FanGraphs Baseball


RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. if kenny williams had made this exact trade, i would be 100% certain it was genius.

    Comment by chiefglockandhummer — August 24, 2012 @ 8:51 pm

  2. What a great trade for Boston.

    I can’t believe they cleaned up pretty much the entire mess in one fell swoop.

    Nice work, Cherington.

    Comment by everdiso — August 24, 2012 @ 8:51 pm

  3. “Or, maybe I’m just over-thinking all of this, and the Dodgers just made a horrible, horrible trade.”

    I’m gonna go with this.

    Comment by Tim — August 24, 2012 @ 8:51 pm

  4. I’m going with a decent contender for worst trade ever. Even 2012 A-Gon is a big upgrade over Loney as you said and I posted in the other thread’s comments, but Beckett is at least a 20m overpay, Crawford almost has to be at least as big an overpay, A-Gon if he reverts to form is a small overpay (though quite understandable as an immediate upgrade over Loney), I’m not bothering to look up what Punto’s contract is, but he’s so mediocre it can’t be much of a win if any, and for that, they’re giving up prospects. And getting rid of Loney. Assuming there isn’t massive money changing hands, this has a pretty good chance of winding up worse than Vernon Wells.

    Comment by Calvin — August 24, 2012 @ 8:53 pm

  5. As long as LA has nice golf courses with plenty of beer and fried chicken then I am in.

    Comment by Josh Beckett — August 24, 2012 @ 8:54 pm

  6. It wasn’t clear, but getting rid of Lone is good for LA obviously.

    Comment by Calvin — August 24, 2012 @ 8:54 pm

  7. AGon might be decent, but that Crawford contract more than makes up for it in pure shittiness

    Comment by Alex — August 24, 2012 @ 8:55 pm

  8. The Dodgers have (possibly) unlimited funds. They just added a great 1B and could potentially get a recharged Crawford next season. The Red Sox got salary relief. Yay! Why should a team with the Red Sox financial strength ever dump salary?

    Comment by Jim Ward — August 24, 2012 @ 8:55 pm

  9. I heard it’s cause Jay Z is moving the Trolleydodgers back to Brooklyn.

    Comment by samuelraphael — August 24, 2012 @ 8:56 pm

  10. A fool and his money are soon departed. What the heck are the Dodgers doing?

    Comment by nik — August 24, 2012 @ 8:56 pm

  11. Every team has a limit. Making terrible trades just makes you reach it sooner.

    Comment by nik — August 24, 2012 @ 8:57 pm

  12. So Magic Johnson has now purchased the Dodgers, Phillies, and Red Sox, and we’re only half a season into this ownership

    Comment by Alex — August 24, 2012 @ 8:57 pm

  13. wow

    Comment by PillsburyFlowboy — August 24, 2012 @ 8:57 pm

  14. it will be interesting to see how the Red Sox handle this offseason – they jave about 40M tied up between just a few players, and about another 10m in possible Arb raises. Even if they give a good money to Ellsbury and Ortiz, they could head into next season with about 80m in salaries.

    They would need a to fill out some help in the pen, but they could easily keep Bailey as the close, the Rotation could use a boost with Lackey/Lester/Buchholz/Dubront there and something would need to be done in the OF with just Ellsbury and Sweeney coming back.

    Comment by jesse — August 24, 2012 @ 8:58 pm

  15. Guess they have no shot at getting Hamilton now with so much money invested in Kemp, Ethier, and Crawford. That alone means that Dodgers may have made a bad move, because you know they would have payed top dollar to get whatever Josh wanted

    Comment by Joe — August 24, 2012 @ 8:59 pm

  16. Nobody has unlimited funds. The Yankees are the #1 money maker in the game and even they have a limit. The Dodgers will be alarmingly close to that level of payroll next season.

    Comment by SF 55 for life — August 24, 2012 @ 9:01 pm

  17. Dodgers have added Hanley and now A-Gon to their lineup, okus Victorino. If they make the playoffs it’s all worth it, isn’t it? Isn’t the point of baseball to win games and make the playoffs? Something the Red Sox will not be doing for awhile now? I am still confused..and please, hold off on the snarky rebuttals and help me understand. I am new to the “Sabre” world and find it fascinating, but sometime perplexing.

    Comment by Jim Ward — August 24, 2012 @ 9:01 pm

  18. Nobody else claimed agon?

    Comment by Pp — August 24, 2012 @ 9:03 pm

  19. Are we sure the sox aren’t sending money over?

    Comment by Pp — August 24, 2012 @ 9:04 pm

  20. All of this assumes there’s no money changing hands, which I find unlikely. And if the Sox managed to get Zach Lee in the deal, as some are suggesting, there had better be a lot of money changing hands.

    Comment by chuckb — August 24, 2012 @ 9:04 pm

  21. * — parted. Not departed.

    Comment by chuckb — August 24, 2012 @ 9:06 pm

  22. How does an ownership group who just spent $2B have unlimited funds?

    Did the US Treasury buy the Dodgers?

    Comment by dirtbag — August 24, 2012 @ 9:06 pm

  23. Who are the Red Sox planning to play at first base going forward? I can see having Loney play out the 2012 season – although I don’t really recommend wasting the roster spot – but are there clear prospects or free agents on the horizon?

    Comment by Jon L. — August 24, 2012 @ 9:07 pm

  24. I’m hearing that the other “prospect’ mentioned in the article is RHP Allen Webster, probably the Dodgers 2nd best prospect (certainly their 2nd best pitching prospect). Red Sox get enormous salary relief and two arms in De La Rosa and Webster who could settle into the back and middle of the Red Sox rotation respectively. They also get a short term replacement at first, if need be, or in the outfield in Jerry Sands. DeJesus can be a solid utility player and is someone I think the Dodgers under utilized in LA.

    This is a solid win for the Red Sox, I’m honestly stunned they were able to get Webster (if the reports are in fact true) along with the other players mentioned.

    Comment by SF 55 for life — August 24, 2012 @ 9:07 pm

  25. @Jim War,

    Hanley’s been regressing for years and Crawford’s had a ton of problems the last few. He’ll likely rebound a bit out of the Boston spotlight, but the Dodgers have financially crippled themselves for a while if they take on most of the money on this.

    Add to that the fact that their farm system is effectively non-existent now. Lee is about all they’d have left.

    Comparatively, the Sox will probably suck out loud next year, but if this goes down as is and the prospects coming back work out, the Sox will have a stacked farm and a young core to work around. It’d be a short rebuild.

    With Bradley, Barnes, Bogaerts and Owens all looking good in the minors, adding in De La Rosa, Sands and Webster to a sub-thirty grouping of Lester, Buchholz, Doubront, Pedroia, Lavarnway, Middlebrooks and Ellsbury (If he gets extended) is attractive going forward.

    Comment by Jonathan — August 24, 2012 @ 9:08 pm

  26. Aren’t there MLB rules to how much money can be exchanged? Pretty sure there are, and the money to justify this would have to be way over the limit.

    Comment by dirtbag — August 24, 2012 @ 9:08 pm

  27. Looks like Sands and Lavarnway. I’m guessing the Red Sox are hoping one of them can hit enough to be serviceable. They will certainly be cheap options.

    Comment by SF 55 for life — August 24, 2012 @ 9:09 pm

  28. you must be a big hit at parties.

    Comment by nik — August 24, 2012 @ 9:10 pm

  29. How did agon pass thru waivers?

    Comment by Pp — August 24, 2012 @ 9:10 pm

  30. Sands is a probable fit; he’s more of a 1B than he is a LF. He went back to his old swing sometime around the All Star break and has posted a 1.131 OPS in the 2nd half. It’s the PCL and all, but he deserves a shot at the job (frankly, I’ve been confused for some time now why the Dodgers didn’t give him a shot to oust Loney himself).

    Comment by Sean O'Neill — August 24, 2012 @ 9:13 pm

  31. This alone changes my opinion of Cherington from an okay, not bad GM who still has question marks in his ability to get big things done, to an expert in “Fleecing Colletti 101”. Usually it takes a little while before one’s ready to dump overpaid 30-somethings onto LA for prospects.

    I hope this trade goes through ASAP. This is renewing my vigor for 2013, and hopefully the Red Sox can build themselves up in a way more similar to 2003 (more Cody Ross type deals if we can land them, one star is fine). We started the year at, what, $172MM in payroll? We won’t have even 1/3rd that locked up in 2013 if this goes through.

    Too bad Omar Minaya isn’t running a team anymore, I’d ask if he’d like Lackey as a project.

    Comment by Joe R — August 24, 2012 @ 9:14 pm

  32. Selig will have to approve any deal. I very highly doubt he has any desire to pick a fight with the Dodgers and Red Sox ownership groups, so he probably signs off quickly and without any fuss.

    Comment by Sean O'Neill — August 24, 2012 @ 9:14 pm

  33. Because Mattingly is running the team on the field?

    Comment by Joe R — August 24, 2012 @ 9:15 pm

  34. does this more or less end the Dodgers as “big players” in the offseason a quick look at Cot’s shows they had 103m committed next year; they;ve added about 91m to that in Crawford/Agon/HanRam/Beckett/Either

    Comment by jesse — August 24, 2012 @ 9:15 pm

  35. It looks like the first step for Cherington to start building his OWN team. He inherited a mess and this is an enormous step towards clearing the way for the future.

    Comment by SF 55 for life — August 24, 2012 @ 9:18 pm

  36. I think its more than that even. The still owe Manny Ramirez and Andruw Jones about $11m combined. I think the last time I checked their payroll for next year is already at $133m

    Comment by SF 55 for life — August 24, 2012 @ 9:19 pm

  37. This would make a lot more sense if the red sox send money over, but anyhow this is a great trade for the Sox, they unloaded 30 million dollars a year of crap in Beckett and Crawford, and Gonzalez will be missed, but was overpaid a bit himself.

    Comment by Tim — August 24, 2012 @ 9:24 pm

  38. Wait so you want Gonzalez AND Beckett? Will you take Carl Crawford too? You will!?!? Oh, I mean, of course you will. Wait, you’re going to pay all three of them right? Yes?!?! Oh uh great!

    Comment by Ben Cherington — August 24, 2012 @ 9:24 pm

  39. How did the Dodgers get fleeced ?

    A-Gonz himself may be worth that package of prospects, and there’s huge upside in acquiring Beckett and Crawford. Great deal for both sides, makes a lot of sense.

    Comment by Alex — August 24, 2012 @ 9:24 pm

  40. He didn’t. Every American League team passed on him, as did every National League team with an inferior record.

    Comment by Pitnick — August 24, 2012 @ 9:25 pm

  41. Cots still has them listed at 103 (that includes the money to Jones/Ramirez) – But it doesn’t count the Either Extension or the Hanley trade.

    133 could be including them depending on how the Either deal is divided up.

    Comment by jesse — August 24, 2012 @ 9:25 pm

  42. You should check the ages/salaries of the players you mentioned.

    Comment by SF 55 for life — August 24, 2012 @ 9:30 pm

  43. Wait, so the Dodgers are taking Valentine too? Because he might be the biggest part of the “mess” in Boston.

    Comment by Craftcj — August 24, 2012 @ 9:30 pm

  44. I’m a giants fan and I approve this trade.

    Comment by elooie — August 24, 2012 @ 9:30 pm

  45. Agreed. In the Boston media’s effort to find a scapegoat for 2012 (because, in generally, they heavily advocated the Gonzalez trade, and Beckett/Crawford contracts), the fact that this roster is just not very good was lost on people. It’s not as bad as 59-66, but it’s bad.

    This deal bolsters the Red Sox’s upper level farm, and frees up money to try the free agent market again. Lord knows w/ the funding the Red Sox have, it’ll be hard to construct a roster as bad as the 2012 version.

    Comment by Joe R — August 24, 2012 @ 9:32 pm

  46. And stat lines

    Comment by elooie — August 24, 2012 @ 9:32 pm

  47. That’s the most shocking to me. I’m surprised more teams didn’t claim him. That contract isn’t bad.

    Comment by Pp — August 24, 2012 @ 9:32 pm

  48. Valentine is terrible, but is not even close to being the biggest problem. He’s just the loudest.

    Comment by NS — August 24, 2012 @ 9:33 pm

  49. you ever heard that pink floyd song? what’s it called? starts with an m? o yeah, “money”!

