So now that the Dodgers have failed at making a trade for an impact player, what exactly was the reason behind dealing for George Sherrill? I thought the justification was that the Dodgers were going to move all in for this year and next year? Now, however, it seems as if the Dodgers simply made the trade a day early, as they gave up one of their best prospects (Josh Bell) for a marginal upgrade on a team strength. This could especially hurt later on, as that same prospect could have been used in a deal for something bigger down the road...like today.Hell, there was even a decent chance he could have been used to pursue Roy Halladay again once the season was over. Now though? He's currently riding in the same boat as Carlos Santana, at least in the sense that he was dealt for nothing but a steady veteran.
Now if you're wondering why I dislike like Sherrill trade so much, just know that I like Sherrill as a player, it's just that trading away top prospects for minimal impact players irks me.
Fans tend to shower praise on deals of that nature, but those same fans will turn around and complain when the Dodgers can't get a true impact player later on. Do these people just not consider the reason why the Dodgers no longer have the prospects to make a move or something?
For example, did you want Roy Halladay? Do you think a deal centered around Carlos Santana and Josh Bell would have got the job done? I do, so i'm not sure why anybody would be celebrating those deals or any deals like it.
If you want players who make a difference, maybe you should stop calling for pointless trades? Sure, I understand that they are "just prospects", but continuing to surrender upper echelon youth prevents the Dodgers from being participants in talks for elite players.
Look, I have no problem with people choosing to justifying the Carlos Santana, Joel Guzman, Dioner Navarro, Josh Bell, and Edwin Jackson deals or other trades like it. However, if you are going to do so, I don't want to hear whining when the Dodgers fall short at the deadline. There's a reason why they fail to match up.
31 Comments:
I guess that is actually good news. Seeing as all of the desirable pieces on the table have already been shifted.
Would have hated to see another trade for trades sake that dumped way too much for no real upgrade. like Broxton Loney and Mcdonald and Lambo or E. Martin for Adrian Gonzalez and Bell...
That would have just hurt too much.
Would have liked a good Halladay deal...but otherwise, i feel cheaed
:o
they wouldnt have asked for Broxton. if they traded both of them, itwould have been a total restart. Not getting a closer close to arb.
It would have been loney and like 5 prospects for bell and Gonzalez.
Meanwhile, I need to vent:
WHAT THE FUCK WAS COLLETTI THINKING IN NOT GETTING SOME STARTER. ANY STARTER???? WHAT THE FUCK.
*end rant*
i guess they think with a pen of 5 guys who can close, plus 2 more arms can absorb the workload. I hope they are right...
And WTF is up with Peavy?
Elbert, Stults, Weaver.
Three candidates for the 5th spot. All of them internal.
If we got a starter, it should have been an ace. Lee/Halladay, hell, even Peavy
We all know that we would have gotten raped in any deal with San Diego. It would be worse than any ofthe other deals that Ned has made in his time. That is why I put up that crazy scenario. Besides... it probably would have been the only way that SD would even consider the deal with us. They can't trade Gonzalez in the division and not rape the other team.
Telciram - yes, I am with one hundred percent. Only make a trade for a starter if it brought an Ace, not a 4th or 5th or even a 3rd. Just not really helpful.
I am interested in the Peavy deal though. Did the Sox give up good guys to get him? And is he going to be able to pitch a full season any more or is he another Rich Harden? Cy Young material when healthy, just never healthy for a full year.
Broxton sure as hell better not be included in a trade. Broxton is a better closer than Bell. Closers are extremely important in the playoffs. Especially ones that throw 103 with a plus breaking offering. I like Bell, but he is not Broxton.
According to Rosenthal, so take this with a massive grain of salt, the deal would be for Loney and "a package of young players" which doesn't presume Broxton given that he has the most MLB experience of the entire Dodger core (bet you didn't know that).
Gonzalez is absolutely worth Loney because he is paid so little and is under control for 2 more years (the option is the biggest no brainer ever). The end of his contract also coincides with when Manny will likely be retired, so the funds will be there to pay him what he will command. Since he is from San Diego, perhaps he will take a discount seeing L.A. as close enough to home.
I could see this deal being something along the lines of Loney/Lindblom/McDonald/Leach and maybe someone else. And it would be totally worth it. Perhaps the Dodgers could even send Bellisario in the deal.
I'm updating the first post, and I don't understand why the Dodgers traded for Sherrill now.
kensai - I wonder if the Padres approached them late? Or perhaps Sherrill is part of the deal? Or maybe Ken Rosenthal is just full of shit?
