648 replies to this topic

[You Play to Win the Game]

They didn't really give up that much. And those were some huge selection contracts but we aren't talking about some 40 year old men. These guys are still in their primes and although expensive will bring some value. It's the same as signing 3 free agents these guys just weren't in the fa market.

They gave up too much, even if it wasn't a ton. Way too much money, just awful decision making to me.

[mweb08]

They didn't really give up that much. And those were some huge selection contracts but we aren't talking about some 40 year old men. These guys are still in their primes and although expensive will bring some value. It's the same as signing 3 free agents these guys just weren't in the fa market.

They gave up a couple of good prospects. Webster was ranked #61 by Law coming into the year and is having a solid season while Law speaks highly of de la Rosa. The others have some value, but I wouldn't consider them much of losses.

As for the signing of free agents, well I don't think AGon would get 6/127 this coming off-season unless he finished the season very strongly. Crawford wouldn't get anywhere close to 5/103 (or 5/91 if you remove the 12M from his deal). And Beckett wouldn't get 2/31.5 unless maybe he finishes very strong. Punto makes very little, but they wouldn't sign him either. Maybe AGon does get that deal, but adding up the contracts leads to a lot more than these guys would and certainly should be worth on the open market imo, even when accounting for the 12M.

[JeremyStrain]

They gave up too much, even if it wasn't a ton. Way too much money, just awful decision making to me.

I really have no problem with it. That's years of being told we have no money that is bothering you. It's not going to stop them from paying for other players and it's up to that owner if he wants to foot the bill. I'm actually a little salty that we couldn't get AGon by taking the contract but I wouldn't have wanted all 3 of them because PA wouldn't have spent anymore because of them where lad still will.

[BSLChrisStoner]

LA is 2 back of San Fran...

Depth Chart:

1st Gonzalez
2nd Ellis
SS Ramirez
3rd Cruz
LF Victorino
CF Kemp
RF Ethier
C Ellis

Bench: Uribe, Punto, Kennedy, Rivera, Treanor
Rotation: Kershaw, Beckett, Harang, Capuano, Blanton
Bullpen: Jansen, Belisario, Choate, Wright, League, Tolleson, Elbert

[You Play to Win the Game]

I really have no problem with it. That's years of being told we have no money that is bothering you. It's not going to stop them from paying for other players and it's up to that owner if he wants to foot the bill. I'm actually a little salty that we couldn't get AGon by taking the contract but I wouldn't have wanted all 3 of them because PA wouldn't have spent anymore because of them where lad still will.

Even if they will, it's not smart. That's all i'm saying. They won't get anywhere remotely close to the value out of these guys that they'll be paying for. And to give up a couple decent prospects in addition to it? Not a good way to do business.

You're right, I probably am Orioles'tised in that regard, but even with all that money at my disposal, if I were the GM of the Dodgers, I never would have made that trade.

Disclaimer: I'm also a bit salty that they let Boston off the hook for a ludicrous amount of money. That sucks. With the Dodgers decision making, I'm surprised they didn't make them take Lackey too (while getting another prospect back).

[You Play to Win the Game]

I guess one thing I hadn't thought of is that Beckett could be significantly better in that division. (And just with a general change of scenery)

[mweb08]

Even with Dodgers ownership clearly being very aggressive financially, it will be interesting to see if the contracts of Gonzalez and Crawford keep them from doing anything a few years from now.

[You Play to Win the Game]

Even with Dodgers ownership clearly being very aggressive financially, it will be interesting to see if the contracts of Gonzalez and Crawford keep them from doing anything a few years from now.

Agreed. It will also be interesting to see if these types of decisions (complete disregard to return vs. value) becomes a pattern. If it does, they're in for a word of hurt, IMO.

[JeremyStrain]

Even with Dodgers ownership clearly being very aggressive financially, it will be interesting to see if the contracts of Gonzalez and Crawford keep them from doing anything a few years from now.

I was wondering the same thing, but a west coast friend said they are already working on a mega deal for Kershaw and would be in if verlander hit the market.

[You Play to Win the Game]

I was wondering the same thing, but a west coast friend said they are already working on a mega deal for Kershaw and would be in if verlander hit the market.