    Comment by henry — August 24, 2012 @ 9:37 pm

  50. i never get outside my mom’s basement. It’s where I read fangraphs and learn basic American proverbs.

    Comment by chuckb — August 24, 2012 @ 9:37 pm

  51. So, Josh Hamilton in Boston next season then?

    Comment by Rageon — August 24, 2012 @ 9:37 pm

  52. the manager is just the manager.

    it wasn’t terry’s fault last year, it isn’t bobby’s fault this year.

    Comment by everdiso — August 24, 2012 @ 9:40 pm

  53. I’m not sure it takes any real genius to fleece Colletti. Those bad contracts just gave Cherington the opportunity.

    Comment by chuckb — August 24, 2012 @ 9:43 pm

  54. I’m not usually one for buying into personality issues with players, but dumping a guy with a history of drug and alcohol abuse into the Boston media market has disaster written all over it.

    Comment by Jonathan — August 24, 2012 @ 9:45 pm

  55. And the calendar.

    Comment by chuckb — August 24, 2012 @ 9:45 pm

  56. and let’s face it, nothing will drive a person to use like the prospect of spending the next several years with Bobby Valentine.

    Comment by chuckb — August 24, 2012 @ 9:47 pm

  57. Have you not heard about the television deal coming the Dodgers way? Almost all baseball teams are profitable and the Dodgers are going to have HUGE profits in the coming years. They will be able to afford all this easily.

    Comment by Jim Ward — August 24, 2012 @ 9:50 pm

  58. might not be the dollars, but the dollars over a semi long period of time. will he be worth it down the road?

    Comment by Cidron — August 24, 2012 @ 9:53 pm

  59. The Yankees aren’t near their limit. It’s a managerial decision to keep payroll where it is. They could (I think Forbes?) afford a 300M payroll if they wanted to.

    Comment by Antonio Bananas — August 24, 2012 @ 9:56 pm

  60. What, Lackey wasnt available?!

    Comment by Cidron — August 24, 2012 @ 9:57 pm

  61. I guess I’m not really buying into the whole “that guy can’t make it in Boston/New York” argument. Seems to me it’s a myth started by east coast types to make themselves feel superior than the rest of us in flyover country. But obviously only he knows what is / isn’t a good idea for his recovery. But in terms of money, Boston looks like a pretty good fit now.

    Comment by Rageon — August 24, 2012 @ 9:58 pm

  62. of the contending teams that have a worse record than the Dodgers, which team would actually A) need him, B) be good enough (contending) now for it to matter, and C) be able to afford him? Makes more sense when you think of it that way.

    Comment by Antonio Bananas — August 24, 2012 @ 9:59 pm

  63. Agon would get more on the free-agent market. He signed that deal before Votto, Fielder, and Pujols reset the market rate at 1B. I dont think its a bad deal for what it would take now to get Agon he would have been FA last winter and gotten more $ and years.

    Comment by Tim A — August 24, 2012 @ 10:00 pm

  64. am I the only one who thinks the sox are getting fleeced here? I’d feel alot better about all the money theyre saving, if they had a half decent history of signing free agents. As much as I hate beckett he SHOULD benefit from the league change, Crawford when hes “right” is still an All-Star, and Gonzo any other year is a legit MVP canidate..all the sox get back is a projected mid rotation starter who stuggled in AA in Webster, an adam kennedy type 2b who is blocked by pedrioa in DeJesus, a sexy hard throwing pitcher with control issues in daniel bar…i mean de la rosa. an unproven 24 year old “one year wonder” who was a no name before 1 power season in Sands. and James “dont call me Casey Kotchman” Loney. If they wanted to trade Gonzo..they couldve waited and gotten a better deal in the off season

    Comment by Nick — August 24, 2012 @ 10:01 pm

  65. How good of an idea is Hamilton really? They just got out of a mess where they overpaid for guys either on the last legs of their prime or past it. So sign Hamilton to 5/120sih and find yourself with the “awful Hamilton contract” in 3 years? Maybe less than that.

    If I’m Boston, I’d rather spend it on Bourn. My guess is Bourn drops off because he’s a 30 year old speed guy, but he’s just been so consistent and healthy that I think he’d be a safer and cheaper bet.

    Comment by Antonio Bananas — August 24, 2012 @ 10:06 pm

  66. Who could A) afford him, and B) had an opening at 1B/DH for the foreseeable future?

    Comment by williams .482 — August 24, 2012 @ 10:06 pm


    For those of you too lazy to click the link, the Herald is reporting the Dodgers are picking up about 96% of the salary the Sox are sending them. Sox eat virtually no money.

    Comment by Sean O'Neill — August 24, 2012 @ 10:07 pm

  68. I dont like hamilton in Boston given his off field issues… Bourne is a 1 trick pony and his gme wouldnt work for the this rate theyre better off giving ellsbury his extension. hes proven he can play in boston at a high level, and more than anything he sells tickets which makes the owners happy. Aaaand at that rate…im pretty certain this means yet another deal for david ortiz. they will need his bat and will want to keep him around for the TV ratings show that is the red sox

    Comment by Nick — August 24, 2012 @ 10:08 pm

  69. yupp just about to post that

    “The Dodgers are expected to pick up more than $260MM of the $271.5MM in combined salary that the Red Sox are sending to them, a source tells Michael Silverman of the Boston Herald.”

    Comment by SF 55 for life — August 24, 2012 @ 10:09 pm

  70. ….ok, thats just plain ridiculous

    Comment by Nick — August 24, 2012 @ 10:09 pm

  71. Who is “they” though? It’s a new GM. Saying “the Sox” makes about as much sense as saying Epstein winning the world series with them was impressive. Bottom line is, it’s a great market to be a GM in with willing ownership. Epstein had an easier job than anyone in a smaller market.

    Might have lost my point on my soapbox there but my point is that it’s context. You can’t associate moves with teams. People run the teams. Maybe the new regime is awesome at FA signings.

    Comment by Antonio Bananas — August 24, 2012 @ 10:10 pm

  72. “am I the only one who thinks the sox are getting fleeced here?”

    on other silly sites probably not. Around these parts almost certainly.

    Comment by SF 55 for life — August 24, 2012 @ 10:11 pm

  73. Yes, because nobody over the age of 30 ever has a good season …

    Comment by Oasis — August 24, 2012 @ 10:12 pm

  74. yeah AGone and even Crawford makes sense but what in the world is Colletti doing with Beckett?? That’s the part of this deal that’s the big headscratcher.

    Comment by Stinky — August 24, 2012 @ 10:12 pm

  75. This will go down as the most inefficient move in baseball history, at a loss of around $130 million without even factoring in the prospects. Pathetic.

    Comment by traced — August 24, 2012 @ 10:13 pm

  76. how do we even know cherington made this move..he wasnt even allowed to pick the manager. The sox problems start at the top, and filter all the way down. they have a loooooong way to go

    Comment by Nick — August 24, 2012 @ 10:13 pm

  77. @nick

    so basically we are just speculating. neither of us have any idea what goes on in the front office.

    Comment by SF 55 for life — August 24, 2012 @ 10:14 pm

  78. I don’t know much about these prospects coming over any input from dodgers fans would be nice. From what I gather de la rosa is a good arm but not great control probably will end up in the bullpen, sands has a decent bat but not enough upside to be a long term option as a 1b for the sox, webster seems like a decent prospect, although I was hoping for lee, will be interesting to see whether the sox hold onto him or use him in another deal this offseason. All in all the dodgers are taking on alot of salary but I expect a-gon to be a perennial mvp candidate for them and crawford to put up good numbers even if they dont match his salary. Good luck with beckett! The sox are now officially in rebuilding mode and in some ways its a relief but it still leaves mores questions then answers. it will be interesting to see how it all works out

    Comment by mike — August 24, 2012 @ 10:15 pm

  79. Short term Loney,Sands,Lavarnway. Long term probably Will Middlebrokks with Xander Bogaerts at 3rd.

    Comment by rickeycanstillplay — August 24, 2012 @ 10:24 pm

  80. @Rageon

    I agree with that, when it comes to performance. And most players can separate performance from personal life. However Hamilton is an EXTREME example and I don’t think putting him in any kind of stressful situation is a good idea.

    Comment by Steve — August 24, 2012 @ 10:25 pm

  81. if you told me before the year started the sox would trade Youkilis, Gonzo, Beckett, and Crawford and not get any big name player/prospect i wouldve said you were crazy..but thats what happend. they got mid level prospects and a below avg position player in return. Yes I know the money they save is HUGE..but they suck at spending money, and there are no big free agents available. They are pretty much gaurenteed mediocrity the next 2 years unless they pull off another big move

    Comment by Nick — August 24, 2012 @ 10:25 pm

  82. You think that this ownership group paid for the team using nothing but their own liquidity?

    They likely have debt payments out the ying yang.

    No team can take on Crawford-like albatrosses regularly and just say “We’ll be profitable anyway”.

    Comment by Joe R — August 24, 2012 @ 10:25 pm

  83. That’s way too pessimistic. What if the Dodgers make the playoffs and advance? The point is to win, not be “efficient”.

    Comment by Jim Ward — August 24, 2012 @ 10:26 pm

  84. well, if the deal didn’t include the Dodgers taking Beckett also, then all of it almost makes sense. With Becket, it throws the whole thing into lunacy.

    Comment by Stinky — August 24, 2012 @ 10:28 pm

  85. I hate the fact those spoiled losers go from a dead end sox team to a legit contender in the Dodgers…I guess its just “gods plan”

    Comment by Nick — August 24, 2012 @ 10:30 pm

  86. Only a fool thinks buying around 200 million dollars worth of debt is worth the additional ~15% to make the playoffs and a shrinking fraction of that to advance past each round.

    Comment by traced — August 24, 2012 @ 10:35 pm

  87. What important pieces do the Dodgers still need to re-sign besides Kershaw? If they feel like they can pay this much in salary, and they obviously do, then what’s their downside? I find it odd that people are killing LA when spending a ridiculous amount of money just because it’s a ridiculous amount of money.

    Beckett’s current ERA notwithstanding, he isn’t an awful pitcher. The peripherals suggest a slightly sub-4 pitcher after moving from the AL East to the NL West, so while he obviously doesn’t deserve what he’s being paid, he’s still a slightly above average starter. It also seems likely that Adrian Gonzalez’s one season power decline will prove an aberration. The acquisition of Crawford is dubious given that his skill set never figured to age well anyway, so I won’t defend that part. Still, I have to question the negative reaction given that no one has mentioned how grossly overspending will actually hurt the Dodgers. Strictly as a baseball team they improved quite substantially.

    Comment by jdbolick — August 24, 2012 @ 10:56 pm

  88. Don’t take me for a fool Ben. You’ll have to throw in Punto.

    Comment by Ned Coletti — August 24, 2012 @ 10:57 pm

  89. and crackhead ron washington is helping?

    Comment by david — August 24, 2012 @ 10:57 pm

  90. Nick
    If you haven’t noticed, mediocrity is a step up for the current version of the Sox.

    Comment by Stinky Pete — August 24, 2012 @ 11:02 pm

  91. ” They are pretty much gaurenteed mediocrity the next 2 years unless they pull off another big move”

    And if they kept those players everything would be just peachy right? Would they be better? Probably, not significantly so.

    At some point you need to cut your loses. And assuming that the freed money they now have will not be put to good use is ridiculous.

    Comment by SF 55 for life — August 24, 2012 @ 11:03 pm

  92. This could make the Vernon Wells trade look shrewd.

    Comment by Rich Mahogany — August 24, 2012 @ 11:04 pm

  93. Haha, wow. Thanks Los Angeles.

    Comment by Joe R — August 24, 2012 @ 11:06 pm

  94. Gonzalez is signed long term to a deal that he would not get were he a free agent and ~25 teams passed on claiming him off waivers; he’s not a valuable trade piece. Getting a couple of solid prospects and shedding an 130 million in bad contracts is an amazing haul that no one expected.

    Comment by Mike — August 24, 2012 @ 11:06 pm

  95. The Red Sox 2013 playoff odds just went down (they weren’t too good anyway), but their 2015-2018 odds just went way up.

