A Realistic View at 2020: Part I

[moonslav59]

The Dodgers won't want the underwater contract of Nathan Eovaldi in the deal when, according to one source, Mookie Betts and Alex Verdugo have the same surplus value:

 

https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/players/7685/

 

https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/players/9657/

 

https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/players/8096/

 

Adding Eovaldi with Betts evens out the money for Pollock, who is out a job anyways after they get Betts.

 

Pollock fills an OF slot we'll need after losing Betts, and eventually JBJ.

[moonslav59]

I'd hold out for Verdugo, and they can keep Pollock and Maeda. LA won't need Verdugo if they get Mookie Betts; they'll have a starting outfield of Betts, Bellinger and Pederson (avg. 37 HRs), with Pollock and Chris Taylor as decent back-ups. The Dodgers will also want to keep Maeda, their #4 starter last year, since they lost Ryu and Hill.

 

The Dodgers have Buehler, Kershaw, Urias, Wood and Stripling. Eovaldi offers depth and is about as dependable as Maeda.

[harmony]

The Dodgers have Buehler, Kershaw, Urias, Wood and Stripling. Eovaldi offers depth and is about as dependable as Maeda.

Compare the lines for Nathan Eovaldi and Kenta Maeda over Maeda's four MLB seasons:

 

NE 69 G, 54 GS, 303.1 IP, 4.69 ERA, 1.30 WHIP, ERA+ 94

KM 137 G, 103 GS, 589 IP, 3.87 ERA, 1.15 WHIP, ERA+ 105

 

The 2020 Marcel projections:

 

NE 94 IP, 4.79 ERA, 1.34 WHIP

KM 137 IP, 4.20 ERA, 1.21 WHIP

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/e/eovalna01.shtml

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/maedake01.shtml

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I was just going off Gammons' tweet from last night, when he quotes two NL execs speculating about Betts for "a straight prospect swap w/ LAD(3-4 of Verdugo, Ruiz, Downs, Busch, Gray, Gonsolin, Kasowski)"

 

Sox covet young pitching depth above all else, but would also need a player with at least star potential to replace the second-best outfielder in the MLB.

[notin]

With the Padres in play, there may be more pressure for LA to cave and keep Betts out of a rival's uniform.

 

The prize is Mookie, and the cost is high-upside prospects. The Dodgers can keep Lux and May, but they need to give up Verdugo, Gray and Gonsolin. I don't care what the simulator says, what's the market value on a player who puts a team over the top?

 

LA won 106 games last year when none of the three farmhands listed were major factors. Trading them wouldn't crush the future; May is poised to replace Ryu, and Lux could be Rookie of the Year. With Betts, they'd be favorites to at least get back to the World Series... and be a favorite to sign him longterm.

 

Boston would receive a good young outfielder and pitching depth. If one of the two develops enough to take a regular turn in the rotation, they could still be competitive in 2020. Scoff away, but this is the minimum type of return I trust Bloom is still holding out for...

 

I don’t think he is holding out quite that high. I mean, he’s talking about taking Wil Myers.

 

The big problem with selling Betts as a need to “push them over the top” is this Dodger team lost two World Series in the past three years to teams embroiled in cheating scandals They probably already think they were good enough to win twice.

 

If Betts had two years, Verdugo, Gray and Gonsolin is doable. But for one expensive year? More like Gonsolin, Downs and maybe Cartaya, plus someone who makes money to take back. Giving up all that for Bets is very risky, especially if something happens to Mookie.

 

Is there an example of a team unloading an equivalent package for one year of a player?

[notin]

I was just going off Gammons' tweet from last night, when he quotes two NL execs speculating about Betts for "a straight prospect swap w/ LAD(3-4 of Verdugo, Ruiz, Downs, Busch, Gray, Gonsolin, Kasowski)"

 

Sox covet young pitching depth above all else, but would also need a player with at least star potential to replace the second-best outfielder in the MLB.

 

Well, slow down.

 

1. Gammons never said the execs named those Dodger prospects. Or what the origin of that list was. Was it just some sample names Gammons threw together? Or did others name those as reasonable targets?

 

2. Does he also say what the execs replies were?

 

3. Bear in mind this was an “either/or” question that included a side deal for Price vs including him with Betts

 

4. And lastly, the only exec’s opinion that actually matters is Andrew Friedman. I’m sure those guys have no issues trading someone else’s prospects.

[notin]

Compare the lines for Nathan Eovaldi and Kenta Maeda over Maeda's four MLB seasons:

 

NE 69 G, 54 GS, 303.1 IP, 4.69 ERA, 1.30 WHIP, ERA+ 94

KM 137 G, 103 GS, 589 IP, 3.87 ERA, 1.15 WHIP, ERA+ 105

 

The 2020 Marcel projections:

 

NE 94 IP, 4.79 ERA, 1.34 WHIP

KM 137 IP, 4.20 ERA, 1.21 WHIP

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/e/eovalna01.shtml

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/maedake01.shtml

 

You do realize he’s talking about as a SIXTH starter. Or not...

