- 23,285
- 5,293
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2002
we all know these espn guys make up the majority of their own stories but heres what peter gammons said
OFFICIAL 2010 LOS ANGELES DODGERS THREAD [79-82] : The losing season
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by cincoseisdos,
- Start date
- 17,626
- 456
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
[h1]http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/07/dodgers-interested-in-many-pitchers.html[/h1]
[h1]Dodgers Interested In Many Pitchers[/h1]
By Ben Nicholson-Smith [July 19 at 11:35pm CST]
The Dodgers are interested in a variety of starters and relievers, according to Yahoo’s Tim Brown. They are calling to inquire about Roy Oswalt, Ted Lilly, Dan Haren, Jake Westbrook and Fausto Carmona.At one point, when Josh Byrnes was running the D’Backs, the Dodgerswere discussing a deal for Haren, but those talks are no longer active.
The Dodgers have also expressed interest in available Blue Jays relievers such as Kevin Gregg, Scott Downs and Jason Frasor.GM Ned Colletti is attempting to improve his team’s bullpen, since theDodgers are within striking distance of the NL West lead, though theycurrently trail the Padres, Rockies and Giants.
I could only imagine how a deal for Haren would've looked like
{
- 25,494
- 653
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
if this bum is going to start trading players because he doesnt want to pay them, then MLB better make him sell the team.
i dont mind trading Andre if he got us star players back to help us win, but trade him because you dont want to pay his big deal? %#$% out of here
this is the los angeles %%$+*$$ dodgers in a big market. this ant no god damn small market team.
i dont mind trading Andre if he got us star players back to help us win, but trade him because you dont want to pay his big deal? %#$% out of here
this is the los angeles %%$+*$$ dodgers in a big market. this ant no god damn small market team.
- 682
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2004
I have a feeling nothing will happen..
no trades will be done.. we dont have money, and they dont want to break up any chemistry..
i wish there was something fans could do to help force the sale of the team..
no trades will be done.. we dont have money, and they dont want to break up any chemistry..
i wish there was something fans could do to help force the sale of the team..
- 6,131
- 14
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2007
This is what Bud Selig wanted though. He forced the McCourt sale through when Eli Broad came up with straight cash because he didn't want a big money owner out here to compete with New York and Boston payroll-wise and drive player salaries further through the roof. He got what he wanted, but with how all of this has unraveled you have to wonder if he still thinks that was a good plan. Just guessing off of how stupid most of Selig's decisions are may he might still feel that way. If the team does end up getting sold, which seems fairly likely if they don't end up settling then I guess we'll find out. Frank would be foolish not to settle though, and if that happens we're kinda @$#%*% because then he'll be cash-strapped for a while.
The good news is (and I know nobody wants to hear this) is that the Dodgers could very well be successful with a payroll under $100 Million, but they would have to change philosophies drastically for that to happen. No more trading away prospects for rental players and all this dumb %%#! Ned does. Surely it would be more difficult than with unlimited funds, but the Dodgers still have a lot of good young talent which is the greatest currency there is in baseball. They could survive with a cash-strapped owner, just not with Ned making moves as he has the past couple of years since he took the job.
- 5,258
- 11
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2003
high payroll > prospects
Los Angeles
formerly bright nikes
- 23,169
- 4,760
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2004
LOL.
Define successful?
I don't know how you could say that since making the transition to the minors to the bigs is such a crapshoot.
Define successful?
I don't know how you could say that since making the transition to the minors to the bigs is such a crapshoot.
Los Angeles
formerly bright nikes
- 23,169
- 4,760
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2004
LOL.
Define successful?
I don't know how you could say that since making the transition to the minors to the bigs is such a crapshoot.
Define successful?
I don't know how you could say that since making the transition to the minors to the bigs is such a crapshoot.
- 6,131
- 14
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2007
You can win with a great minor league system and a low payroll. You can't win with a high payroll and no minor league system.
It's been proven time and time again. There are several great models in the majors right now that prove that on both sides of the argument. Compare the Astros with the Rangers, for one.