    Comment by Mike — August 24, 2012 @ 11:08 pm

  96. You are spending a ridiculous amount of money on players past their prime, all of whom are having career worst seasons.

    Take a look at Josh Beckett’s WAR total, take a look at Blanton’s/Harang’s they are roughly the same. Even with an improvement by moving to the west, he doesn’t represent a huge upgrade this year or in the future (De La Rosa could probably put up similar numbers in the Dodger rotation for 2013).

    Comment by SF 55 for life — August 24, 2012 @ 11:11 pm

  97. A.) Yankees, Blue Jays, Rangers, Dodgers, Cardinals, Nats at the very least

    B.) Nats(sorry Adam LaRoche), Marlins, Mets, Pirates, Astros, Rockies, Dodgers, Giants, Padres, Blue Jays, Yankees, Orioles, Rays, Indians, Twins, Rangers, Athletics, and Mariners

    C.) it’s ok bro. You’ll get there someday. That’s like saying who would want Albert Pujols….

    The main and most significant by far reason that he went unclaimed is because teams knew they’d have to tak on Beckett and/or Crawford if they wanted to even sniff AGon

    Dodgers are making the same mistake the Phillies made….Crawford = Utley, Beckett = Papelbon, AGon = Howard. If they don’t win this year, they’re SOL

    Great, great return for the Red Sox…De La Rosa and Webster could both be #1/2 starters and Sands could be a solid everyday player

    Comment by Cliff — August 24, 2012 @ 11:11 pm

  98. This move is about risk. The Dodgers are taking a big risk with a potentially big pay-off. If the players return to form, Gonzalez hits 40 homers, Crawford steals 40 bases and Beckett wins 15+ games. It could happen. If it does, the Dodgers will win a couple of championships. For the Red Sox, this team was not working at all and they needed to reduce risk. They will likely work on developing prospects and make more Cody Ross type signings. They really need to somehow obtain a #1 starter like Felix Hernandez but that ain’t gonna be easy. They now have the capacity to take on salary so who knows what thye may be able to work out.

    Comment by Stinky Pete — August 24, 2012 @ 11:17 pm

  99. Not sure why you are assuming A-Gon will be an MVP candidate. I mean he could come back, don’t get me wrong, but he is exiting his prime years and is putting up career worst totals. He leaves a great hitters park and enters a pitchers park. He is signed for what, 6 more years? If he doesn’t bounce back he won’t be worth his annual salary.

    Comment by SF 55 for life — August 24, 2012 @ 11:18 pm

  100. yes because thats exactly what I said.

    Comment by SF 55 for life — August 24, 2012 @ 11:19 pm

  101. Looking at Beckett’s WAR is less meaningful than looking at his peripherals since the WAR includes his “bad luck” this season, especially since the All-Star break. It’s fair to point out that his velocity is down about 2mph on all his pitches, and therefore the drop in strikeout rate is probably real, but a FIP of 4.27 in the AL East is respectable. Josh Beckett is still a much better pitcher than Harang. And it’s a big stretch to suggest that De La Rosa would flash that level of ability in 2013, as he’s not yet a ML-ready starter.

    Comment by jdbolick — August 24, 2012 @ 11:21 pm

  102. I’m really not a stats guy, but I would point out that the only thing consistent about Beckett’s year to year performance is that it is not consistent. If he is true to form, 2013 will be an up year.

    Comment by Stinky Pete — August 24, 2012 @ 11:24 pm

  103. Ridiculous amounts of bad money is the reason why they’re getting killed. When the Yankees spent a crazy amount on Sabathia, Burnett, and Teixeira the structure of MLB got criticized.

    Comment by Mike — August 24, 2012 @ 11:25 pm

  104. The Yankees are paying ARod and Teixeira $50+ million a year through 2016. Where, exactly, are they capable of fitting another 1B / DH?

    Comment by JimNYC — August 24, 2012 @ 11:40 pm

  105. @Nick,

    I’m confused. On the one hand you’re saying how bad they are at spending on big money contracts, but then treating those same big money contracts as if they’re a net positive. The Crawford signing and Beckett extensions were bad deals, you were right about that. Ergo, getting someone to take them off your hands has to be a good thing, right?

    In essence, they traded Gonzo for 5 prospects and the ability to reallocate $140 million in bad contracts. There’s no way they’d ever get a better deal than that again.

    Comment by HenduForKutch — August 24, 2012 @ 11:41 pm

  106. Bravo sir

    Comment by ALEastbound — August 24, 2012 @ 11:49 pm

  107. @Rageon — whether you believe it or not, it takes a certain type of personality to put up with papparazzi camped outside your front door every night, not being able to get milk at a bodega without getting mobbed, having every detail of your life and your kids’ lives splashed on the back page of the papers, never being able to go to a restaurant, etc. Derek Jeter went out to dinner with a girl last week and photos of them along with her bio were splashed in all the papers the next morning, and he was asked questions about her by a dozen reporters. Some people can handle that; Jeter certainly can. Could you?

    Comment by JimNYC — August 24, 2012 @ 11:52 pm

  108. Aren’t they also entering negotiations on a TV deal? If they can goose their ratings a bit, that might be worth a couple hundred million over the life of the deal…

    Comment by nv — August 24, 2012 @ 11:56 pm

  109. Can’t see how this is a terrible deal for the Dodgers. In fact, I’d say it was good for both parties, though honestly I feel that the Red Sox got it worst: Adrian Gonzalez’ year screams “blip” to me, most of the factors seem less related to physical talent and more to some kind of issue seeing the ball this year, and he is still wRC+ 114 this year, with 2.7 WAR. If we assume he keeps up that sort of production for 2-3 years, give or take minor regression for the future(What, 1.0 WAR over the next two years), then he’s still doing pretty good, though not spectacularly, which if they assume a payroll similiar to the Yankees(as they seem to be heading towards) would not be too big of a deal. And this assumes A-Gon doesn’t return to form in any way: Is he really going to keep a BB rate of 5.9% the rest of his career without going up? I mean, his career rate is 10.7%, if we shave some off for IBBs and losing some others(assuming his BB% rate is due to decline), it should still raise up to 7%-8%, shouldn’t it? And, of course, the fact their current 1B is James Loney must be factored in…

    Crawford isn’t the best of deals, but I can only presume they’re hoping he returns to form, though I find it somewhat doubtful given his age. Still, he should at least rebound defensively at the Dodgers assuming his skill doesn’t decline too much, with his offensive production being the key factor: If he can bring his SBs up to value or begin hitting for a decent average(Or take some walks…oh, who am I kidding there?), he could be a decent player, though obviously very overpriced: He’s probably here just to make getting A-Gon easier.

    As an idea though, maybe they think he needs a new approach at the plate? It seems kind of interesting Crawford’s declined coincided with a massive jump in how many flyballs he hit(He jumped from 28.7% in 2009 to 36.0% in 2010, nearly a 10% increase, and stayed at 34.6% in 2011) that went along with a career year in power(Highest .ISO of his career, most HRs of his career, though only by 1 2005 similiarly had a high FB% at 34.9%, the year he hit his second most HRs, but his HR%/FB% was only 7.7%). While I’m not sure it would work, it could be they think they can get a better Crawford by trying to make him not swing to the fences?

    Beckett is almost surely just thrown in for negative value from the Red Sox, with maybe a vain hope that changing from hitter-friendly Fenway to the more pitcher-friendly stadium of the Dodgers will help him and giving them an emergency option if someone goes down. His ERA is higher than pretty much any of his peripherals like FIP, xFIP and SIERA suggest, though at this point that’s probably not worth it. The worst part of the deal.

    Punto is a good deal. He’s a great defensive utility man, though an offensive liability, that makes him an excellent guy who can defensive sub in or start on off days and provide solid pay back. And while he’s having an off year offensively, moreso than usual, his BABIP seems to be at least a bit unluckily low(.258 this year, compared to .300 career, which goes right along with the blip year he had in 2007). And he’s a decent threat to steal. He’s no star, but an excellent utility man that would provide similiarly excellent depth on a championship-caliber team.

    So, overall, I think this is a good deal IF we assume that they are heading for a Yankee-sized payroll and intend to keep it there(AKA the Yankees West plan), even if they only intend to keep it there 5 years or so. A-Gon should be a good piece with the possibility of rebounding to MVP level, well worth the risk, while Craford is a somewhat risky option, Punto is a nice little piece and Beckett is just there to make the deal look better for Boston. So I say good deal all around: The Dodgers get pieces for their “win now” mentality in a year with no obvious winner and Boston relieves themselves of the payroll they need to rebuild the team(Though I think they will end up missing A-Gon badly).

    inb4 tl;dr. I got bored while eating pizza and decided to do some FLAWED AMATEUR ANALYSISING.

    Comment by Ruki Motomiya — August 25, 2012 @ 12:00 am

  110. The last time Magic Johnson was this reckless, he got AIDS.

    Comment by HGoodman — August 25, 2012 @ 12:02 am

  111. Dodgers are making the same mistake the Phillies made….Crawford = Utley, Beckett = Papelbon, AGon = Howard.

    I’m sorry, what is “=” meant to signify?

    Comment by Spoilt Victorian Child — August 25, 2012 @ 12:06 am

  112. First good move the typically incompetent and clueless Cherington has ever made.

    brb trading Josh Reddick for Andrew Bailey and Ryan Sweeney

    brb trading Jed Lowrie (3rd among SSs in OPS…325+ PAs) for Mark Melancon

    brb trading Kevin Youkilis for a bag of doritos and eating YoukDawg’s contract

    brb having the worst draft haul ever

    Don’t forget that Cherington admitted himself that he was the one who rallied the hardest around signing Crawford.

    Comment by Dale — August 25, 2012 @ 12:33 am

  113. Assuming Crawford bounces back to reasonable levels, the Dodgers just put two fantastic bats in their lineup during the primes of Matt Kemp and Clayton Kershaw. And if Beckett continues his one good year, one bad year pattern, he’ll be a solid #3 for the Dodgers next year. This move should work wonders in the short-term, and Colletti can worry about building the farm back up over the next few years.

    Comment by GoSox — August 25, 2012 @ 12:36 am

  114. @rageon

    It’s not a dig about “hacking it in Boston.” I think Hamilton could perform anywhere physically.

    The fact, however, is that he’s got a history of addiction issues and he fell off the wagon less than a year ago. Boston players are under insanely intense media scrutiny and that’s a fact.

    It’s not hard to imagine him having a slump like the one he had recently and having the Boston media jump straight up his backside with accusations about a relapse. It’s also not hard to imagine those accusations getting to him and leading to an actual relapse.

    Comment by Jonathan — August 25, 2012 @ 12:44 am

  115. Yankees have no place for him, Blue Jays can’t afford him, neither can the Cardinals but the Dodgers have waiver choice before them anyways (as they do the Nationals as well). So I guess you want to know why the Rangers didn’t claim him? I guess they didn’t want to commit that type of money when they already are leading the league in runs scored.

    Comment by walkoffblast — August 25, 2012 @ 1:09 am

  116. Baseball needs salary caps.

    Comment by GG — August 25, 2012 @ 1:16 am

  117. To improve they don’t have to allocate those funds in something great, they just have to allocate them better than what they used to be invested in. The margin for error that can still accomplish that is pretty huge.

    Comment by walkoffblast — August 25, 2012 @ 1:19 am

  118. How are those guys only worth 60 mil over all their contracted years? Gonzalez was worth over 50 mil in his last two full seasons combined.

    Comment by walkoffblast — August 25, 2012 @ 1:25 am

  119. I think the Vernon Wells trade just got trumped and I never thought I’d see a trade dumber than that.

    Comment by Average_Casey — August 25, 2012 @ 1:30 am

  120. Reports have the Dodgers absorbing about $ 260MM in salary of the $ 271.5MM going over.

    Comment by Mike — August 25, 2012 @ 1:45 am

  121. that all being said, we now have a pretty good track record of BoSox thriving outside of Boston in recent years, don’t we?

    I thought the Beckett deal was too much, but the AGon and Crawford deals seemed fair at the time. Why wouldn’t we expect these stars to come closer to their potentials in a friendlier media environment, a friendlier ballpark for lefty hitters, and a presumably more competent coaching staff?

