Skip to content

The Dodgers inquired about Cliff Lee

May 27, 2010, 2:24 PM EDT

Cliff Lee headshot Mariners.jpgYesterday I inferred that the Dodgers had made inquiries about Roy Oswalt. That was confimed by the Los Angeles Times’ Bill Shaikin last night. And Shaikin goes one better: The Dodgers asked about Cliff Lee’s availability as well.  The Mariners, like the Astros, rejected Colletti’s overtures.

Either move makes sense for the Dodgers, who really could use a pitcher. It’s just too early, methinks, for this kind of deal to happen, because the Astros and Mariners would be silly not to wait a while and see who finds themselves in more dire need of pitching between now and July.

Someone is going to get hurt. Some team is going to go on a skid that makes them panicky.  When that happens, Lee and Oswalt will bring higher prices than Ned Colletti is willing to offer right now.

  1. Bret - May 27, 2010 at 2:46 PM

    O’s give Dodgers Millwood and Wigginton, agree to pay their salaries in full and get the Dodgers to give back Dee Gordon. That way the McCourt’s are happy and the O’s fill the long term void at short.

  2. Bobby - May 27, 2010 at 2:58 PM

    Methinks you use the word methinks too much.

  3. TMW - May 27, 2010 at 3:04 PM

    I’m really holding out hope that the Twins and Mariners can agree on something along the lines of 3 months of Cliff Lee and Carlos Triunfel for Wilson Ramos and Delmon Young or Ben Revere.

  4. Tony - May 27, 2010 at 3:04 PM

    Bret, the Dodgers wouldn’t give up Dee Gordon in a trade like this, and maybe not for anybody. Furcal’s contract expires after next season and Gordon should be ready by then and they are really, really high on him. They think he will be one of the better SS’s in the game and they will be able to pay him next to nothing for his first 3 years. And with McCheap as the owner, that is very important.
    The only way I think they would consider moving Gordon is if it got them Oswalt, since at least he’d be around for 2 more years after this one. I don’t even think they would move Gordon for Cliff Lee, since he’d be just a rental for the rest of this season. If they got Lee signed to an extension, then maybe.

  5. iceless - May 27, 2010 at 3:12 PM

    everything in the shaikin article is fabrication. it’s all inference. at no time does he directly quote anyone. he just infers that they said something. check out morgan ensberg’s more detailed tear-down of this ‘story’.

  6. Craig Calcaterra - May 27, 2010 at 3:17 PM

    I read Ensberg’s post this morning. My response: what’s wrong with inferring? Reporters are privy to such information all the time and just because they can’t quote someone about it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Indeed, if they were to simply make up something like this out of whole cloth, they’d quickly burn their contacts with the teams.
    I would be a lot of money on the notion that Shaikin (like Jackson in the ESPN LA story I linked to in the Oswalt piece yesterday) were told about LA making overtures about Oswalt and Lee on background and were told that they could use it, but not attribute it to anyone. Another, possibly more likely scenario: someone with the Dodgers said “Well, we know Oswalt and Lee aren’t available” and the reporter reasonably assumed that the Dodgers person knew that for a reason.
    I appreciate that reporters can’t simply make up stuff. But I also don’t believe that they should be limited to on-the-record quotes issued by official team sources, because that would make them mere public relations firms.

  7. Philip P. - May 27, 2010 at 3:26 PM

    At least they finally cut Ramon Ortiz, which may qualify as addition by subtraction.

  8. Bret - May 27, 2010 at 3:29 PM

    You may be right but the Dodgers have shown a propensity to make this kind of deal before. Sherrill for Josh Bell, Carlos Santana for a few years of Casey Blake.
    There is no way right now you can tell me Gordon is any further along than Josh Bell was, Bell was one year older last year than Gordon currently is and his OPS was about .200 points higher in AA than Gordon’s currently is plus Gordon has already made 13 errors -and they gave him up for a reliever that was slated for a big raise.
    To get something you have to give up something, the Dodgers desperately need pitching and don’t want to pay anybody money. They aren’t going to be able to do this for any available pitcher (Millwood, Guthrie, Oswalt, Lee etc.) if their top prospects are completely off limits. Why would a team pay all the salary on a pitcher for nothing, out of the goodness of their hearts?

  9. Joey B - May 27, 2010 at 3:32 PM

    It seems to me that it’s all about disclosure. If a reporter says it’s his opinion, or he heard from a 3rd party, or he heard from a reliable source within the LAD organization, it all means something different. Since I think all 30 GMs have their ears open about anyone of Oswalt or Lee’s stature, then it’s rather meaningless. But as long as the reporter discloses what level it is on the rumor scale, the reader always has the choice to read it or dismiss it.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Wright (2958)
  2. D. Span (2496)
  3. G. Stanton (2429)
  4. J. Fernandez (2411)
  5. G. Springer (2374)
  1. Y. Puig (2279)
  2. F. Rodney (2197)
  3. M. Teixeira (2156)
  4. G. Perkins (2058)
  5. H. Olivera (1914)