By successful I mean a team that consistently makes the playoffs unless they have a season with a ton of injuries of something like that.
It's a crapshoot, but it works the other way around just as often. Joel Guzman was supposed to be the next Juan Gonzalez and he never made it, Ethier was never supposed to be more than a 4th outfielder and he's an All-Star. If you have a deep minor league system that you continually replenish through the draft, then you'll be able to fill holes on the ML roster cheaply and use prospects to pick up players at the trade deadline. The Dodgers draft well pretty much every year, but lately they just have refused to spend money on the draft or internationally. They could sustain success with a trimmed payroll if they focused more on those areas instead of paying bench players millions of dollars.
It's been proven time and time again. There are several great models in the majors right now that prove that on both sides of the argument. Compare the Astros with the Rangers, for one.
By successful I mean a team that consistently makes the playoffs unless they have a season with a ton of injuries of something like that.
It's a crapshoot, but it works the other way around just as often. Joel Guzman was supposed to be the next Juan Gonzalez and he never made it, Ethier was never supposed to be more than a 4th outfielder and he's an All-Star. If you have a deep minor league system that you continually replenish through the draft, then you'll be able to fill holes on the ML roster cheaply and use prospects to pick up players at the trade deadline. The Dodgers draft well pretty much every year, but lately they just have refused to spend money on the draft or internationally. They could sustain success with a trimmed payroll if they focused more on those areas instead of paying bench players millions of dollars.
- 5,258
- 11
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2003
you cant use prospects to trade for legitimate players when the owner doesnt want to pay their salaries
- 23,285
- 5,293
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2002
There should be no reason why a big market team like the dodgers should be forced to be under 100 million. For what, so mc court can save more money to buy another 11 houses in various cities?
It's like your pops makes 100k a year but only feeds you ramen noodles.
It's like your pops makes 100k a year but only feeds you ramen noodles.
- 17,626
- 456
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- 25,494
- 653
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
where a big market team, no reason why we should have a low payroll.
- 17,626
- 456
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
Dodgers Interested In Paul Maholm
By Tim Dierkes [July 20 at 12:30pm CST]
The Dodgers are interested in Pirates lefty Paul Maholm, reports Dejan Kovacevic of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Yahoo's Tim Brown wrote yesterday that the Dodgers "have been very aggressive in their pursuit of pitching."
Maholm, 28, has a 4.03 ERA, 4.5 K/9, and 3.2 BB/9 in 114 innings, with nine home runs allowed. With so few strikeouts, it's likely that Maholm's ERA will be higher from here on out. On the plus side, his 50.3% groundball rate ranks 12th in the National League according to FanGraphs. That rate has been higher in previous seasons.
Maholm signed a three-year, $14.5MM extension in January of 2009. He's got only $1.86MM remaining this year, $5.75MM in 2011, and a $9.75MM club option for '12 with a $750K buyout. That's $8.36MM guaranteed through '11, which has to be enticing for the Dodgers given their financial constraints.
By Tim Dierkes [July 20 at 12:30pm CST]
The Dodgers are interested in Pirates lefty Paul Maholm, reports Dejan Kovacevic of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Yahoo's Tim Brown wrote yesterday that the Dodgers "have been very aggressive in their pursuit of pitching."
Maholm, 28, has a 4.03 ERA, 4.5 K/9, and 3.2 BB/9 in 114 innings, with nine home runs allowed. With so few strikeouts, it's likely that Maholm's ERA will be higher from here on out. On the plus side, his 50.3% groundball rate ranks 12th in the National League according to FanGraphs. That rate has been higher in previous seasons.
Maholm signed a three-year, $14.5MM extension in January of 2009. He's got only $1.86MM remaining this year, $5.75MM in 2011, and a $9.75MM club option for '12 with a $750K buyout. That's $8.36MM guaranteed through '11, which has to be enticing for the Dodgers given their financial constraints.