    I mean, we’re all talking about how this trade puts a lot of chips on the table for this year, but aren’t the Dodgers stacked for the next couple of years? In a way that they would not have been if they’d simply pursued FAs in the offseason?

    Comment by Minja — August 25, 2012 @ 1:50 am

  122. “worst draft haul ever”. Wow, that is quite a strong statement. And I’m sure you know that it’s the absolute worst draft hall ever because you went back and reviewed the Twins 1987 and the Athletics 1994 drafts and so on to come up with the conclusive rankings. Personally, I find the Pirates 2004 draft to be the worst ever, but maybe I’m just lower on Brett Grandstand and Brandon Reddinger than most.

    Comment by Michael Scarn — August 25, 2012 @ 2:35 am

  123. I think it comes down to this.. If the Dodgers dont catch the Giants this season..they are screwed for the next several years. This is the push. They better get real hot over the next 30 games or its going to be a huge mistake.

    Go Giants.

    Comment by elooie — August 25, 2012 @ 2:54 am

  124. Wait, the Red Sox were able to shed$270m in contracts no one wanted while acquiring prospects in the process? I mean, A-Gon passed through waivers (meaning all AL teams and NL teams lower than the Dodgers in the standings passed on him)… no?

    Yeah, I didn’t read the piece. I don’t read good.

    Comment by taw — August 25, 2012 @ 3:02 am

  125. Rageon, A.J. Burnett says “hi”.

    Comment by Evan3457 — August 25, 2012 @ 3:07 am

  126. In fairness to Minaya, his trades were OK as a whole. Trading Humber and Carlos Gomez for Johan Santana, with a long term deal negotiated, was universally praised at the time. Mike Jacobs for Delgado was pretty good too. So was Xavier Nady for Oliver Perez and Roberto Hernandez in 2006. Other than than trading away Heath Bell for a bag of donuts, he did ok in trades. Sadly for Mets fans, he was inept in ever other facet of running a franchise.

    Comment by jpg — August 25, 2012 @ 3:15 am

  127. Flags fly forever. The move is financially dumb but it is so alpha that I can’t not support it.

    Comment by Brian — August 25, 2012 @ 3:25 am

  128. Crawford = Utley? Serious?

    Beckett may be = Papelbon; AGon is definitely > Howard, but Utley > Crawford.

    Look at Utley’s WAR over the last few years. Even as he’s missing tons of time, he’s still a very valuable 2B.

    Comment by Phrozen — August 25, 2012 @ 3:50 am

  129. I have an awesome name and should be at 3rd.

    Comment by Xander Bogaerts — August 25, 2012 @ 3:52 am

  130. Hamilton’s not in East Bumfuck, he’s in Dallas. That’s one hell of a media market right there.

    Comment by Phrozen — August 25, 2012 @ 3:57 am

  131. ???

    they’re worth about 130 million. dodgers will pay 260 million.

    Comment by traced — August 25, 2012 @ 4:15 am

  132. it’s never a good deal to pay double free agent price for a win (in this case about 10 million per win). they would have easily been able to match and exceed their increased war from this trade at a cheaper price through bad deals and vast overpays in the offseason. yes, gonzalez/beckett/crawford should positively regress which would put them, on average, as being worth about half their salaries. remember, they’re all past their prime and aging and like every baseball player projects to get worse every year.

    Comment by traced — August 25, 2012 @ 4:23 am

  133. Picking up some tickets for my first game, i also still have a free voucher they hooked me up with earlier this year :) Of course nobody likes it, but as a fan i’m too busy partying over here to care. It’s been 20 years since this team has even appeared in a WS people. New ownership is trying to send a message even if they overpay.

    Comment by DodgersKingsoftheGalaxy — August 25, 2012 @ 4:49 am

  134. I thought the Crawford deal was not so hot at the time, and that wasn’t an uncommon thought. Getting out from under that is a likely win.

    Comment by B N — August 25, 2012 @ 5:38 am

  135. The off-season isn’t now, so I presume part of the value comes from potential value in getting further into the postseason/into the postseason this year.

    I agree on Crawford/Beckett, but not on A-Gon: I don’t think there’s really anyone at 1B with the same WAR A-Gon will put up on the market. Right now, he’s hitting a triple slash of .300/.343/.459, with 15 HRs, despite posting a walk rate almost 5% lower than his career average(5.9 this year vs. 10.7% career) and an .ISO almost .050 less than his career(.169 this year vs. .215 career). He’s probably going to project to about 20 HRs on the year, keeping that rate in tact.

    Filtering the leaderboard to only people with 250+ PAs in 2012, the following players have posted a triple slash of .290/.340/.400 or more and have hit 15 or more HRs:
    Adrian Gonzalez(15 HR, .300/.343/.459, 527 PAs)
    Allen Craig(19 HR, .318/.379/.582, 356 PAs)
    Paul Konerko(21 HR, .316/.386/.519, 453 PAs)
    Prince Fielder(22 HR, .305/.403/.509, 538 PAs)
    Todd Frazier(18 HR, .298/.357/.560, 359 PAs)
    Edwin Encarnacion(33 HR, .293/.388/.569, 518 PAs)
    Paul Goldschmidt(18 HR, 293./.356//.523, 450 PAs)

    Excuse the poor formatting: I don’t know how to use FanGraphs formatting yet, so it’s all hand-done. Other notable players who just missed the cut are Joey Votto(14 HR, .342/.465/.640, 370 PAs) and Mitch Moreland(13 HR, .294/.344/.519, 254 PAs). Albert Pujols should also be mentioned(28 HRs, .283/.350/.533, 526 PAs).

    Obviously, A-Gon is below a fair deal of these guys: Certainly, he is no Joey Votto, but he’s comparable to many of the higher 1B, being 5h in BA, tied for 13th in OBP with Todd Helton and Mitch Moreland despite career lows in BB%, though trending pretty poor in SLG at 16th. He’s also 10th best in K% among his peers, While also doubtful to be useful, given 1B defensive statistics are quite messy, he also has the highest FLD of any 1B at 10.2. The only who comes close is Mark Teixeira at 9.3, as third is Pujols all the way at 5.0. The most comparable comparisons are probably Craig, Goldscmidt and Moreland, with Goldschimdt being the best comparison due to PAs.

    From here, we can infer that A-Gon is still a top end starter, even if he’s not MVP caliber, despite posting career lows in multiple areas by magnitudes: Does anyone really expect him to not progress from a 5.9% BB% at all? Many things degrade with age, but plate discipline generally declines slower to my knowledge. And .169 ISO compared to .215 on his career is so low that unless he is heading to an absolutely catastrophic breakdown it will probably rebound some: Let’s keep it low and say he still underperforms his ISO by a fair deal and gives out a .180 ISO. Let’s also say his BB% rate barely improves, to 7.0% on the nose. He’ll probably put up a slash line of around .300/.350/.470, which is certainly above league average, with 20 HR or so if we assume his HR rate stays the same. This seems to be a reasonable regression of his career line of .294/.372/.509. This also assumes his BB% stays almost 4% under his career and his .ISO a good .035 under his career.

    However, there is another point to consider: Park factors. According to the ones avalibile on FanGraphs, the Dodgers are 13th in terms of giving HRs to lefties like A-Gon, compared to 25th for Fenway, giving him a nice little HR-based advantage there. Having to play at Petco(30th) and AT&T(26th) is counterbalanced by playing at the Rockies(4th) and Diamondbacks(14th), while he loses the Rays(20th), Yankees(1st) and Orioles(3rd). So his home HR goes up some, his away goes down some, with the home probably a bit more important due to a larger amount of games played there. Sox/Dodgers basically give away the same in Singles, with the Sox having more doubles due to the Green Monster. In short, he could see a slight power increase from that.

    And the final point I have to make…where else are they going to get a 1B for a 3 year run? None of the guys who are comparitive in slash line and HRs seems avalibile and I can’t tnink of anyone off the top of my head who is avalibile in 2013 who is comparable at 1B(Which is where they need someone, to get rid of James Loney forever). According to Basbeall Prospectus, 1B with expiring contracts and FA time are Travis Hafner, Carlos Lee, Adam LaRoche, James Loney, Aubrey Huff and Ty Wigginton…and all of them except for Loney and Lee have options for 2014. Unless they could find someone else selling, then who are they going to get in the offseason exactly?

    Beckett is bad deal. Punto is a good but ultimately insignificant deal. Crawford is a high risk, high reward deal. A-Gon is a key deal that even if he only keeps up production similiar to this year’s is a huge improvement upon what they currently have and one appears to be avalibile on the free market. The Dodgers are setting themselves up for about a 3 year run: A-Gon should stay good enough during that time to make it worth it, probably starting to drop off during the third year and being totally A-Gone by the 5th.

    Comment by Ruki Motomiya — August 25, 2012 @ 6:13 am

  136. Cody Ross would seem a plausible free agency target.

    Comment by Sam Samson — August 25, 2012 @ 6:56 am

  137. Assuming that just makes you an ass.

    Comment by twinchilifrog — August 25, 2012 @ 7:21 am

  138. Teams only tend to claim if they are realistically interested in acquiring the player. I’m guessing it’s normal practice to make contact to establish what the waiving team would want and not to claim if you are not going to agree a deal.

    Comment by Simon — August 25, 2012 @ 8:42 am

  139. It isn’t really, is it? It’s a package deal – it’s all of them or none of them, and the Dodgers decided all of them were worth having. Beckett will be an overpaid but serviceable starter for the Dodgers, so it’s hardly a big disaster for them to have to take him for a couple of years.

    Comment by Simon — August 25, 2012 @ 8:55 am

  140. @JimNYC – As for the “he’ll be followed for the paparazzi like Derek Jeter” argument, I don’t buy for a second that anyone who doesn’t want to be covered to that extent actually will. I don’t remember a whole bunch of “you won’t believe who Manny Ramirez was spotted with!!” stories. ARod and Jeter get the attention they want.

    @Evan3457 – if you’re on Fangraphs, you know that one example proves very little.

    @Phrozen – in fact Dallas is a bigger market than Boston

    Comment by rageon — August 25, 2012 @ 8:59 am

  141. Of course Beckett’s going to benefit from the league change. He’ll no longer face the dh and will face pitchers instead. Instead of playing the Yankees and the rest of the

    Comment by chuckb — August 25, 2012 @ 9:09 am

  142. Instead of facing the Yankees and the rest of the AL he’s going to face the Padres and Rockies and the rest of the weaker league. He may not pitch any better but his results will appear better and people who don’t know any better will say, “Boy, Beckett has really benefited from the change in scenery.

    I really wish I could edit my posts here.

    Comment by chuckb — August 25, 2012 @ 9:13 am

  143. I may be off base, but with LA renegotiating their TV contract, a trade like this could add huge dollars to that deal. When they go in to negotiate they are basicaly proving to Fox (or who ever) that they are willing to do whatever it takes to put a winner on the field. It is the equivilant of emphatically saying “We are the west coast Yankees and our TV deal will need to be comparable.”

    If nothing else, I would expect the added TV dollars they generate from this trade will make the financial investment a wash, while energizing the fan base.

    Comment by Joel — August 25, 2012 @ 10:50 am

  144. And that message is “we will help the rest of the NL West compete with us by squandering our massive revenue advantage.”

    Comment by John R. — August 25, 2012 @ 10:54 am

  145. I know I’m in the minority here, but I think, on paper, it’s a terrible deal for the Red Sox. I’m reminded of a Civil War anecdote, when a Congressman pestered Lincoln to sack his commander-in-chief, George McClellan. “Who should I replace him with?” asked Lincoln. “Anybody!” said the frustrated politician. “But I can’t replace him with anybody,” said Lincoln, “I have to replace him with somebody.”

    I’m not terribly impressed with the prospects: you have a couple of likely lively bullpen arms and a couple of utility players. Nice role pieces for a championship team, but hardly a core. The Sox system, outside of Matt Barnes, looks very shallow in arms. Boston will be fortunate if one of the Dodger prospect pitchers ever matches Beckett’s 2012 WAR of 1.2.

