Comments on: Wait, we’re judging the Dodgers-Red Sox trade now? Really?

By: hlang

hlang — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 05:47:29 +0000

That’s an excellent point. Craig in particular, as much as I love his work, has an acute case of premature pundititis.

By: bh192012

bh192012 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 23:15:43 +0000

If it’s a 162 game playoff, why not just throw in a few more interleague games, and award the team with the most wins at the end the champion? Clearly the team with the most wins is the best overall that year. If there is a tie, split it with run differentials. Ohh right, because that would be boring.

By: temporarilyexiled

temporarilyexiled — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:54:32 +0000

koufaxmitzvah, reading comprehension?

Your first comment was that a throw-away article is how SF fans are bred to be lame.

Then, when I nailed you for it, the best you could come up with was contrived scoreboard.

Then you went into your time machine once again, explaining why we’re so bitter with a reference to the terrible Giant teams of the 70s and 80s.

Now, I’m supposedly upset and bewildered by all of this.

As usual, you’re projecting.

It’s about now.

Your team just spent tons of money for a bad outcome.

Next year will be…well…next year.

One of the reasons we’re all captivated by this sport is that we can’t predict what’ll happen.

The only thing for sure is that Giant and Dodger fans will continue to talk smack.

But we should probably knock it off…at least for a day…if you get my drift.

By: townballblog

townballblog — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:49:55 +0000

Haha! If that happens the National Guard would be outside Fenway everyday.

By: shadymduk

shadymduk — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:29:22 +0000

I think the funniest part isn’t taking a business rag seriously on sports comment, it’s a sports blog that loves to rush to swift judgements questioning someone else for doing the same.

Here’s to a great rivallry between the Giants and the Dodgers for the next few years.

By: j0esixpack

j0esixpack — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:17:58 +0000

From a Red Sox perspective, as much as I want to say “suckers!” for taking the $260 million that would have left the team hamstrung for half a decade, it’s far too early to declare this a bust.

Gonzo will likely come back to form – his contract is long and expensive but he stands a good chance to live up to it (it’s a stretch, but he may – he’s a good guy to have on a team)

Beckett? Who knows, but give him a full offseason to get acclimated to LA

Crawford? Same thing. Give him a full offseason and maybe the change of scenery will do him well.

Overall the Red Sox admit they made a mistake giving at least some of those guys such huge contracts and the Dodgers let them off the hook.

I think John Lackey might be the missing cog for the Dodgers – and I’m sure he’s available if they’ll just take on his contract and give up a few prospects!

By: clydeserra

clydeserra — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:47:45 +0000

5-1 being WS wins? Cuz the “Dodgers” and “Giants” both have more. But by that logic shouldn’t we all be Yankees fans?

By: koufaxmitzvah

koufaxmitzvah — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:44:35 +0000

@hlang: That 1982 series was a heart breaker. Wasn’t that when the Beat LA chant was coined? Celtic fans think they started that, but I’m giving it to you Giants fans.

You know. Cheering on a Dodgers loss…..

P.S. Nice to see you have a sense of humor and are able to swing back…..

^^^^^Note to Temporarily Exiled^^^^^

By: koufaxmitzvah

koufaxmitzvah — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:41:03 +0000

I’m sorry Exiled, did I upset you? I’m not allowed to comment to a respondent regarding his point to my opening salvo? Give it a rest…. That’s funny.

Since your reading comprehension sucks, I’ll point out that this article– the one that this blog post is based on– is written by an SF writer, who has jumped the gun on calling the Dodgers trade a losing trade. Everything I have written was based on this original article AND has been used to manipulate the perception of Giants fans as (wait for it now) more concerned with Dodgers fans’ reactions.

I know. SHOCKING!

Now you give it a rest.

By: hokiegajanisgod

hokiegajanisgod — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:20:12 +0000

Even if Gonzalez, Beckett, and Punto played like the second coming of Garvey, Sutton, and Cey….even if Carl Crawford becomes the 21st century version of Reggie Smith, the Red Sox are hands down winners in this trade.

Ben Cherington = GM of the century!

Ned Colletti = unemployment li…wait…the Dodgers gave him a contract extension???? Hahahahahahahaha!!!!

