NEWS/RUMORS/DISCUSSION Thread

The allstar start was a pleasant sight for sure, but I'll also gladly take the .350obp with 15+ jacks again from YG if that's ultimately what he settles into, without the big injury-aided valley of course.
How many teams in MLB are getting that combo from the catcher spot?
Can't be many, I know for 1 that LAD's catchers led all of MLB in OBP last year

 

TODAY: There are nine total teams “heavily involved” in pursuit of Lazarito, according to Bob Nightengale of USA Today (via Twitter). It’s still unclear precisely which teams are pursuing him beyond the Braves, though the clubs already in the max penalty are certainly a good place to start.

Of course, it’s also not yet entirely apparent what kind of cash outlay and signing timing those unnamed teams would be willing to offer. Paying a significant bonus and tax bill while taking on a two-year signing ban is a big ask at this stage of the year, with camp approaching and the next year’s July 2 prospect period already having developed quite a bit.







Nightenfail says 9, that means there's probably more like 3

 

He's apparently willing to sign in the next period, so it looks like it will certainly come down to who pays him the most money. I'll honestly be more shocked if we don't sign him. Badler seems to think that the Dodgers are not close to packing up shop on the Int'l market yet.

 

Yeah perhaps a leverage play from his side.
But we 1st hear that teams weren't all that impressed with his work out and then later " 9 teams " are after him...
following this particular signing will be interesting.
Wonder if this is AA's/Cruz's 1st " baby "

 

Yes, you are misunderstanding. I quoted directly from the article irish posted, written by an "alleged" sportswriter.

I couldn't give a flying fuck what most Dodger fans think, since the majority just spew back what the "alleged" sportswriters tell them, which is mostly misinformation. Seriously, all we've heard from the media is "whoa is me, they didn't sign Grienke, teh sky is falling!" or "they let Chapman get away from them, the Dodgers are in trouble", or "Iwakuma dumped them for the Mariners, the Dodgers can't get anything done." Fuck that noise, the Dodgers didn't let anyone on board with a deal they didn't like, THAT'S what they did. They got players on their terms, not the agents. Not the players you wanted? Tough shit.

My question was 'when will the team be judged for the moves they DID make, and NOT for the ones they didn't?' I thought it was pretty clear. I guess not, my bad.

 

Great post.

Many writers are coming at it as if the Dodgers having deals in place for Chapman and Iwakuma, then not getting them, is somehow worse than never going after them at all. It can't be worse since the end result is the same, and it seems unreasonable (to me) to not consider it at least a small plus since it was, as you say, on our terms.

The real underlying issue here is that the Dodgers just aren't a "hot take". To say you "think the team with the highest payroll in the majors and 3 straight division championships is going to win the division" is a boring take. There's more reward in backing the underdog - if they win you can peacock your feathers, and if they lose no big deal because you went out on a limb.

 

Hey, I didn't said divisioN or anything like that!

 

FEB. 4: The Dodgers would like to move Ethier, and the Sox do indeed want an upgrade in the outfield, tweets Bob Nightengale of USA Today, but there’s no sign of a match between the two sides at this time, he hears.





Guess that means Ethier is as good as gone and probably in an hour or so.

 

Players aren’t the only ones hurt by the qualifying offer system, writes Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports, who uses the Rays as an example of a team that is in a position to add an impact free agent right now (Ian Desmond) but don’t feel comfortable doing so due to the importance of the No. 13 overall selection to the organization. Not only would the Rays be sacrificing that top pick, of course, they’d also be forfeiting the sizable portion of their draft bonus pool stems from owning that pick.

 

I really don't see why the Dodgers would want to move Ethier. Not with big ? marks with Joc and Puig.

 

Pretty much the same question marks were there when they moved on from Kemp and Hanley.

 

Ethier's maybe my favorite Dodger ever but I'd trade him for David Robertson in a second. Anyone else in their BP, I'd keep him

 

for sure, but I really don't see any reason for them to do that.

 

Don't really see it. Puig wasn't coming off of multiple hamstrings and hitting .255 and Joc wasn't missing basically every single time he swung at the ball. They do that again and we don't have Ethier, we are looking at a Crawford, Thompson, Van Slyke OF.

 

Puig's struggles have gone on longer than just last season, he hit .274 in the 2nd half of 2014 and struck out 8 or 9 times in 13 or ABs in the postseason to end that year and had most wondering what was going on with him.
Joc was absolutely a question mark as he was not only an unproven rook, but coming off a poor September call up.
I believe you were one of the guys here questioning the loss of power when they decided to lose Kemp and Hanley and then they went HR crazy to start the season putting questions to rest.
Move a guy out, another guy from within the org steps up, which really is the whole point of Kasten's goal for the org.


Also don't see why they have to either DFA Crawford and keep Ethier, or trade Ethier and keep Crawford, as if we must have one of them.

 

It's not a one or another thing. No one wants Crawford, At least I think no one wants Crawford. It's keeping Ethier vs not keeping Ethier. I'd be all for trading or dumping Ethier, if we could find someone better to replace him with, and at this point in the off-season, it's not likely.

 

I just keep seeing these scenarios where they DFA Carl and keep Ethier...that's a cinch decision, but certainly not the only option.
I can see a scenario where both are elsewhere in 2016, arguments can be made that both should be.
Seager's and Grandal's lefty/middle of the order bats are pretty much primed to take Ethier's spot in the order as the 5-6-7 hole guy anyway + HK is steady, so I can see why they'd be willing to move Ethier.
He too is a question mark, could very well revert back to 2014 and then what?
It's not like he's a spring chicken, so the real slide is coming at some point.
If there's interest out there and the deal makes them a better/deeper team, so be it.
They moved on from Kemp and Hanley and landed in pretty good position in terms of team OPS, so I'd get it if they pull the trigger on something that shores up another organizational weakness.