    Of course, most are touting Boston’s salary dump. Cameron mentioned $268M in saved contract money, writing “The Red Sox shouldn’t have too many problems replacing the lost production for $262 million.” Really? Who exactly can they sign for $268M to replace the production? Josh Hamilton? A 31-year-old injury-prone poor defensive center fielder with a history of drug abuse? Zack Greinke? The owner of a career 113 ERA+ and someone who said he wouldn’t be comfortable pitching in a big city?

    When you spend on the FA market you pay premium dollars at the tail end of an expiring contract. There’s no “good” FA signing. You have to waste dollars to get production now. That was the whole brilliance behind the Gonzo acquisition and signing. The Sox got him earlier, and minimized the wasted dollars at the end of the contract. Sure, the Sox “overpaid” on his contract, but last year he had a career-best 6.6 WAR. Sign me onto the list of folks who believe Gonzo’s having a down year — with a 2.7 WAR so far — and will likely return to form next year. Who’s going to replace that lost 5 WAR a year for the Red Sox?

    I wish I could be as optimistic as some others here who see the Sox playoff bound in 3 or 4 years, but I don’t see a core of prospects who’ll take them there. Pedroia is playing old. Ellsbury — if he were smart — will be headed out of town as soon as he can. Will Lester and Buchholz ever be the same? I don’t see Middlebrooks as anything but a barely passable hitter until he learns plate discipline. Bogaerts, Jacobs, Barnes et al are nice prospects — but there are no guarantees with prospects.

    It’s nice the Sox saved $268M in contracts. But as far as I can tell, it’s just going into the pockets of ownership. Or maybe to Liverpool. Boston dismantled a team that had playoff potential — if augmented with some arms — and embraced mediocrity for the foreseeable future.

    Comment by Jay Stevens — August 25, 2012 @ 11:09 am

  146. Muhlenberg is a billionaire investor, I am sure he knows the risk-reward of this deal.
    To @Jonathan-the Dodgers have pitching prospects, two of which were included in the deal to the Red Sox. So how is there farm system non-existent?

    and how would the LAD have done better spending on free agents this offseason? Josh Hamilton and Zack Greinke are the only two worth spending money on this year.

    Comment by Ray Guilfoyle — August 25, 2012 @ 11:14 am

  147. +1 I couldn’t agree more Jay.

    I’d like to know where the Red Sox are going to spend their new-found riches. Please do tell in this free agent market.

    Comment by Ray Guilfoyle — August 25, 2012 @ 11:17 am

  148. How quickly you forget Phillips, Sizemore, and Lee for Bartolo Colon.

    Comment by Well-Beered Englishman — August 25, 2012 @ 11:22 am

  149. Dallas is a bigger market, but that’s not really the point. It’d kind of comparable of Hamilton played for the Cowboys. The point is that in Boston, the local baseball media is more pervasive and they lack an sense of journalistic integrity, and the fan-base cares about that kind of stuff.

    Comment by Al — August 25, 2012 @ 11:24 am

  150. screwed for the next several years? with this lineup:


    sounds like NL teams will have a tough time getting through that lineup.

    Comment by Ray Guilfoyle — August 25, 2012 @ 11:40 am

  151. how insightful twinchilifrog

    Comment by Ray Guilfoyle — August 25, 2012 @ 11:41 am

  152. I think it is funny how people are ridiculing the Dodgers for this deal. Stan Kasten has built two very successful teams in his career. Did he forget how to run a baseball team once he moved to LA?

    Comment by Ray Guilfoyle — August 25, 2012 @ 11:44 am

  153. I know it’s impossible to look past the MONEY, but the new owners understand that they are paying for more than just on-field production. The last few years of the McCourt era killed the spirit of the loyal fans. The team was horrible, the stadium atmosphere unsafe and the knowledge that the owners were squandering excessive amounts of money on themselves gave us no hope. The deal can be fairly criticized as a financial bust, but bottom line the team on the field is better today and more importantly, Dodger fans are back on board. If you live outside of the LA area, I don’t think you can truly understand that part of the deal.

    Comment by DBlue9 — August 25, 2012 @ 12:02 pm

  154. Yeah Carl Crawford and Josh Beckett really increase their chances of winning the 2012 World Series.

    Comment by Tim — August 25, 2012 @ 12:19 pm

  155. “Pedroia is playing old.”

    What does this even mean. This is just a way of you saying, “He’s having a down year” but trying to dress it up with some meaningless cliche to make it sound profound. Go post on the Herald forums.

    Comment by Tim — August 25, 2012 @ 12:22 pm

  156. “It’s nice the Sox saved $268M in contracts. But as far as I can tell, it’s just going into the pockets of ownership. Or maybe to Liverpool. ”

    Right, because clearly they have a history of not investing funds back into the team.

    Why can’t people just make honest arguments? It’s fine if you’re not optimistic about the future, just stop saying dumb, reactionary things.

    Comment by Tim — August 25, 2012 @ 12:26 pm

  157. @Jonathan

    I’ll argue two points.

    One, you overstate Hanley’s issues. His “regression” is no more likely to be regression at an oddly young age than it is to be injury-related. If the injuries have subsided (he’s been pretty good the last fifteen minutes), I have trouble seeing how you can write him off so easily.

    Two, the Dodger farm system is non-existent, the Dodgers minor league pitching depth is non-existent. Under the new ownership, the Dodger minor league hitting depth has significantly improved, and little in this trade detracted from those improvements (de Jesus was not a legitimate prospect and Sands’ ceiling is realistically below that of a starter).

    The minor league pitching depth has been diminished. The new ownership has seemed more keen on adding major league pitching, for now.

    Comment by The Foils — August 25, 2012 @ 12:29 pm

  158. Why don’t you discuss the deal specially on it’s merits instead of resorting to some dude’s reputation.

    Under this logic there is literally no move the Dodgers could make that you would criticize.

    Comment by Jake — August 25, 2012 @ 12:30 pm

  159. So you’re saying the fans are dumb, and thus pacifying them with a quick fix which could easily blow up in their face is preferable to building smartly for long term success?

    Comment by Koof — August 25, 2012 @ 12:35 pm

  160. “Muhlenberg is a billionaire investor, I am sure he knows the risk-reward of this deal.”

    How do people actually type things like this without punching themselves in the face?

    Comment by Koof — August 25, 2012 @ 12:37 pm

  161. I’m sure they’ve got a fine amount of money to spend, given the quality of this FA class.

    Comment by Ruki Motomiya — August 25, 2012 @ 12:44 pm

  162. I still like the deal, but Crawford isn’t THAT great to bring up: He’s high risk, high reward.

    Comment by Ruki Motomiya — August 25, 2012 @ 12:46 pm

  163. The Dodgers salary commitments are already close to $200M for next season and nearly that for several more years.
    They’ll have to outspend the Yankees significantly to handle all the minimum salaries, arbitrations and remaining gaps.

    Comment by Baltar — August 25, 2012 @ 12:52 pm

  164. Here’s a question I wanted to ask everyone who is disliking this deal for the Dodgers: What do they do at 1B for this year and next year, when they are pretty clearly building for a short run(Cliff Lee for example), when the FA class for 1B is garbage and there are probably no other traders? To my knowledge, they have no notable 1B prospects that will bombshell it out, either: Do they just let 1B languish with James Loney? Who else do they trade for? And why is A-Gon such a bad deal when he’s hitting a .300/.343/.459 slash with 15 HRs, despite career low numbers in BB% that even if he is declining virtually have to bounce back some?

    Comment by Ruki Motomiya — August 25, 2012 @ 12:52 pm

  165. nik, how would you know what happens at parties?

    Comment by Baltar — August 25, 2012 @ 12:54 pm

  166. Why can’t people just make honest arguments? It’s fine if you’re not optimistic about the future, just stop saying dumb, reactionary things.

    Amen! Speaking of which…so, what would you invest the $268M in? Love to hear an honest argument.

    Comment by Jay Stevens — August 25, 2012 @ 12:54 pm

  167. Well, considering A-Gon is putting up good numbers despite career lows, they’re in a playoff hunt, the team is already being built for the short run via acquisitions like Cliff Lee(presumably to make the most out of Kemp/Ethier/Kershaw’s years), when their first basemen is James Loney, on a team that appears to be looking for a Yankee-esque payroll…

    Comment by Ruki Motomiya — August 25, 2012 @ 12:55 pm

  168. By that, I meant his frequency of injury — tho’ he often plays through them — is increasing. Players who get hurt tend to get hurt more often in the future. I could be wrong — everybody’s different — but I’m reminded of Chase Utley. You think Pedroia, realistically, will still be playing MVP-caliber baseball in four years when the Red Sox will supposedly be ready for the playoffs?

    Comment by Jay Stevens — August 25, 2012 @ 1:00 pm

  169. uh no…thanks for putting words in my mouth. I think we’re happy that the owners are willing and able to take the risk of making the team better, despite the fact that they have to spend crazy amounts of cash. I doubt Gonzalez would have been available unless the Dodgers were willing to absorb Beckett and Crawford’s bad contracts. There aren’t any upper tier 1B in the upcoming FA market and watching Loney flail away wasn’t going to cut it any more. I understand the win from Boston’s point of view and the risk of watching De La Rosa and Webster flourish in the AL, but after years of mediocre journeyman acquisitions, it’s nice to get an upper-tier player on the roster. The worst part of this deal is that it probably means we’re still stuck with Ned…

    Comment by Dblue9 — August 25, 2012 @ 1:01 pm

  170. Sands is actually a pretty good corner outfielder and has a very strong arm. The issue with him is if he can hit major league pitching. He has been given one sustained shot so far, but it wasn’t enough to know for sure.

    Comment by Lex — August 25, 2012 @ 1:08 pm

  171. Lol then LOOGY out of nowhere. Bye Ethier and Craw.

    Comment by Wat — August 25, 2012 @ 1:09 pm

  172. I’m a Giants fan and it scares me that the Dodgers (or any team in the division) even has the money to consider this.

    Comment by Deelron — August 25, 2012 @ 1:13 pm

  173. Why did I say Cliff Lee? All that happened was rumors with that. I don’t even know why I said that.

    There’s other examples I’ll cite instead since that was a pants on head retarded one. Hanley Ramirez, for example.

    Comment by Ruki Motomiya — August 25, 2012 @ 1:14 pm

  174. To shed all of that salary and two arms with the upside of De La Rosa and Webster is a good deal. If Sands turns out to be anything decent then it’s great.

    That being said, the Dodgers, while overpaying (consciously) now have the best middle of the order in their division, if not the whole NL. This nonsense about AGon and Hanley being in decline is just that. Anyone who has watched Hanley with the Dodgers knows he is still a force. Gonzalez had a few bad months but is essentially the player he always has been, and is 30, not 35. Beckett was great last year, shit this year, and I have no idea what the reason is. I’m not a fan of his, but moving to the NL west does often help pitchers (though AZ, and SF both have better lineups these days). Crawford is a terrible contract, but if he he returns to form, for a team that doesn’t care about money, it’s a solid guy to have in LF. IF he returns to form.

    Comment by Lex — August 25, 2012 @ 1:16 pm

  175. Because the Sox signed Adrian Gonzalez and Pedro Martinez and Curt Schilling as free agents.

    The 2013 FA market may suck, but that doesn’t mean the team can’t use some of the minor league assets it already had (and some of the ones they just got in this trade) to acquire MLB talent. There’s also no reason they have to spend the money all at once, and make some gambles the way they did in 2003 and 2004 on guys like Liriano to see if they can get some value.

    Beckett wasn’t worth his salary, and neither was Crawford. 1B is not that hard a position to fill in the grand scheme of things. The short sightedness being displayed is just staggering.

    Comment by Sean O'Neill — August 25, 2012 @ 1:19 pm

  176. Muhlenberg for all we know doesn’t know his ass from his elbow when it comes to evaluating MLB talent.

    The Dodgers didn’t have to go out and acquire the best FAs; they could’ve tried to pry some veteran guys from another team without having to choose only what got through waivers. This was a stupid, shortsighted trade. I’m not sure how one can come to any other conclusion here.

