient manner even if you want to hide behind the idea of generalities.

How does citing a Verdugo-for-Trout theoretical apply here? I mentioned Verdugo precisely because you were reluctant to part with him for Verlander on one hand, as you've acknowledged, then turn around and say maybe we could have made room for Verlander on the other if we didn't have Hill. The fact that we had Hill didn't even preclude us from acquiring Verlander to begin with because we went after and acquired Darvish and will need an eventual replacement for him. That is a dishonest argument and one I find to be an attempt to misdirect from the point I illustrated that going after starting pitching is a difficult task due to the scarcity of available candidates and the cost that would make it difficult to afford or even sacrifice the necessary assets.

I asked for scenarios, again, to show how it's not as simple as what you're making it out to be. That's it. The fact that I can poke holes into your presented proposals shows it's not as easy as saying let's replace Kershaw with a lesser pitcher when the question should be how can we actually pair him with someone decent. You keep saying that we've provided him with support, but Yu Darvish as his co-ace has been far from that.

Just because you haven't literally said that you blame the World Series entirely on Kershaw doesn't change the fact that you're singling him out in your proposal that requires us to change the aforementioned road map that already has us as contenders for years to come with what you've even said is a "step back". How can that be misinterpreted?

There's nothing overblown about the most dominant regular season pitcher I've ever seen not being anywhere close to dominant in October.

Again, has he ever even pitched into the 8th inning of an October contest?

I'm not sure how you are trying to misstate my position and I'm not going to continue to read it.
I am willing to take a step back, develop our young talented pitchers, pursue Otani, and possibly add an arm if via trade need be. The goal here isn't to deal Kershaw so that I can deal for Archer or deGrom. Those are just a long list of possibilities...one of 100 things we could do to get better. For now, I'd trade him to add more talent to our organization. BOOM. You can leave it there and go no further. 6 months or a year later or so if I think it's right at the deadline or in the winter, I may consider deGrom ro Archer. I am typically #TeamStandPat because I typically think the talent we have is enough. This winter? I said put Barnes at 2nd. This deadline? I was the only one saying #StandPat. I was only ok with Yu AFTER. So, NO. I am not trading Kershaw to get to Archer or deGrom. Sorry.

Why take a step back? Why not go forward? Because I want the choke out of the locker room. Go back to the end of the 2016 season. My entire thing last winter is getting losers out of the locker room.
I don't want Dave or our franchise catering to him anymore. He's received EVERYTHING from this team and this fan base to help him since the new FO got here and he's done nothing but be a diva and fail in the postseason.

Do I blame Kershaw for not being perfect? No. Do I blame Kershaw for the fact that Dave (and any other manager tbh) leaving him out there to try and force him to get a win when they shouldn't have? No. But that's the type of dynamic he brings to our team. He chokes and gets the benefit of a non choker. A manager, in one of our most crucial hours, trying to force him to get a CRAPPY win when WE ALL know what the better move was. It's not fair to the team, the fans, and IMO, morally, worse than just watching someone fail when it matters. I won't ever wonder what could have been of Game 3 or Game 7. Yu went Yu. We tried our best to clean up his abysmal, pathetic, WS buzz killing (do you want more adjectives to feel better?) failure. I will ALWAYS wonder what could have been if Doc just let Maeda face Springer in Game 5.

I edited the bottom portion out of this post.

Despite your protest, you're painting this narrative that Kershaw not living up to your expectations somehow means that he's a diva who's failed more than he's succeeded when that is far from the case. I just posted a tweet that showed that he holds himself accountable for his failings who puts the weight of the failures on his shoulders. How is that being a diva? Now you're turning him into a clubhouse cancer when that is literally not being perceived anywhere else except in your own mind. And you're saying your criticism of him is not overblown?

We all painfully get that you're disappointed in him. I'm disappointed in him. Clayton Kershaw is disappointed in himself. If we're going to put so much on Kershaw, then he should be paid $100 million a season, which is obviously ridiculously skewed, but that's precisely the point. Kershaw may not be as dominant in the postseason as he is in the regular season, but that doesn't mean he hasn't helped us win in the postseason. Regardless of what you think of him, losing him for whatever reason hurts our postseason chances whether that is no longer counting on him to win regular season games for playoff positioning or the postseason wins and the quality innings he provides beyond even those, which you conveniently refuse to even acknowledge or otherwise value.

Kershaw's "special treatment" is something that I will acknowledge because he should be afforded the benefit of the doubt in most cases, but I've also felt that way with Rich Hill on the mound, so it is not exclusive to Kershaw. Yeah, Kershaw probably should have been pulled earlier, but that was not because of him being a diva, cancer, what have you. It's because his stuff was not sharp all game. I pointed that out in real time. That was on Roberts. You can't blame Kershaw when he's on the mound competing and gutting it out. That was totally on the manager when it was obvious even to a layman like me that his stuff was off. However,
other times, I would give him the benefit of the doubt and it does have exactly to do with his capabilities, but this is on a case-by-case basis.

Your hang-up and frustrations over the what-if alternatives resulting from Roberts's failure to act is unfairly being placed on Kershaw's shoulders along with everything else. He's choked in the postseason, but it's not as simple to say that he's an automatic choker. He's dominated in the postseason, so it's entirely on the manager and coaching staff to determine that at that moment. It's not as simple as always taking Kershaw out when he begins to struggle or just leaving him in. Kershaw has shown the ability and tendency to get himself out of jams proficiently, but it's usually when his stuff is sharp. He wasn't in that game from the beginning. You and I saw that from what I recall of the game thread. That was entirely on Dave.

I'm thoroughly disappointed in the Dodgers losing the World Series. In fact, I still have a lump in my stomach lingering from the gut punch of the Game 7 loss. I'm critical of a lot of the players and their manager for coming up short, including Kershaw, but I'm not going to get carried away because I'm interested in moving forward with what we already have, which is still a championship-caliber ballclub. All we can ask is to continue to compete and we're in a good position to do so, to demand assured success is unreasonable and I'm not interested in playing that game since there is only so much we can do.

I'm just as interested in getting rid of the chokers and bad elements as you are, but you're not going to convince me or most others that Clayton Kershaw is among that group despite the fact that his shortcomings and failures are widely known now. His postseason travails haven't exactly been a secret and yet the vast majority of observers and experts consider him to be of great value even for teams who aim to play in the postseason. That should tell you something and shouldn't be dismissed as him being an All-American sweetheart of a guy.

[Neddy]

And then there's this:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/yu-darvish-may-have-been-tipping-his-pitches-in-nightmare-world-series-performance/ar-AAumC7M?li=BBnba9I

Darvish tipping pitches.. nothing new.

Kershaw tipped off pitches against the Cards a few seasons back...

none of them are Sandy Koufax. according to Willie Mays, Sandy Koufax tipped off his pitches and the Giants still couldn't hit him.

but this still sucks that our own coaching staff or the players could not pick up on that.