Four True Outcomes for Scioscia and Dipoto

[ettin]

I didn't devalue Kendrick's value at all. At the deadline, there were reports that the Dodgers had interest Kendrick. Lee's name was floated in a possible Kendrick trade. I don't know if the Dodgers had any interest in trading Lee for Kendrick, but it's possible. Lee and maybe a C prospect would be the most you would get in a Kendrick trade. You brought up Kendrick's two years of control, but the Angels would be getting a very good starting pitching prospect with 6+ years of team control.

The Greinke trade was a bad example. That was a terrible trade by Dipoto (even when the trade was made). He got a player for two months that didn't make the team much better for two prospects and one very good young prospect. With Aybar and Kendrick signed long term, Segera was tradable, but he should've been traded for a starting pitcher that the Angels would have under club control for at least a couple of years or another young player that would be under team control for at least a couple of years.

As far as Mike S is concerned, I think it's a lot more likely that he'll be fired than traded. If the Angels are fortune enough for be able to trade him, the team that trades for him pick up about half of his salary and maybe give the Angels a C prospect that will probably never play in the ML. I think you're seriously devaluing the value Seager, Jansen/Paco.

 

Fair enough Rams, I think we value Kendrick a little differently. Prospects are never a promise of anything and Seager is still in the low Minors so he is still far off in terms of any impact and could just as easily flame out. The real value comes from Lee and whichever reliever it is and I think Kendrick's value is a known commodity versus the unknown in Lee. Picking up a reliever in addition to Lee, for Kendrick, makes some sense depending upon who it is and when you add Scioscia into the equation (and any possible salary absorption by either side) it seems perfectly reasonable to acquire a Rodriguez or even Jansen (a little less likely for sure) along with one or two A ball prospects.

 

I don't think Mike will get fired to be honest. He will either be traded or kept.

[Blarg]

The more likely scenario is that the coaching staff is overhauled. That does not mean Scioscia is going anywhere.

[mtangelsfan]

Arte needs to re-evaluate the entire organization at this point, at least the baseball operations portion.  He needs to be willing to spend money on the organization like he is willing to on free agents.

 

With good scouting and a stronger organizational structure, the team will be headed in the right direction.

[Angel Oracle]

I could handle Scioscia, IF he had a solid pitching coach and solid bench coach, like he had from 2000-2005 (2006 for Bud Black).

He hasn't had that for the past 3 years, to be sure.

[Ohtaniland]

My conjecture, if you read the article, was directed more at an off season move since the deadline came and went without a trade being completed, for the very reason I cited which was that the Dodgers had turned their season around and probably didn't want to make a managerial change in the middle of such a hot win streak. I think I was pretty clear about that statement. That leaves the off season where a lot could happen.

Even the Dodgers would think twice about offering Cano a monster contract on top of the money they have already committed. Again Kendrick is a very viable option for them at a controlled price.

Ettin I appreciate your passion about this trade concept but the Dodgers don't need a Manager. For them, if it's working, why fix it? I don't think the new Dodgers owners or their fans even care that Mike Scioscia hit a home run in 1988.

Furthermore Grant Green is no Howie Kendrick.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Hamiltown

[Spirit]

The gist of the article was geared towards examining 1) the idea that Mike is a tradeable asset, 2) that other teams would value him at varying prices, 3) the Dodgers, out of all of the suitors, actually make a lot of sense in terms of trade opportunity and value, 4) this potential trade, if it ever happens, would, due to the Dodgers surge in July, happen in the off season, 5) Mike's player history with the Dodgers and the probability that they would love to bring him into the fold as their manager, even at the expense of Don Mattingly, and 6) the pieces exchanged would be good fits for both teams with the Dodgers picking up a quality 2B and Manager while the Angels would receive a young starting pitcher and reliever for use next season.

 

I think you hit on all of them, well done.  

 

I liked the whole thing.  It was very outside-of-the-box thinking.  Will it happen?  Probably not.  But even looking at Mike as a tradable asset is something that I have personally never even considered.

[Angel Oracle]

Green is definitely more of a 3B option, given his taller height and so-so footwork at an important position for footwork (2B).