    Comment by Sean O'Neill — August 25, 2012 @ 1:22 pm

  177. There’s plenty they could have tried at 1B. They could’ve given Sands a chance. They could have made a move for Morneau after the season. They could sign Kendry Morales as a free agent. They could try and trade for one of the Cardinals’ blocked 1B prospects (Adams or Carpenter).

    There were a lot of options out there if the Dodgers were willing to be patient. They weren’t, and that impatience cost them their financial flexibility going forward and most of the remaining minor league chips they had left.

    Comment by Sean O'Neill — August 25, 2012 @ 1:25 pm

  178. I know that as a Dodger fan this deal is supposed to make me disappointed, but I can’t help but feel overwhelmed with excitement.

    Comment by Bip — August 25, 2012 @ 1:29 pm

  179. Given that 268 million is spread over the next 5 years, there’s no reason the Sox have to go spending it all at once. They have financial flexibility for the first time in years, they have a nice crop of prospects and minimum salaried MLB assets that they could bundle for some veterans…they can go in whatever direction they want. This time yesterday, the Sox were stuck with no flexibility, shitty chemistry, and a team going nowhere.

    The fact that people are complaining about the Sox saving money is just…idiotic. Would you be happier if the Sox had to pay 50-60+million to the Dodgers to get them to take Crawford and Beckett’s overpaid contracts off their hands? Because that’s what everyone expected would be the case.

    Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth.

    Comment by Sean O'Neill — August 25, 2012 @ 1:30 pm

  180. Kendrys Morales is only arbitration eligible next year: Definitely no sure thing he’s even avalibile. Morneau isn’t a free agent until 2014, so he cannot be, as I said, run out “this year and next year”: Waiting two years is bad when you’re on a plan that requires quickness. Prospects are all far more dicey than proven players, which is again bad when you are on a plan which requires you do good before 2015 or so: Those prospects experience any growing pains or setbacks that keep them from being callups quickly and you’re shit out of luck and your investments on Ramirez, Kemp and Ethier are shot.

    Comment by Ruki Motomiya — August 25, 2012 @ 1:36 pm

  181. I strongly disagree.
    Remove all the caps/penalties for MLB FA, foreign FA and drafted players (also eliminate the draft).
    Put in place a meaningful revenue-sharing plan, something like a sharply progressive positive and negative income tax, to lessen (not completely eliminate) the revenue gap, and let every team decide how much they are going to spend for what or whom.
    Even the rich teams should favor this, as it is in their enlightened self-interest for the poorer teams to have a chance of being competitive.

    Comment by Baltar — August 25, 2012 @ 1:36 pm

  182. Despite the fact I think the Dodgers got a good deal, I do agree with the general sentiment that the Red Sox also got a good deal: The prospects aren’t the best(But then again, I don’t like Rubby much), but the financial flexibility is good. The only person they’ll miss is A-Gon, which I think they will miss more than they know…but sometimes sacrifices need to be made, you know? It’s a win-win.

    Comment by Ruki Motomiya — August 25, 2012 @ 1:40 pm

  183. You know that thing the Dodgers just did, a “trade”, to get their new 1B? They could have done that same “trade” thing in the offseason to get a guy like Morales or Morneau…and the cost would probably have been a lot lower. To reiterate it again, the Dodgers just wildly overpaid for this year at the sake of their future…and they have no guarantee of even making the playoffs.

    Comment by Sean O'Neill — August 25, 2012 @ 1:40 pm

  184. Lincoln eventually replaced him with Grant and Grant won the war in short order.
    Doesn’t that kind of ruin your analogy (which was a poor one to begin with)?

    Comment by Baltar — August 25, 2012 @ 1:40 pm

  185. so, while i get that boston is a winner here in that if you’re going to be a 4th place team, you might as well not pay for 1st place talent.

    however, i struggle to see boston being able to improve *that* much in the next 2 years (especially relative to the rest of the division) without doing exactly the same thing what led them down this road–trade stud prospects for stud major leaguers and give outsized contracts to speedy 30 y/o OFs and decent but expensive starters.

    what am i missing?

    Comment by jcxy — August 25, 2012 @ 1:44 pm

  186. I don’t think that Morneau or Morales were on the block, for the simple fact that they very easily could have tried to trade for them…and it doesn’t make any sense for Morales to be traded, in my opinion. Twins probably figure they’ll get an extra year of Morneau and trade him at the deadline next year.

    This is ignoring the fact Morneau has been a poorer player his entire career and that he has shown more consistant decline than Gonzalez has: Two years of BB% and .ISO regression, higher K%, a worse slash line than Adrian with minimal other gains, an extra year of age and a lower career average in virtually every area, plus a far more severe split against lefties than A-Gon(Morneau is .216 vs. Lefties this year, A-Gon is .302). In addition if Morneau does good, they either have to resign him to a likely even more albatross of a contract due to it running out midway through or release him the last year.

    So considering that Morneau is a poorer player in every way, a year older and not much better of a contract option, I don’t see why Morneau is at all a better deal.

    Morales only one year younger, has a poorer slash line in A-Gon’s worst year, has a poorer .ISO, has a poorer career walk rate, lower averages across the board his career, HR numbers are similiar this year and is also only hitting .224 against lefties.

    So trading for two inferior options whose benefits are lacking in what they are going for doesn’t seem like it makes much sense in the first place, does it?

    Comment by Ruki Motomiya — August 25, 2012 @ 1:54 pm

  187. Yeah, if you think the manager is the problem, you don’t really understand baseball very well.

    Comment by djw — August 25, 2012 @ 1:58 pm

  188. Also, the playoff percentage arguement is silly: Baseball Prospectus gives them a 34.4% to make the playoffs, by far not an insignificant number, and can be used in pretty much any case where the odds aren’t absurd.

    At what percentage must you wait to buy and improve the team? And at what point do you overpay some for talent now before people you already have signed to albatross contracts, like Kemp and Ethier, get old?

    Comment by Ruki Motomiya — August 25, 2012 @ 2:04 pm

  189. Hm, wait, actually not sure I got the right number…time to look around more. The general point still stands, though if the number is low enough then you have a valid enough arguement there.

    Comment by Ruki Motomiya — August 25, 2012 @ 2:06 pm

  190. Morneau has actually been pretty good since the AS break (.851 OPS), is cheaper than Gonzalez, and would be cheaper to acquire (I imagine the Twins would’ve traded him for a guy like Webster without blinking, and that would’ve been an overpay). Despite your reservation over the length of his contract, I’d actually posit the complete opposite: his shorter contract is much more attractive. Gonzalez is going to be paid over 20 million annually into his mid 30s compared to Morneau who has one year left on his deal and likely won’t command much more than a 2 year deal after that given his injury history. If you go after a guy like Morneau instead, you still have tens of millions to use in FA so you can pursue a guy like Hamilton instead of being stuck with Crawford, you have multiple trade chips that you can use to fill other holes (maybe using Webster and/or de la Rosa to go after a young pitcher, instead of a declining, overpaid veteran like Beckett)…it’s just a much better allocation of resources.

    It’s simply a matter of resource allocation. This was not a wise allocation of resources, no matter how you spin it. The salary and prospects the Dodgers give up could have been better used in other ways had they simply had the patience to wait. They didn’t, and now they’ve made a quarter billion dollar bed they’re going to have to lie in.

    Comment by Sean O'Neill — August 25, 2012 @ 2:12 pm

  191. Since no edits…ESPN has the Dodgers at 33.6%, that’s pretty much the same as the other, and Google hasn’t been too much more help, sooo…

    Comment by Ruki Motomiya — August 25, 2012 @ 2:15 pm

  192. The Sox have a huge amount of payroll flexibility to go along with a strong crop of talent coming up the system (Barnes, Bogaerts, Bradley Jr., Webster, Sands, de la Rosa, Iglesias, Brentz, Lavarnaway, etc). They are well positioned to build the way a team like the Rangers have done it: build through your farm, then supplement that core with FAs and trades.

    It may take a year, but the Sox’s future is a lot brighter today than it was yesterday.

    Comment by Sean O'Neill — August 25, 2012 @ 2:16 pm

  193. Step 1: Misquote a well-known proverb.
    Step 2: Insult person for straightforwardly pointing out the error.
    Step 3: Sit back and wait for others to offer mockery in response to Step 2.

    Comment by WY — August 25, 2012 @ 2:32 pm

  194. I doubt Middlebrooks will hit enough to play 1B for a contending team.

    Comment by WY — August 25, 2012 @ 2:34 pm

  195. Agreed with the example about Hamilton playing for the Cowboys as opposed to any other local team. Ask guys like Dez Bryant who cant take a piss without it being news. The Rangers are loved by local fans and media. They are not obsessed over like the Cowboys are and like the BoSox are in the NEw England area. However if they wanna moneywhip him i am certain Texas will throw him the deuces and look at a guy like Justin Upton to replace him

    Comment by Aggie E — August 25, 2012 @ 2:35 pm

  196. Its gonna take more than 5/120 when guys like Werth and Crawford got more. I imagine some team will pay him 6/175 or maybe more. Thats why I dont think he has more than a 5% chance of staying in Texas…

    Comment by Aggie E — August 25, 2012 @ 2:37 pm

  197. The playoffs question is basically a game theory question, but we don’t know the real value of some of the variables so it’s hard to pin down numbers (i.e. we don’t know the marginal revenue of making the playoffs, so we can’t pin down the real marginal benefit there). The answer also depends on how risk averse you are; if you’re very risk averse, you probably don’t want to “buy” in that situation unless the marginal benefit (playoff revenue and the other revenue increases associated with playoff success) is substantially greater than the marginal cost (added salary and the value of the pieces you’re giving up).

    In this case, the marginal cost is very high. The Dodgers are absorbing an unprecedented amount of salary and giving up multiple cost controlled pieces (and thus, the surplus value tied to those pieces). Now, you can discount some of that cost because it’s future costs, so the increased salary and surplus value get a bit of a markdown. You may even talk yourself into discounting it even further, under the theory that none of the cost controlled pieces may pan out, so you may not be giving up any surplus value there. Of course, you can’t discount it to zero, because those were valuable assets, so there is a real opportunity cost involved in giving them up. Moreover, the salary you’ve added also greatly increases the chances of going over the luxury tax going forward, which has become more expensive thanks to the new CBA, so you have to also factor in that future cost going forward. Overall then, you’re talking about a large marginal cost, but one that’s largely in the future, so you can discount it compared to present day benefits.

    For it to be worthwhile then, you’d need playoff revenue and the revenue it generates going forward (which you have to discount) to be greater than those costs. Guys like Kemp and Ethier don’t really figure into the analysis because those are sunk costs; you don’t want to dig a deeper hole just because you’re already in one.

    In essence, for this deal to make sense for the Dodgers, they have to have major playoff success because that’s the only way the increased revenue side of the equation has any way of equaling the costs. Even if this deal bumps them to a 66% chance of making the playoff, and even if they make it, they still risk the chance of going one and out, in which case I don’t think the additional revenue is going to come close to being high enough to offset the costs they incurred in the process. The playoffs by themselves aren’t enough. Given the costs incurred, the Dodgers basically have to win the World Series for this deal to make sense.

    Comment by Sean O'Neill — August 25, 2012 @ 2:39 pm

  198. I’ll give you the bit about Morneau post All-Star break. He has indeed performed very well and thus is probably a better pick at this very moment. I don’t think the injury arguement is a good one, though: If he stays healthy this year and into the next, he probably gets a decent chunk contract from a team because he has stayed healthy long enough. And if he doesn’t…well, having your starting 1B out during your limited playoff window sucks, doesn’t it? I also honestly am not sure they would trade Morneau for Webster right now, on the basis of the year remaining on his contract offering more possibilities if he continues to perform post All-Star break into the end of the year. Not sure how Rubby can be used to get any pitcher worth much unless he’s paired with a lot more…

    Pursuining Hamilton doesn’t seem like a big deal for me. He’ll get a huge contract, especially since he seems to be having a career year (though ofc he has off the field issues, so maybe it’s a wash…), will probably go pretty long. Morneau is admittedly a good option, but the better use of resources seems to be massively overstated. The Dodgers are laying in a giant payroll bed in three years or so no matter what. While I definitely would agree this isn’t the BEST TRADE EVAAAAAR or anything(and I hope I did not imply I did), I think that it improved their most problematic area in the time they needed to strike. It’s overpaying, but it’s overpaying when all your talent you already had is in do or die time. The consistancy of A-Gon or the injury history of Morneau and Hamilton’s extremely high contract and any other potential issues?

