Trades

[ten ocho recon scout]

This time, lets look at trades that don't save us money.

Before I get skewered, my disclaimer is I'm not advocating we make any. But since the dodgers have everyone's attention, I figured it would be fun to discuss.

We obviously need to get younger, and cut some payroll. That said, we also have holes. No impact free agents in the near future (cano isn't coming here, we can all relax), and the farm is barren.

What about taking a contract off someone's hands, only this time a good player? (And again, I'm not advocating it). But maybe there someone out there that's being paid too much for a go nowhere team. What if there's a high dollar, but 2-3 ish year left on the contract impacr player out there that we could get for one of our nothing special (aren't they all) prospects? Would you do it?

And just for info, I have no one in mind. Just wasn't to hear opinions.

[DMVol]

As much as Arte seems to always step up with his checkbook (sometimes foolishly, see Hamilton and Pujols), you have to wonder if maybe we finally have reached a saturation point....not sure we'll be taking on anything new beyond trying to re-sign Vargas ( a good idea IMO) and an upgrade or two in the pen....beyond Pujols and Hamilton, you have Blanton's dead weight of 8 million and a year left on Wells' deal, even though the Yanks are paying some....in the past, that maybe didn't seem like a lot but it looks large when you're trying to whittle down from 140 million, and still compete...

I think Kendrick or Aybar may be traded but I don't think we are taking on anything new, except maybe Vargas and a reliever or 2....

[HaloMilliVanilli]

Anything is possible.  I don't have any contract as an example, but if a heavy contract at a position of need were acquired AND we traded Kendrick/Aybar for young starters and bullpen arms the net payroll increase could be $5-10 million.  Problem is who has a large contract that A) is still producing at a high rate, 2) could be acquired at a reasonable expense, and C) isn't 35+?

[TroutAdell]

Probably Matt Cain. I wouldn't touch a starting pitcher with a contract over four years though. Also, the Angels don't have anything of value to trade for him.

[gotbeer]

This time, lets look at trades that don't save us money.

Before I get skewered, my disclaimer is I'm not advocating we make any. But since the dodgers have everyone's attention, I figured it would be fun to discuss.

We obviously need to get younger, and cut some payroll. That said, we also have holes. No impact free agents in the near future (cano isn't coming here, we can all relax), and the farm is barren.

What about taking a contract off someone's hands, only this time a good player? (And again, I'm not advocating it). But maybe there someone out there that's being paid too much for a go nowhere team. What if there's a high dollar, but 2-3 ish year left on the contract impacr player out there that we could get for one of our nothing special (aren't they all) prospects? Would you do it?

And just for info, I have no one in mind. Just wasn't to hear opinions.

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/rosters/_/sort/average_age/order/false

 

We are the 9th youngest team in the MLB.  .5 years and we'd be the second youngest team.  Our Oldest player, is the Youngest among all teams old players.

Edited August 26, 2013 by gotbeer

[stormngt]

Anything is possible.  I don't have any contract as an example, but if a heavy contract at a position of need were acquired AND we traded Kendrick/Aybar for young starters and bullpen arms the net payroll increase could be $5-10 million.  Problem is who has a large contract that A) is still producing at a high rate, 2) could be acquired at a reasonable expense, and C) isn't 35+?

 

If they player is still an impact player, than why would their original team trade him?

[SoWhat]

The last thing we need to do is take on big contracts. It's pretty obvious what we need and what Dipoto is already trying to do, which is acquire young, Major League-ready, controllable pitching.

[tdawg87]

If they player is still an impact player, than why would their original team trade him?

They may have other pressing needs. So they trade one impact player for another at a different position. Or they may be considering contract issues and will trade him to get some prospects and cost controlled players.

[Mark68]

He isn't necessarily young, but when healthy, is still effective (and has two years plus an option left on his contract):

 

Cliff Lee

 

The Phillies might be motivated to move him.

[Docwaukee]

He isn't necessarily young, but when healthy, is still effective (and has two years plus an option left on his contract):

 

Cliff Lee

 

The Phillies might be motivated to move him.

if we had an offsetting salary of similar production yet on the offensive side then ok. 

 

To me, you go out and get cliff lee at the deadline if the team turns things around and is a legitimate playoff team.  Not borderline, not fringe, not possible.  Legit.  Like 15 games over .500 at the ASB and in first in the division or WC. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

If they player is still an impact player, than why would their original team trade him?

salary dump. Meaning it would have to be a team that's not looking to contend within the next 2-3 years, but has an expensive player that's not worth it (to them).

Mauer maybe? (And again, not suggesting it). But someone like that. Expensive, but productive. We pay the balance in exchange for a low grade prospect.

[ten ocho recon scout]

Lee is a definite possibility (for discussion sake). Woild taking on his money kill us financially/ make us stronger?

I think if its a shorter contract (like 3 years left), it wouldn't be completely a bad idea. Weaver is getting older, and we still have big questions w pujols and hamilton. (If trout goes down were screwed). But would a cliff lee type help out enough to the point where weaver, him and CJ, with trout and a hopefully healthey pujols/hamilton make us a solid team again?

If its a 2-3 year deal, the money would be coming off the books right around the same time weaver and cj do as well. Just food for thought.

[Docwaukee]

Lee is a definite possibility (for discussion sake). Woild taking on his money kill us financially/ make us stronger?

I think if its a shorter contract (like 3 years left), it wouldn't be completely a bad idea. Weaver is getting older, and we still have big questions w pujols and hamilton. (If trout goes down were screwed). But would a cliff lee type help out enough to the point where weaver, him and CJ, with trout and a hopefully healthey pujols/hamilton make us a solid team again?

If its a 2-3 year deal, the money would be coming off the books right around the same time weaver and cj do as well. Just food for thought.

I just don't think the team as is justifies making a significant financial commitment to anyone else.  He's got 25 mil per for 2014/2015 and 27.5mil vesting option for 2016.  Also, his velocity was down just a tic this year.  Not that he's lost it, but he's essentially 35 and decline is coming right soon.

[kevinb]

Don't take on any contract. Trade everyone making 8 million or more. Get prospects. Get pitching. Get younger. Speed defense pitching athletic and start fresh with a new core. This core sucks. Has no fight Pujols and Hamilton are a waste of a jersey

[SoWhat]

We don't need a whole new core.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

If they player is still an impact player, than why would their original team trade him?

 

For the same reasons we might not want to make the deal: High salary and/or going into the final year of his contract and not likely to re-up and/or on the wrong side of 30.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Vegas Halo Fan

[YouthofToday]

Trading for more 32+ year-olds on the downside of their career can potentially be defined as insanity.

[Troutipoo27]

Mike trout for the Astros minor league system