Alivandi - I just don't believe that the Padres would do that deal with us. If it was not in division then sure, but they would probably ask for more than just Loney and the guys you stated. I was just putting Broxton's name in there because that is probably what Ned would have done.
Sure... we will trade with you... what do you want... it can be anyone... I like to get it in the butt. Broxton.... oh you were joking... nah it's okay you can have him. we will take your water boy to offset the cost of Broxton.
Or something along those lines. lol
Kensai - did you ever really understand why they traded for Sherrill? I just don't see the logic in that move at all. The only way that I thought it was a good move is if we flip him for someone else that can actually help.
I guess we can always aim for next year and hope that we can flip Sherrill then when his value will be even higher because he is closing.... oh wait, that is all wrong. He won't be closing, so his value will actually fall more. Oh... never mind, horrible trade.
Good lord!
I'm fucking sick right now. I just wrote a little rant about it. God this pisses me off.
If you are going to justify trades, fine. However, I don't want to see people complaining about not being able to get real impact players when the Dodgers constantly give up their best prospects in a system that lacks depth for mediocre veterans.
There's a reason the Dodgers can't get impact players, and it's because they trade all their best chips for crap.
Now I like the Sherrill deal. Remember, the Phillys are EXTREMLY left handed. While Broxton will close, how can you not like Sherrill in the 8th. He is another veteran arm in the pen to take the workload off Kuo, Belisario and Trancosso. I still wonder if Ben Sheets could be an option.
telciram, I also didnt want a back end starter, but it would have been better than nothing. If we got Washburn, for example, Schmidt makes his last start for the dodgers this yr tonight... Instead, he is our 5th starter, although Elbert or McDonald better get another shot this yr...
Schmidt wil pitch his way out of the rotation anyway. It isn't worth what it would take to get washburn.
Worse yet, getting washburn may have forced Kershaw into the bullpen come playoff time.
Any talk of Kershaw being in the bullpen in the playoffs needs to cease immediately. If the Dodgers face the Phillies in the first round, the rotation should be Billingsley/Kershaw/Wolf. If the Dodgers face anyone else, the rotation should be Billingsley/Kershaw/Kuroda. That's it.
In the LCS and maybe WS, depending on scheduling, it should be Billingsley/Kershaw/Kuroda/Wolf.
Just read on mlbtraderumors that one deal that almost happened was Adrian Gonzalez and Heath Bell for Martin, Loney, DeWitt, DeJesus and McDonald. Think we're lucky the deadline came when it did.
See the new post up top. Somebody ask me which Martin they were talking about.
Ask him, I mean.
kensai, just curious, but are you gonna keep up with Bell? I know he probably wont be in prospect updates, but even just posting stats once a month or something like that. Just curious.
Jordan-Yes, that would have hurt.
telciram-Halladay would have been a luxury, I guess.
LDY4L-The Dodgers don't need a starter in the sense that anybody they would acquire probably wouldn't pitch for us in the playoffs.
What about Peavy?
telciram-I agree, internal options for the 5th spot should be adequate.
Jordan-I dunno, San Diego sounded reasonable.
Alireza-Yeah, I would have been for any deal with Gonzalez. More so than Halladay.
I think the Padres did indeed propose that deal. Way too late if they really wanted to get it done.
Jordan-Dodgers were the ones that backed out.
No, I don't get the Sherrill trade much at all.
LDY4L-So Bell is worth Sherrill because he might be able to get lefties out against one team? Elbert destroys lefties as well.
The point is not that Sherrill is bad, it's that the price isn't worth like 1-2 innings against a certain team...if it happens...maybe.
telciram-Really? Tigers got Washburn for what I think was a worse package than what we gave up for Sherrill.
It's not worth it for a 5th starter. Unless you want to bump Kuroda out of the playoff rotation.
I'd rather have Sherrill than Washburn.
Alireza-Agree about the playoff rotation.
WilHud-Only if that Martin was Russell, but yeah.
LDY4L-I always keep up with former prospects to a certain extent.
I dunno about updates, but maybe.
telciram-I'd rather have Washburn than Sherrill. :o
You can move him to the pen if you need a LOOGY. Washburn destroys lefties.
Washburn probably would have cost more.
Remember, it's the dodgers.
The only thing that I can hang some hope on is that the Logan White can work some magic and pick a good 3b prospect to take the place of Bell. Hopefully we can be lucky enough that the guy is within three years of making it up.