    I dunno, I’m no expert, but I say going A-Gon gives enough of a boost to make it worth it.

    Comment by Ruki Motomiya — August 25, 2012 @ 2:45 pm

  199. You guys realize that the prospects that Boston got are not that great, right? All these prospects have been waay overhyped, and you would be able to tell if you actually watched them play. RDLR has durability problems, so probably good closer but not SP in LR. Allen Webster has a #2 starter ceiling, but has major consistency problems, more realistically a #4-5 if you simulated his line a million times. Jerry Sands doesn’t know how to hit a curveball, and has shown that every single call-up. Him and Ivan DeJesus are bench players at best. Not quite a salary dump, but kinda is.

    The monies assumed is more troublesome for Dodgers, but makes sense for the current ownership’s objectives. TV rights in the LA market were expected to hit $10 bln before the trade. Add a couple playoff / WS appearances, that is likely to inflate up to $15-20 bln, esp given the hype the trade’s getting in LA. So spending $200 mln next year, $150 mln cpl years after is not really much for an additional $5-10 bln over the next 10-20 years.

    Comment by lasordid — August 25, 2012 @ 2:47 pm

  200. uhhh… don’t know about Webster, but might have to agree with you on de la rosa. he’s always been on a tight lease on IP by dodgers last couple years, and still blew out his arm. needs to adjust that delivery if he’s going to have a career starting.

    Comment by Gip — August 25, 2012 @ 2:52 pm

  201. Well, with 25 million as the low point(Playoffs, a wildcard win and then exit or first round exit) to 75 million+(WS win), it seems like that would offset a pretty solid chunk of the contract stuff.

    Something I wonder, does the fact they may be upping the payroll they look to spend matter any? Assuming they are going for a payroll similiar to but less than the Yankees, does that change the equation, or…?

    Unfortunately, I’ve gotta go now and I’ll be gone a while, but I think it’s been really fun chatting with you about this. Thanks. :) If you wanna answer, I’ll try to back to you when I can.

    Comment by Ruki Motomiya — August 25, 2012 @ 2:53 pm

  202. Yeah you could leverage those tv rights pretty easily. Guggenheim is probably going to exit in 5-10 years, typical exit for most of their investments.

    Comment by Maddoff — August 25, 2012 @ 2:56 pm

  203. The Sox’s acquired a nearly 60 year old Ivan De Jesus?

    Comment by Justin — August 25, 2012 @ 2:57 pm

  204. See, but that’s my problem–what is the payroll flexibility buying if not (slightly) younger versions of Agon, Crawford, and Lackey? If the Sox flex their payroll muscle and get Hamilton or Bourn, Greinke, and someone else (or re-up Ellsbury)…why should we expect a different result from this same process?

    And while I’m sympathetic to your point that the prospect haul from the dodgers is good–it is–comparing their farm system to that of the rangers feels a little off, especially in terms of impact talent in both the high and low minors. I suspect most would rate the young talent/minors system on the better side of average, but certainly not in the discussion for top 5.

    Am I just expecting too much from a (traditionally) well run team with a huge payroll? Is the “window” for this current group shut?

    Comment by jcxy — August 25, 2012 @ 3:00 pm

  205. I will admit I am not acknowledging the money as much as I should..but they have a terrible track record of free agent signings. as far as the players in return..the blew it. they could only deal with the dodgers. its not like they could leverage their offer against another team. If they wanted to make a deal they shouldve waited til the off season. I guess they value the money more than the players. I will agree that the current version of the red sox wasnt working..but its only because players were underperforming. my biggest problem with the sox was that they were under acheivers. I guess you cant have it both ways…I just hate to give up all that “talent” and not get any immediate return on it. my lack of faith in the front office is also effecting my feelings

    Comment by nick — August 25, 2012 @ 4:01 pm

  206. they now have the money (as well as the need) to sign ellsbury. I also assume this means ortiz gets his money as well since they will be desperate for bats. They also serve a dual purpose as fan favorites and keep the pink hats at bay..
    i really dont like anyone on the free agent market. Hamilton + Boston media = bad news if you ask me…same goes for grienke and his anxiety issues

    Comment by nick — August 25, 2012 @ 4:05 pm

  207. Agreed, I just dont see how you trade a franchise player (as well as the talent of crawford and beckett when they are “right”)and not get a top blue chip prospect in return. Webster struggled in AA and dela rosa hasnt exactly lit the NL west on to the sox expect them to deal with the AL East?

    Comment by nick — August 25, 2012 @ 4:10 pm

  208. Beckett shouldnt be taken lightly, no reason he cant pull a Burnett

    Comment by Uncle Remus — August 25, 2012 @ 4:10 pm

  209. It wasn’t an analogy. It was a quote. Still, the Sox do have to replace Gonzo with somebody.

    Comment by Jay Stevens — August 25, 2012 @ 4:16 pm

  210. Webster hasn’t struggled in AA, and de la Rosa was pitching tremendously for a rookie until he got hurt. They are both talented (and I’m a Sands fan as well). That said, the Sox should feel thrilled to get any young talent back given the massive amount of salary they dumped. Adrian Gonzalez might be worth his contract; frankly, I’m not sure I’d want to pay him over 20 million for his age 35 or age 36 seasons. Crawford absolutely isn’t, and that contract is only going to get worse as he gets older. Beckett may rebound a bit in the NL, and he was underperforming his peripherals, but he’s still not the pitcher he once was.

    Prior to this trade, most people assumed the Sox would have to eat ~20 million of Beckett’s deal to trade him, and no one even estimated how much of Crawford’s deal would have to be absorbed (my guess prior to this trade was around ~50 million). Instead, the Sox are basically paying 0. In essence, the Sox got multiple interesting pieces in exchange for Adrian Gonzalez…and dumped two terrible contracts for free. This deal is probably a win for the Sox even without the minor leaguers. With them, it’s a coup.

    Comment by Sean O'Neill — August 25, 2012 @ 4:29 pm

  211. Webster is 12-11 with an era around 4.00 with k/9 of about 8 and bb/9 of about 4…Im sure the yankees are trembling in their boots. From what I read best case senario is Derek Lowe. and while I didnt see De La Rosa his rookie year..his numbers dont wow me. Sands hasnt shown any thing in the im not big on him either. I guess its better they got something in return. Its obvious the dodgers had the cash to take the contracts..i wonder if thye tried to just absorb the money and keep their prospects.

    Comment by nick — August 25, 2012 @ 4:37 pm

  212. Step 4: Profit.

    Comment by I Agree Guy — August 25, 2012 @ 5:23 pm

  213. “Ruki Motomiya”

    Are you seriously suggesting that trading for 200+m of debt in order to get Adrian Gonzalez was something the Dodgers HAD to do?

    Comment by Nick — August 25, 2012 @ 5:24 pm

  214. Yea, I mean… Hamilton’s personality is just perfect fit for the LA market. The area’s well known for its upstanding citizens. The friends he’d make in the area would surely be better than the support system he’s built up in Texas.

    Comment by Slava — August 25, 2012 @ 5:25 pm

  215. I really don’t think A-Gonz is worth that much more than what you could get out of platooning Morneau with a lefty killer (Sands? Wigginton?).

    Comment by theeiffeltower — August 25, 2012 @ 6:28 pm

  216. So owners can make unlimited profits and we face a strike/lockout prospect every 5-10 years?

    A lot of good salary caps have done for the fan experience in the NFL.

    Comment by Joe R — August 25, 2012 @ 6:37 pm

  217. Hahahahhahaha @ honestly thinking john Henry is more interested in Liverpool than the red sox.

    Liverpool is a cash cow for him, plain and simple. He makes a big deal, the media in merseyside go bonkers in joy, they play mediocre, repeat.

    Comment by Joe R — August 25, 2012 @ 6:42 pm

  218. The sox don’t have unlimited payroll.

    When you’re tying up 70M a year on 5 total WAR, it makes it real tough to be competitive.

    “A slightly younger, slightly worse A-Gon” at a much lower cost, is a more valuable asset.

    Comment by RC — August 25, 2012 @ 7:18 pm

  219. And Beckett is 5-11 with a 5.23 ERA and a K/9 of about 6 and a BB/9 of about 3.

    I’m sure the NL is quaking in their boots.

    They’re not great prospects, but they may actually have a good chance of outperforming what the dodgers got for them. Frankly, I think this was a good deal even without the Sox getting prospects back.

    Comment by RC — August 25, 2012 @ 7:21 pm

  220. In Minaya’s defense…what’s the point of keeping any prospect when the League is very seriously considering contracting you?

    I’m and Expos/Nats fan and was less than excited about this trade, and Minaya in general…but I think a little bit of perspective is fair. I was more upset with the El Duque, Rocky Biddle, Jeff Liefer return on Colon just a few months later. FAR less defensible.

    Comment by KDL — August 25, 2012 @ 8:42 pm

  221. Wait, why wasn’t Punto in the salary unloading calculation?

    Comment by Barkey Walker — August 25, 2012 @ 8:54 pm

  222. Jay Stevens, when you use the quote to say, “This situation is like this other, previous situation,” then you certainly are making an analogy. And it seems to have been a bad one.

    Comment by Bronnt — August 25, 2012 @ 9:15 pm

  223. A sharply progressive positive/negative income tax would really reduce the incentive to increase revenues. Particularly capital-intensive improvements…

    Comment by Cliff — August 25, 2012 @ 10:21 pm

  224. Well, no, I’m saying what they HAD to do was upgrade 1B in some manner: This is the manner they chose, eating salary to get A-Gon and add to the risk by adding high risk, high reward Crawford(He either returns to his old form or he continues being the new Vernon Wells), with an added bonus of Punto. I’m also saying that they also had few options at 1B: The only one I’ve really seen presented that sounds logical is Morneau, though he did sound pretty logical.

    So basically, they HAD to get rid of Loney and put in someone of above average contributing…and I think the choice they made was good enough for the deal to work for them.

    Comment by Ruki Motomiya — August 25, 2012 @ 10:41 pm

  225. Why not the Rangers, @walkoffblast? They collect a 1B to fit their needs heading forward, and of course, ease the pain of making a crazy deal for Hamilton both in baseball and marketing terms. Now they might be in a bidding war with the Red Sox for Hamilton and who knows the overpay on his services.

    (I don’t think the Rangers end up overpaying, but we’ll see)

    I would even put the A’s on this list too – how’d they let a 5 WAR 1B just fly by without taking a shot?

    (I refuse to comment on the Orioles need for a 5WAR 1B and any idea they might want to block any trades)

    Comment by ChrisCEIT — August 25, 2012 @ 10:49 pm

  226. because no one has even mentioned Kasten’s name or his record of success.

    Comment by Ray Guilfoyle — August 25, 2012 @ 11:17 pm

  227. I guess if you read Fangraphs you are smarter than everyone else.

    Comment by Ray Guilfoyle — August 25, 2012 @ 11:18 pm

  228. WHAT? They got one of the best first baseman in the game and he is certainly an upgrade over Loney.
    Are you saying the Dodgers didnt improve with this deal? Crawford is better than anyone who has played LF for LAD this year.

    Contracts aside, the Dodgers improved with this trade. Obviously money is not an issue in LA now.

    Comment by Ray Guilfoyle — August 25, 2012 @ 11:20 pm

  229. Do people really think the Dodgers would be better off with Justin Morneau or Kendrys Morales?
    This deal gives them a great shot to make the playoffs as they are just 2 gms behind SF, assuming they win tonight, and 1/2 gm behind STL for WC.
    Plus the team is looking for a new TV deal. Which player helps increase the value of that TV deal? AGonz or Morneau and Morales? Simple.

    Comment by Ray Guilfoyle — August 25, 2012 @ 11:24 pm

  230. Beckett’s strand rate is absurdly low this year and will adjust to league average. He will be fine in the NL.

    Comment by Ray Guilfoyle — August 25, 2012 @ 11:27 pm

  231. Sands is a 4th OFer, Iglesias is a glove only SS, Webster needs a 3rd pitch, RDLR….I like the guy.
    Bosoz future is 4-5 years down the road….they are rebuilding.