- 5,258
- 11
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2003
playoff wins > piazza karros hollandsworth mondesi nomo
- 15,762
- 517
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2005
A small market team relies heavily on their farm system.
Not saying it's not a bad thing to have a good farm, but look at the past WS winners (exception Florida) and tell me they didn't need to add payroll to win??
The big name young guns are already on the big league roster.
Not saying it's not a bad thing to have a good farm, but look at the past WS winners (exception Florida) and tell me they didn't need to add payroll to win??
The big name young guns are already on the big league roster.
- 17,626
- 456
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
My thinking is, we don't need to have a HUGE payroll, we're good with a top 5 payroll and a steady stream of farmhands, with a GM who KNOWS what the +#$@ he, or SHE, is doing.
EDIT: Such as the teams who have kicked our @!* this past weekend, and the one who has our number in October. Think about it.
EDIT: Such as the teams who have kicked our @!* this past weekend, and the one who has our number in October. Think about it.
Los Angeles
formerly bright nikes
- 23,169
- 4,760
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2004
Lol @ 100k n ramen noodles line MrJ.
wonder if anyone saw another one of my double posts.
Los Angeles
formerly bright nikes
- 23,169
- 4,760
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2004
Damn, stole my thunder. Great point IYN.I'm tired of hearing this saying of having great prospects, let the kids play, etc.5 consecutive years in a row, we had great prospects that won some nice ROY hardware but got the Dodgers nowhere.I guess building a team like the Pittsburgh Pirates is ok for some people now
- 15,762
- 517
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2005
I just caught that. Good point.
90's talented prospects
90's playoff success
- 6,131
- 14
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2007
Having a farm system and winning are not mutually exclusive though.
The Dodgers have had deep playoff runs the past two years, and the trade deadline acquisitions that were made had a huge impact but they didn't pick up any salary.
The reason the Dodgers payroll is what it is right now is because of the guys Ned is paying deferred money to and Furcal, Kuroda and Manny. When those 3 guys are off the books, the Dodgers would have the $ to keep Kemp, Ethier, Bills, and Kershaw for sure. Broxton is an interesting decision, because common sense tells you not to pay big $ for a closer. We'll have to see if Martin and Loney get extensions, but it would be wise to lock them up for reasonable deals if we do keep Kemp and Ethier because paying those two guys would likely preclude us from getting high priced guys at C and 1B. That would leave you needing to fill one outfield spot, and 3B with Gordon presumably taking over SS. The Dodgers can easily build around the core of players they have, what they can't do is keep the young players they have currently, and continue to trade their best prospects for rental players. That would be a sound strategy if we had unlimited budget and could fill a lot of holes through free agency, but we don't.
The Dodgers have had deep playoff runs the past two years, and the trade deadline acquisitions that were made had a huge impact but they didn't pick up any salary.
The reason the Dodgers payroll is what it is right now is because of the guys Ned is paying deferred money to and Furcal, Kuroda and Manny. When those 3 guys are off the books, the Dodgers would have the $ to keep Kemp, Ethier, Bills, and Kershaw for sure. Broxton is an interesting decision, because common sense tells you not to pay big $ for a closer. We'll have to see if Martin and Loney get extensions, but it would be wise to lock them up for reasonable deals if we do keep Kemp and Ethier because paying those two guys would likely preclude us from getting high priced guys at C and 1B. That would leave you needing to fill one outfield spot, and 3B with Gordon presumably taking over SS. The Dodgers can easily build around the core of players they have, what they can't do is keep the young players they have currently, and continue to trade their best prospects for rental players. That would be a sound strategy if we had unlimited budget and could fill a lot of holes through free agency, but we don't.
- 5,258
- 11
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2003
the point is this, you can develop all the prospects you want. if they turn out to be any good, you have to pay them. its impossible to stay at a lower payroll even if you develop your own talent. that is, if you are trying to be a contending team.
- 25,494
- 653
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
stupid @+% kemp
- 25,494
- 653
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
this ump SUCKS
- 23,285
- 5,293
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2002
This closer SUCKS