[S5Dewey]

With the Padres in play, there may be more pressure for LA to cave and keep Betts out of a rival's uniform.

 

The prize is Mookie, and the cost is high-upside prospects. The Dodgers can keep Lux and May, but they need to give up Verdugo, Gray and Gonsolin. I don't care what the simulator says, what's the market value on a player who puts a team over the top?

IMO this is exactly why Bloom isn't jumping through anyone's hoops to trade Mookie. Mookie is worth one Hell of a lot more to the Dodgers than he is to...well.... anyone else just because he's the guy who could bring the long-awaited flag to LA, and there aren't many teams who can both say that and have the prospects to give.

 

Yes, the Dodgers can hold out another year and acquire Mookie without giving up prospects but when they do that every player on the Dodgers becomes a year older. When you think you have the horses to win it all you go out and do what you have to do. You can't have too much talent.

[Larry Cook]

IMO this is exactly why Bloom isn't jumping through anyone's hoops to trade Mookie. Mookie is worth one Hell of a lot more to the Dodgers than he is to...well.... anyone else just because he's the guy who could bring the long-awaited flag to LA, and there aren't many teams who can both say that and have the prospects to give.

 

Yes, the Dodgers can hold out another year and acquire Mookie without giving up prospects but when they do that every player on the Dodgers becomes a year older. When you think you have the horses to win it all you go out and do what you have to do. You can't have too much talent.

 

Seems like everybody expects the Sox to trade Betts for pennies in the dollar, except hang’em Chaim!

[moonslav59]

Seems like everybody expects the Sox to trade Betts for pennies in the dollar, except hang’em Chaim!

 

Maybe that's why he's still here.

 

He's not a salary dump. The guy is worth at least double his contract.

[moonslav59]

I was just going off Gammons' tweet from last night, when he quotes two NL execs speculating about Betts for "a straight prospect swap w/ LAD(3-4 of Verdugo, Ruiz, Downs, Busch, Gray, Gonsolin, Kasowski)"

 

Sox covet young pitching depth above all else, but would also need a player with at least star potential to replace the second-best outfielder in the MLB.

 

It's one year of Betts.

 

Gammons is often wrong.

[Larry Cook]

Maybe that's why he's still here.

 

He's not a salary dump. The guy is worth at least double his contract.

 

So maybe hang’em chaim should have been looking to dump jd for pennies on the dollar this past off season?

 

Rule number 1 - do not trade homegrown players.

[moonslav59]

So maybe hang’em chaim should have been looking to dump jd for pennies on the dollar this past off season?

 

Rule number 1 - do not trade homegrown players.

 

It was an option. It's too late, now. Teams interested in JD have found other solutions.

 

Maybe in July, some team will come calling.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

It's one year of Betts.

 

Gammons is often wrong.

 

But to one team -- because that's all it will take -- that one year could be THE YEAR when they commit to do anything and everything to win it all.

 

And even some numbers guys here have said they'd sacrifice five years for a title or be happy with a championship every five years (I'm paraphrasing). What do you think is the percentage of Dodgers fans that would agree to those terms, after not having won since '88 and thinking they were robbed of two recent rings?

 

This is my Sunday morning in a morbid offseason, debating trading Mookie Betts for three prospects who probably will never even earn a combined career WAR as high as his before he sprints to Cooperstown...

[notin]

But to one team -- because that's all it will take -- that one year could be THE YEAR when they commit to do anything and everything to win it all.

 

And even some numbers guys here have said they'd sacrifice five years for a title or be happy with a championship every five years (I'm paraphrasing). What do you think is the percentage of Dodgers fans that would agree to those terms, after not having won since '88 and thinking they were robbed of two recent rings?

 

This is my Sunday morning in a morbid offseason, debating trading Mookie Betts for three prospects who probably will never even earn a combined career WAR as high as his before he sprints to Cooperstown...

 

We all get they’re not getting back a player as good as Mookie.

 

But it doesn’t matter what the fans want. Or other unnamed NL execs. Or Peter Gammons. Or the trade simulator. Or you Tom me. Does Friedman think he needs Betts to win a title?

[Bellhorn04]

But it doesn’t matter what the fans want. Or other unnamed NL execs. Or Peter Gammons. Or the trade simulator. Or you Tom me. Does Friedman think he needs Betts to win a title?

 

And that question is impossible to answer too, of course.

 

Heck, our friend Slasher has determined that the 2018 Red Sox would have won it all without Mookie.

[Bellhorn04]

If I was a Dodgers fan trying to analyze why we still haven't won it all, it's pretty hard to get around the fact that our first ballot HOF ace Kershaw has not had his best games at times we've needed them the most.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

If I was a Dodgers fan trying to analyze why we still haven't won it all, it's pretty hard to get around the fact that our first ballot HOF ace Kershaw has not had his best games at times we've needed them the most.