    Comment by Ray Guilfoyle — August 25, 2012 @ 11:30 pm

  232. This is certainly not Valentine’s fault. That being said, I think it is in the best interest of the Red Sox to fire him at the end of the year and either chose a low profile replacement, hire Jason Varitek, or trade back for Ferrell from the Blue Jays. Not that I think Bobby V has been a bad manager but his loud mouth and the toxic publicity that is now associated with him is a major part of what the Red Sox could really avoid next year.

    Comment by Par016 — August 25, 2012 @ 11:50 pm

  233. “Eventually!” First Lincoln replaced McClellan with John Pope. Then he replaced Pope with McClellan again. Then he replaced McClellan with Ambrose Burnside. Then he replaced Burnside with Joseph Hooker. Then he replaced Hooker with George Meade. Finally Lincoln turned to Grant, after pretty much trying to replace McClellan with anybody.

    Comment by Scraps — August 25, 2012 @ 11:55 pm

  234. Yeah, Wat. I’m sure that “LOOGY out of nowhere” would do very well against Matt Kemp and his .525 wOBA against LHP this year.

    Comment by YanksFanInBeantown — August 26, 2012 @ 12:05 am

  235. Boston Red Sox, Congrats, You just got the Get Out of Jail Free Card.

    Comment by Monopoly - Chance — August 26, 2012 @ 12:25 am

  236. Surprised some Red Sox fans think of DeLaRosa and Webster as just bullpen arms.

    DeLarosa was already a #4 starter on the Dodgers when healthy, and would have been a #3 if not for Capuano’s resurgence. He will be at a MINIMUM a #3 in Boston, with #2 potential. Mid 90s fastball from a #4 starter at age 23.

    Webster is the prospect right behind him and will be your #4 in a year or two.

    Comment by alex c. — August 26, 2012 @ 12:32 am

  237. Between this and the racism I don’t see why any free agent would sign in Boston again.

    Comment by Truth — August 26, 2012 @ 2:14 am

  238. You can’t win by buying players in the free agent market. It can be argued that Webb will be as good a player as Beckett has been the last couple years but the Sox took a hit to their potential to win games in 2013 + (call it WAR or whatever). The best three players in that trade are now in LA. Which free agent are the Red Sox going to sign for $20 million to replace Gonzalez’s 6 wins? You have to go way back to 2011, to see when Beckett had a 4 WAR season and Crawford prior to his signing with the Red Sox had a pretty good record of getting around 5 WAR.

    15 WAR in free agency costs you $75 million. Basically the Sox are saying they can sign another left fielder for Crawford’s money that will not go to crap playing in Boston. Say they sign Hamilton… is anyone really sure that Hamilton will have a better year (for $25 million) than Crawford will next year?

    The Dodgers stuff aside, the Red Sox just reduced their playoff chances in 2013 from 40% to 4%.

    Comment by The Real Neal — August 26, 2012 @ 2:38 am

  239. MLB (not Selig) has to approve any deal which includes more than $1.

    Comment by The Real Neal — August 26, 2012 @ 2:40 am

  240. Slava, go to and type in “Dallas Cowboys Drug Problems” and see what comes up.

    Comment by The Real Neal — August 26, 2012 @ 2:44 am

  241. Nick, what is Bourn’s one trick, “Being good”?

    I don’t know about the Stephen Strasburg, all he does is strike guys out.

    Comment by The Real Neal — August 26, 2012 @ 2:56 am

  242. But assuming that they’re going to “win” free agency with their new found cash is equally ridiculous.

    Comment by The Real Neal — August 26, 2012 @ 2:58 am

  243. Crawford’s contract is going to get worse when he gets older, like the way Manny Ramirez’s contract got worse as he got older? Just because he’s been hurt the last two years doesn’t mean he’s going to be hurt the next five years, and even if he is, contracts that are closer to expire are easier to trade (Manny Ramirez who cleared waivers with four years go to became a hot commodity, Carlos Lee was finally tradeable this year etc etc).

    How did Hanley Ramirez’s contact look 2 months ago? How does it look now? Acquiring a player at the nadir of their value can be a good thing.

    Comment by The Real Neal — August 26, 2012 @ 3:26 am

  244. I think you meant *departies*

    Comment by Subversive — August 26, 2012 @ 10:48 am

  245. This absolutely correct about the Cowboys. In terms of media attention in the Dallas market, the Rangers are a distant second, and some might even argue 3rd, behind Cuban & the Mavs. I don’t really know who is a good fit for Hamilton, but he is clearly looking for a major amount of money, and I think that decline is going to be Vlad-like when it comes.

    Comment by Urban Shocker — August 26, 2012 @ 11:35 am

  246. Thank you San Francisco Giants for smushing the Dodgers in the latest series. You pushed them to the $250 million breaking point.

    Can’t thank you enough!!

    Comment by On Behalf of Red Sox Fans Everywhere — August 26, 2012 @ 12:03 pm

  247. No max caps without min caps and complete revenue sharing of all revenue sources.

    Otherwise, nah.

    Comment by TIF — August 26, 2012 @ 12:41 pm

  248. Scraps, that’s why I said “eventually.” I don’t think anybody on this blog but you and I is interested in all the changes.

    Comment by Baltar — August 26, 2012 @ 1:14 pm

  249. What is the high reward on Crawford? That he is worth close to what you’re paying him?

    Comment by Nick — August 26, 2012 @ 11:00 pm

  250. Note to everyone:

    Stop referencing TV deals as if it makes you sound informed or like you’re presenting a new take on things.

    Comment by Nick — August 26, 2012 @ 11:02 pm

  251. “Do people really think the Dodgers would be better off with Justin Morneau or Kendrys Morales?”

    You’d be better off not spending 250 million for a 2-3 win upgrade and using the rest of that money on other areas of need (that is if there are any positions on the diamond left that the Dodgers don’t lock up with overpaid veterans)

    Comment by Nick — August 26, 2012 @ 11:06 pm

  252. Maybe it opens Boston up to get Hamilton now. If the rumored Justin Upton for Andrus + prospects trade goes through in the offseason, the Rangers might let Hamilton walk or at least not throw top dollar at him. Most teams that could pay Hamilton huge money aren’t really in buy mode at the moment. Boston will have plenty of available funds to go after him.

    Comment by Pinstripe Wizard — August 27, 2012 @ 9:54 am

  253. Wait…so does this mean Juan Rivera won’t be getting consistent at-bats anymore?

    Comment by Pinstripe Wizard — August 27, 2012 @ 10:17 am

  254. Why? It is a big part of the equation. The Dodgers will be getting at least an additional $150M/yr in revenue under their new TV deal and that is likely on the conservative side. They should have no issues absorbing these contracts.

    Comment by Tyler — August 27, 2012 @ 10:59 am

  255. Okay.

    Now tell me about how important OBP is.

    Comment by Nick — August 27, 2012 @ 11:49 am

  256. All it is going to take for this trade to work is a healthy amount of Magic!

    Comment by kick me in the GO NATS — August 27, 2012 @ 2:24 pm

  257. Is Valentine terrible, or was he just thrown into an incredible mess?

    Valentine will be back in 2013 and hopefully this time they let him pick his own coaches. The Red Sox front office created this mess, just like they created the mess with all those free agents in the first place.

    Comment by RobM — August 27, 2012 @ 3:56 pm

  258. To me that’s one of the things that’s so funny. The experts loved when the Red Sox traded prospects for A-Gon and then thought they signed him to a fine deal for a player in his prime. They gave a thumbs up to the Crawford signing, recognizing it probably as an overpay, but marveling at the extra dimension Crawford would bring to the Red Sox, and the great negotiating by Theo to block out the Yankees from acquiring Crawford, even though the Yankees never had any interest in Crawford. They thought they signed Beckett to a below-market deal. They thought Lackey would help build a rotation with five aces (yes, people thought this.) The Dice-K deal was lauded as a fine move at the time. Going back further, the experts praised the Red Sox’s brilliance when they signed J.D. Drew, touting how the Money Ball- and sabermetric-run Sox had charted every hit of Drew over years, and decided he’d be a monster at Fenway. Yeah, right.

    The Sox were on the rise when John Henry purchased the team, and probably about 75% of their eventual championship in 2004 should be credited to Dan Duquette. The further away from Duqette and the more moves the new group made, the worse the Red Sox became.

    Now the experts love this move by the Red Sox, who are on the way to their third straight season without a postseason appearance, despite expanded playoffs and cosistently one of the top two or three payrolls in the game.

    The experts can continue to love the Red Sox. Fans want to see more than nice press clippings from the national media.

    Comment by RobM — August 27, 2012 @ 4:50 pm

  259. Sounds like the potential recipe for the Red Sox. Jonah Keri:

    “The Red Sox and their brain trust are being hailed as geniuses, because they unloaded more than $260 million in player salaries on the Dodgers, letting everyone know they were getting back to their version of smart baseball, which involves building from within and spending big bucks only when absolutely necessary. But the fact of the matter is they’ve made themselves worse for now, even though they had more than enough to pay those players, and plenty more on top of that.”

    Which is what I was trying to say, only he said it better. Great trade for the Red Sox if you ignore the fact they’ve flushed any chance for the playoffs down the toilet for the next…4? 5? years?…and ignore the fact that they can afford bad contracts….

    Comment by Jay Stevens — August 27, 2012 @ 9:06 pm

  260. @RobM, I’m not sure I would agree with you on all that. Yes recently the Red Sox had made some bad moves, but who over the last 10 years has been more consistent than the Red Sox? The Yankees? OK, I will give you that, but anyone else? The Cardinals maybe? I am drawing a blank.

    Now for one, giving Duquette 75% of the credit for 2004 is foolish. We have no idea what he would have done, but there were tons of additions made by Epstein which significantly improved that club. Kevin Millar. Bill Mueller. Ortiz. Schilling. Keith Foulke. Plus trading Nomar right in the middle of the season, which was not only an enormous risk, but an enormous success and helped a great deal in solidifying that team to go on a run the second half of the year.

    On top of that you conveniently left out 2007, on which there was a home grown group of core players that contributed significantly to that championship.

    Also, both JD Drew and Daisuke weren’t nearly as bad as people make them out to be, Drew especially. If the Red Sox could see how that 5 year deal would turn out, I bet they still sign that contract back in 2006. Daisuke had a relatively good first few years, but has been injured ever since. Lackey also was good that first year, last year was a waste and now this year too, so we still need to see if he can pitch well coming back from Tommy John.

    Your arguments seem to be common ones made by Red Sox fans who feel burned by the organization the last few years, but ones I can’t agree 100% with.

    Comment by George — August 28, 2012 @ 12:19 am

  261. I could not say it better myself. The media shitstorm loves bashing on the Red Sox ownership, but they aren’t comparing them to anything tangible. They are comparing them to an imaginary ownership that makes genius moves at all times and never overpays.

    Now this is not letting the ownership group off the hook. They made some bad moves. But the idea that the Red Sox can magically use this newfound financial freedom to make brilliant moves is kind of laughable. One premier free agent signing and they are back in financial trouble.

    Comment by George — August 28, 2012 @ 12:47 am

  262. I like that the comments to a given post can start off by dissecting the vagaries and nuances of Rubby DLR and Nick Punto and eventually wind its way around to Ambrose Burnside. It’s never dull ’round here.

    Comment by Jason B — August 28, 2012 @ 3:02 pm

  263. We have some reasonable accomodations and they are reasonably priced. Let’s talk.

    Comment by St Charles Place — August 28, 2012 @ 3:06 pm

  264. Evan, the head case says, “With Raf and Evan3457 on this site, it should be called ‘Faggraphs.'”

    Comment by cgehring — February 5, 2014 @ 3:13 pm

  265. @Evan3457 – Douche?

    “… MJ’s point stands…if AJ’s a head case, most cases fail as free agents right from the start. They don’t wait to have a solid year in their first year in NY, pitch 3 excellent games in the post-season (sic) along with 1 mediocre one and 1 awful one, and then fold like a cheap suitcase…”

    Comment by Gehring — February 9, 2014 @ 3:39 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Close this window.

0.342 Powered by WordPress