If we trade Kendrick in the off-season, we have to hope that Lindsey can pull a Carney Lansford and go straight from AA to the majors and do decently enough in 2014. There are no viable prospects other than Lindsey above high-A ball currently.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Angel Oracle

[ettin]

Ettin I appreciate your passion about this trade concept but the Dodgers don't need a Manager. For them, if it's working, why fix it? I don't think the new Dodgers owners or their fans even care that Mike Scioscia hit a home run in 1988.

Furthermore Grant Green is no Howie Kendrick.

 

I understand what you are trying to say Hamiltown, but in late June all of the Dodger talk was mainly about the fact that Don Mattingly was about to be fired due to the teams poor performance. It is my thought and assumption, based on news reports, that the Dodgers began looking for a replacement manager as they certainly believed that Mattingly wasn't getting it done.

 

It was exactly at that time (late June) that the Dodgers went on a massive win streak. I think the Dodgers continued to discuss dumping Mattingly but, as the wins piled up towards the end of July, they realized a) they probably shouldn't fire Mattingly during such a critical win streak and because they were winning the urgency to make a trade for Kendrick subsided a bit and they probably decided to revisit that trade after the season is over (when they will still need a 2B for 2014).

 

I agree that Grant Green is not Howie Kendrick. I never implied that he was. What I will say is that between a platoon of say Green and Lindsey for instance, you could replicate about 80% or more of Kendrick's overall performance. The point is that Kendrick has value and can bring back a starting pitcher whether it is Zach Lee or some other one available to us and we do have in house options to replace some of the production that we would lose if Kendrick were gone.

 

You may be right about some of the fans regarding their understanding of Scioscia's history with the Dodgers. However I think the Dodgers ownership would look at acquiring Mike as a bit of a marketing opportunity to remind the fan base of their long and storied history (bobbleheads, anniversary years of World Series wins, blah, blah, blah).

 

Something about one man's junk is another man's treasure....

 

Thanks for the conversation and talk about the article HT.

[summit21]

Kudos to Robert for a thought provoking article...very similar to my thread a few days ago albeit to a different team (http://www.angelswin-forum.com/forums/topic/7050-should-the-angels-trade-scioscia-to-the-phils/). It's funny that Robert's was well received, yet mine was widely panned, at just the thought of trading our esteemed manager. I honestly like Robert's viewpoint, but just don't see it happening with cross town rivals. 

Edited August 27, 2013 by summit21

[Lifetime]

chuck didn't write the article summit.

[summit21]

Thanks lifetime, my bad edited it.

[Bruce Nye]

I agree with Doc.  The smart move to make, if Arte believes he needs to re-assess the organization top to bottom is replace Dipoto.  Then the new GM can make up his/her mind what to do with the Scioscia and his staff and the entire scouting and minor league organization.

[AngelsAndRamsFan]

The gist of the article was geared towards examining 1) the idea that Mike is a tradeable asset, 2) that other teams would value him at varying prices, 3) the Dodgers, out of all of the suitors, actually make a lot of sense in terms of trade opportunity and value, 4) this potential trade, if it ever happens, would, due to the Dodgers surge in July, happen in the off season, 5) Mike's player history with the Dodgers and the probability that they would love to bring him into the fold as their manager, even at the expense of Don Mattingly, and 6) the pieces exchanged would be good fits for both teams with the Dodgers picking up a quality 2B and Manager while the Angels would receive a young starting pitcher and reliever for use next season.

It's possible that he could be traded, but like I said in my other post, I think it's more likely that he's fired. In the past ten years, I think there's only two coaches that have been traded (John Ferrell and Ozzie Guillen). Neither of those coaches had unattrative contracts (long term contracts that paid them a lot of money per year). Other than those two coaches, what other MLB coach has been traded? If Mike S is somehow traded, the Dodgers would make the most sense, but I think that would only happen if they do terrible in the playoffs (if they get swept in the first round). Because of the money owed to Mike S, the Angels would be lucky to get a C prospect with a trade with the Dodgers. When Ferrell and Guillen were traded, the White Sox and Blue Jays didn't even get a good prospect for their manager.