 

The City Council of LA would love to blame those dastards from Houston and Boston, but Rendon and Soto say Hi.

[moonslav59]

But to one team -- because that's all it will take -- that one year could be THE YEAR when they commit to do anything and everything to win it all.

 

And even some numbers guys here have said they'd sacrifice five years for a title or be happy with a championship every five years (I'm paraphrasing). What do you think is the percentage of Dodgers fans that would agree to those terms, after not having won since '88 and thinking they were robbed of two recent rings?

 

This is my Sunday morning in a morbid offseason, debating trading Mookie Betts for three prospects who probably will never even earn a combined career WAR as high as his before he sprints to Cooperstown...

 

I do think the Dodgers are willing to sacrifice a lot of the future to get Betts and make them the clear WS favorite, but we are talking about 5 years of team control for several players- some of which have already shown they can play at the ML level. There's a chance Verdugo wins Rookie of the Year. He, alone, could be all they need to get them over the hump.

 

If you are waiting for a package even close to what you say Gammons suggested, it won't ever happen.

 

We'll get nothing for Betts while winning 84-90 games, this year.

[notin]

If I was a Dodgers fan trying to analyze why we still haven't won it all, it's pretty hard to get around the fact that our first ballot HOF ace Kershaw has not had his best games at times we've needed them the most.

 

So the obvious solution is to unload the farm to get Betts?..

[Bellhorn04]

So the obvious solution is to unload the farm to get Betts?..

 

There is no obvious solution. Getting Betts for one year obviously guarantees nothing.

[notin]

IMO this is exactly why Bloom isn't jumping through anyone's hoops to trade Mookie. Mookie is worth one Hell of a lot more to the Dodgers than he is to...well.... anyone else just because he's the guy who could bring the long-awaited flag to LA, and there aren't many teams who can both say that and have the prospects to give.

 

Yes, the Dodgers can hold out another year and acquire Mookie without giving up prospects but when they do that every player on the Dodgers becomes a year older. When you think you have the horses to win it all you go out and do what you have to do. You can't have too much talent.

 

If Bloom wants to trade him to LA, now is the time. History has shown time and time again, two months of a position player isn’t worth much at the deadline. Two months of a starting pitcher or closer are a different story. But two months of a position player who makes a difference every day for some reason, not much...

[Bellhorn04]

I do think the Dodgers are willing to sacrifice a lot of the future to get Betts and make them the clear WS favorite

 

My guess is that even if the Dodgers get Betts, the Yanks will be WS favorites.

[notin]

IMO this is exactly why Bloom isn't jumping through anyone's hoops to trade Mookie. Mookie is worth one Hell of a lot more to the Dodgers than he is to...well.... anyone else just because he's the guy who could bring the long-awaited flag to LA, and there aren't many teams who can both say that and have the prospects to give.

 

Yes, the Dodgers can hold out another year and acquire Mookie without giving up prospects but when they do that every player on the Dodgers becomes a year older. When you think you have the horses to win it all you go out and do what you have to do. You can't have too much talent.

 

If Bloom wants to trade him to LA, now is the time. History has shown time and time again, two months of a position player isn’t worth much at the deadline. Two months of a starting pitcher or closer are a different story. But two months of a position player who makes a difference every day for some reason, not much...

[Bellhorn04]

If Bloom wants to trade him to LA, now is the time. History has shown time and time again, two months of a position player isn’t worth much at the deadline. Two months of a starting pitcher or closer are a different story. But two months of a position player who makes a difference every day for some reason, not much...

 

To quote Slash again, pitching = parades. I buy that in the limited sense that acquiring a pitcher at the deadline is more likely to be a difference-maker in the postseason.

[notin]

To quote Slash again, pitching = parades. I buy that in the limited sense that acquiring a pitcher at the deadline is more likely to be a difference-maker in the postseason.

 

... which is why the Sox are more likely to get something for Price than Betts in July...

[Bellhorn04]

... which is why the Sox are more likely to get something for Price than Betts in July...

 

Price, though, carries the baggage of 2 more seasons on his contract after this one. So he'd have to be really dealing, and even then probably only the wealthiest teams would be interested.

[notin]

Price, though, carries the baggage of 2 more seasons on his contract after this one. So he'd have to be really dealing, and even then probably only the wealthiest teams would be interested.

 

True. He is a lot, but if he pitches well (aka injury-free) for the fist 4 months of this season, he might seem less risky...

[jacksonianmarch]

If I was a Dodgers fan trying to analyze why we still haven't won it all, it's pretty hard to get around the fact that our first ballot HOF ace Kershaw has not had his best games at times we've needed them the most.

 

The Dodgers are good enough to win a WS. They don't "need" Betts to win a title. Betts upgrades a position, but it isn't like he is upgrading a black hole. He is upgrading a good position to an elite one.

[harmony]

... which is why the Sox are more likely to get something for Price than Betts in July...

A healthy David Price (although Mookie Betts may be a better bet than Price to be healthy come July).