Well, if they're really going to go crazy like that, then I guess my criticism is unjust. I guess they're the Yankees of the NL West now.

[mweb08]

I was wondering the same thing, but a west coast friend said they are already working on a mega deal for Kershaw and would be in if verlander hit the market.

I think those moves would actually make it much more likely that these contracts would hinder them in the future.

[mweb08]

Well, if they're really going to go crazy like that, then I guess my criticism is unjust. I guess they're the Yankees of the NL West now.

No, it's still just because of what I said in my last post and because it just doesn't make sense to give up the prospects in order to acquire what they did, given the contracts. One can argue that they gave up enough to get that package minus Crawford so with him included, they shouldn't have had to give up anything of real value imo.

[You Play to Win the Game]

No, it's still just because of what I said in my last post and because it just doesn't make sense to give up the prospects in order to acquire what they did, given the contracts. One can argue that they gave up enough to get that package minus Crawford so with him included, they shouldn't have had to give up anything of real value imo.

Yeah, that's my biggest problem with it. Even if they're going to blow money like the Yankees, it's just stupid to give up talent in the process.

[JeremyStrain]

I think those moves would actually make it much more likely that these contracts would hinder them in the future.

Well seeing that my guy was told this AFTER those moves I guess not. They are going Yankees model all the way. While I personally think it's bad for sports, there is no rule to stop them. Teams will always buy titles in leagues without a hard salary cap.

[JeremyStrain]

Yeah, that's my biggest problem with it. Even if they're going to blow money like the Yankees, it's just stupid to give up talent in the process.

One pitcher of note isn't a lot to give up for a long term 1B and LF. It's like they gave up one real prospect in order to get a do over and pretend that they could have bid for AGon and CC. They would have been in on both if the ownership wasn't a mess at the time and BOS gave up more just to get AGon.

[mweb08]

Well seeing that my guy was told this AFTER those moves I guess not. They are going Yankees model all the way. While I personally think it's bad for sports, there is no rule to stop them. Teams will always buy titles in leagues without a hard salary cap.

Yet even the Yanks are somewhat restrained by their huge and bad contracts.

I realize you meant he told you after, and that doesn't change my point. Teams spend heavily at times, and I think history shows that many of those teams later show restraint once the salaries add up and especially when some of those big contracts see diminishing returns.

[JeremyStrain]

Yet even the Yanks are somewhat restrained by their huge and bad contracts.

I realize you meant he told you after, and that doesn't change my point. Teams spend heavily at times, and I think history shows that many of those teams later show restraint once the salaries add up and especially when some of those big contracts see diminishing returns.

Like I said, he was specifically told this deal would not stop them from spending big. Pretty sure the original question was about Grienke and Hamilton and that's when they spilled about the Kershaw extension and plotting on 2014 free agents.

If they don't mind paying the luxury tax, they will spend. The Yankees started cutting back because ownership doesn't want to pay that much tax.

It'll be Interesting to follow.

[SportsGuy]

I think AGon gives them 80% value, Beckett lives up to or surpasses his contract and CC gives them 60-75%. All in all, it will end up ok for them and they may end up with 2 picks for Beckett.

[mweb08]

Like I said, he was specifically told this deal would not stop them from spending big. Pretty sure the original question was about Grienke and Hamilton and that's when they spilled about the Kershaw extension and plotting on 2014 free agents.

If they don't mind paying the luxury tax, they will spend. The Yankees started cutting back because ownership doesn't want to pay that much tax.

It'll be Interesting to follow.

Like I said, I get what you're were told, but I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up given my points refer to what will happen years from now, not this off-season.

[You Play to Win the Game]

One pitcher of note isn't a lot to give up for a long term 1B and LF. It's like they gave up one real prospect in order to get a do over and pretend that they could have bid for AGon and CC. They would have been in on both if the ownership wasn't a mess at the time and BOS gave up more just to get AGon.

It was a couple decent prospects for a LT 1B, LF'er coming off Tommy John, and a TON of salary added to the payroll. You can't just make a statement like that without the added salary being apart of the equation, regardless of if they have no ceiling to their payroll.