[ettin]

It's possible that he could be traded, but like I said in my other post, I think it's more likely that he's fired. In the past ten years, I think there's only two coaches that have been traded (John Ferrell and Ozzie Guillen). Neither of those coaches had unattrative contracts (long term contracts that paid them a lot of money per year). Other than those two coaches, what other MLB coach has been traded? If Mike S is somehow traded, the Dodgers would make the most sense, but I think that would only happen if they do terrible in the playoffs (if they get swept in the first round). Because of the money owed to Mike S, the Angels would be lucky to get a C prospect with a trade with the Dodgers. When Ferrell and Guillen were traded, the White Sox and Blue Jays didn't even get a good prospect for their manager.

 

You are absolutely correct about the history of managers being traded, it doesn't happen often. I think Mike is one of those types that could be traded and I don't think they would just throw the money away when there are teams that would want him. Could easily go either way.

 

If Mattingly makes it to the World Series he will probably be safe for sure. Anything short of that (especially an early playoff exit) might force the Dodgers to revisit their pre-July plans.

 

Generally I agree that managers don't usually bring back much in prospects. If it did go down I'd expect to see Kendrick, Scioscia, and possibly one or two more prospects being exchanged for Zach Lee and one of Kenley Jansen or Paco Rodriguez at the minimum. If the Dodgers took on more or even all of Scioscia's salary then the haul might be less I suppose.

 

We will see what happens. Lots of things could change the entire landscape before the season is over. I mean no one thought the Dodgers would play .800 ball from late June and on did they? Things can flip on a dime.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

So AJ, do you really think it is Mattingly's coaching skills that have brought the Dodgers back?

 

I don't think that anyone believes that. However, under Mattingly the Dodgers have gone on an historic run, and they may not want to mess with success.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

 If the Angels are serious about Scioscia not being here then you have to consider the Dodgers a trade partner to move his salary, it's that simple. Whether it is likely or not all depends on what Arte does with Mike, right? Ideally Arte won't want to just dump Mike's salary?

 

I wonder what would happen to Mattingly under this scenario. Would he just be out of a job, or would he be sent to the Angels in the trade?

[ettin]

I wonder what would happen to Mattingly under this scenario. Would he just be out of a job, or would he be sent to the Angels in the trade?

 

That's a possibility too. Perhaps Don fits the mold of the type of manager that Dipoto feels is a better fit for the team? If it came to pass would it be the first manager swap in MLB history?!?

[mancini79]

Do managers have no-trade clauses in their contracts? 

 

Manager contracts are held private between them and the club. There is no union or association involved. Player contracts are shown in full disclosure and certain guidelines must be met by the MLBPA. A manager's contract can have any stipulation as long as the two parties agree.

 

With that being said, only the Angels and Sosh know all the stipulations of his contract. The public only knows what has been reported in the media. But the Angels or Sosh have not made the contract public. So there could be a no trade clause, a pro-rated buyout clause, performance requirements, how many times "turn the page" and "tip your cap" must be said in a season, etc. I think too many people are hung up on Sosh's contract as being a reason why he's staying. Ultimately Arte is going to decide if Sosh is the right guy for the job, regardless of what we believe is still owed on the contract.

[axalar]

Because they post trade rumor stuff all the time that is inaccurate which is why when posed a question about a trade rumor a couple years ago at a AW event, Tim Mead responded that most of what you hear about trades in the press is false (not a direct quote but close). So no, I don't trust any trade rumors in the press, no matter who it is.

 

Yet you take Tim Mead's word on that position. Regardless of the fact that it's actually good business (and his job) for him to actively downplay media rumors if they haven't come to fruition. A little ironic and illogical there.

[mtangelsfan]

Except for this:

 

Media, correct about 15% of the time.

 

Tim, correct at least 75% of the time.

[Lifetime]

I take his word over a sports reporter trade rumer, yes - every time. There's nothing ironic or illogical about it. Of course you're more than welcome to do the opposite axalar.

[70runner]

wow, everyone getting along and constructive disagreement...Dr. King day on AW?

 

interesting reading btw

 

Scioscia and his crew are history, just not to the doggies