Or maybe an offseason or next trade deadline deal for a good young 3b.
DAMN SCHMIDTT!! If you would have just sucked it up and died then we could plug in McDonald or Elbert in your slot you stupid COW!! Then if they did well to very well we would have a good chip to move to get a high caliber young 3b next year at the deadline or something...
The only thing that I can hang some hope on is that the Logan White can work some magic and pick a good 3b prospect to take the place of Bell. Hopefully we can be lucky enough that the guy is within three years of making it up.
Or maybe an offseason or next trade deadline deal for a good young 3b.'
We have DeWitt, who seems to be more of a 2B and we have Baez, who was in the futures game, not Bell. Kensai, maybe you can atest to this, but there was a scouting report i read that was copied into MLBTR comment section and it said that Bell played lathargic defense and he may be too slow for 3b. any truth to this?
Also, we have blake for 2.5 more yrs, and he is going to be a starter for this yr and next at least, depending on performance. I didnt like trading Bell, but we have some depth there. There is always Abreu...
And Sherrill, i think, is REALLY going to help the pen. It gives a veteran arm for Torre, but it also makes it so we dont have to rely on Elbert or Leach to get the Philly lefty 3(Howard, Utley, Ibanez) out in the playoffs. I'd rather have a 32 yr old who has proven he can pitch in pressure spots(closing for a yr in Balt against the offenses of the Yanks, R. Sox, and Rays)
Kensai- That's EXACTLY my point. Time and again we've seen the top prospects in the Dodger farm shipped off for worthless vets or vets that the team doesn't need. It'd be nice to still have Edwin Jackson. Then you've got deN giving away Guzman, Navarro, Santana etc etc. The only trade he's made that made sense was the raping of Oakland for 'Dre.
The idea that they're 'only prospects' is short sighted at best, Bags, Lee, Halladay, Pujols, Oswalt were all 'just prospects' at one time. But I'm sure if we'd had them in the farm den would have traded them away to get a 'savvy veteran with intangibles'.
telciram-True.
Jordan-Logan usually doesn't seem to draft by need though.
LDY4L-Yes, Bell might have to move off 3rd, but he has the tools to stay there.
Baez is vastly inferior to Bell. He has a long way to go in his development. He was in the Futures Game simply because we had to have somebody there.
MDL-Yup. That's my point. Everybody is just a prospect until they come up and destroy the major leagues.
"Kensai- That's EXACTLY my point. Time and again we've seen the top prospects in the Dodger farm shipped off for worthless vets or vets that the team doesn't need. It'd be nice to still have Edwin Jackson. Then you've got deN giving away Guzman, Navarro, Santana etc etc. The only trade he's made that made sense was the raping of Oakland for 'Dre."
I dont like trading top prospects, but look at that list. It took Edwin Jackson 2 more teams and 3 yrs before he became a good pitcher at the MLB level, Guzman is somewhere in the minors, Navarro was shipped off because of Martin, and is average or worse, IMO, and we dont know what will happen with Santana. If i remember, wasnt there cause for concern that Santana couldnt learn to call a game? Now, his numbers this yr have been sub par. He has the talent, but can he handle the upper levels? Honestly, Ned has picked a good time to ship off former top picks. We'll see what happens with Bell and Santana. However, if Santana has to move to 1B or Bell grows out of 3B, all of a sudden, he has picked good times to ship off guys. Again, Im not saying we should ship off top guys, because they can become the Kemp's of the game, but the guys he has shipped off have been mediocre MLB players or have taken yrs after being traded to make an impact... seems like ned, Ng, and White have made the correct choices.
Edwin Jackson was an elite talent. They shipped him for nothing. Now he's a Cy Young Award candidate.
Joel Guzman was a top talent. They got nothing for him. He busted.
Dioner Navarro was an above average prospect. They got nothing for him. He's a below average catcher but was average last year.
Carlos Santana was an elite prospect. They got nothing for him. He's now the #1 or #2 catching prospect in the majors and a top 15 prospect. He's not struggling, his OPS is over .900 this year and he just hit home runs in 4 straight games.
You see the trend in that? Regardless of how those 4 players did, they Dodgers got no value for them in any instance. Unless you count middle relievers that were below replacement level, a terrible starter, or two months of an old third baseman who busted miserably in September and October.
It's not about what we give as much as what we get for them, which is, more often than not, nothing.
Post a Comment