By: sisqsage

sisqsage — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:41:05 +0000

Why would anyone care what this rag has to say about anything…especially a sports deal?

But what has been missed in the Dodgers deal and two other fairly large ones (Han Ram and League also) is they traded good prospects for players (Beckett, Han Ram and Crawford) who have injury-questionable dedication-inconsistent play issues, and taking on a ton of debt in the process. Sounds like a move the federal government would make.

You can make the argument that Gonzo, Beckett and Ramirez haven’t realy moved the needle in L.A.’s favor because a lot of the time they just don’t care enough.

The Sox are still jumping for joy that they don’t have to keep overpaying for those guys.

By: natstowngreg

natstowngreg — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:21:15 +0000

Craig, at the end, you question why someone would rush to judgement. But you answered your own question at the very beginning. It’s about Giants fans sticking it to Dodgers fans. It’s called a rivalry. Nothing more complicated than that.

By: natstowngreg

natstowngreg — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:18:54 +0000

+1 for speaking truth

By: natstowngreg

natstowngreg — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:14:45 +0000

The trade was made, at least in part, to win now. On that level, it has failed.

But trades are evaluated on multiple levels over a long time. Getting a premiere middle-of-the-order hitter is a plus, and will be for several seasons to come. There is also the message the Dodgers sent to their fans: we’re trying to win. That message has its own positive value to the organization in the long run,

By: hlang

hlang — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:03:18 +0000

Of course Giants fans want the Dodgers to fail. “We don’t go, they don’t go” was the chant at the end of 1982, when LA eliminated SF and then SF eliminated LA on a Joe Morgan HR. This is sports rivalry: It is not enough to succeed, the Dodgers must fail. Before my day — before the Wild Card — no problem. Giant success ensured Dodger failure (and, more often, vice versa). Nowadays you have to root for internal decay over there to get the full measure of satisfaction. Don’t want blue slipping in the back door.

The future will be interesting. Dead money coming off the books in SF, so to some extent it will be Sabean+$ vs. protege Coletti+$$$$$.

By: thereisaparty

thereisaparty — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:55:05 +0000

Are you going to ignore the massive contracts the Dodgers absorbed (and the Red Sox removed from their books)? The Dodgers owe Crawford $102.5mm over the next 5 years and $31.5mm to Beckett over the next two years. What are the odds that Gonzo, Beckett, and Crawford provide any additional value?

Missing out on the 2012 playoffs makes this deal look worse than it did on day 1

By: temporarilyexiled

temporarilyexiled — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:44:05 +0000

Or:

Red Sox -1
Dodgers -1
Marlins -1

At least Mattingly is okay.

I’m waiting for the Valentine/Guillen trade.

By: townballblog

townballblog — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:37:15 +0000

I agree, it’s way. To early to call this a bust. However, it’s hard to deny that so far it’s:

Red Sox 1 – Dodgers 0

By: temporarilyexiled

temporarilyexiled — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:22:47 +0000

koufaxmitzvah, give it a rest. Your team sucks this year. Maybe next year will be different. If this was New York, and the Yankees choked this bad after a spending spree, it’d be the ponderous story of forever that we’d be trying to get out from under. Be thankful this’ll soon be a distant memory, and move on. You’re right in that the Giants were really bad in much of the time between 1971 and 1987. That was a long time ago. Look ahead.

By: temporarilyexiled

temporarilyexiled — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:17:25 +0000

Problem with “scoreboard” is that it’s invariably for whatever time period you choose. Figures lie and liars figure. If you go back to the New York days, it’s 5 to 1 in the other direction. And it’s 2010 versus 1988 if you go that route. Remember, the article is about what’s happening with the Dodgers now and for the near future. As I’ve already said, I expect both teams to be good, and for what’s really a much more bitter rivalry than one between the Yankees and Red Sox – even if it doesn’t get as much play – to be firing on all cylinders. Let the games begin!

By: koufaxmitzvah

koufaxmitzvah — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:05:16 +0000

Not much to disagree with in your post, but I definitely differ with your final summation. There has always seemingly been a lot of joy in watching the Dodgers fail almost more than to see the Giants succeed. I’m sure that’s backlash to the ’70s and ’80s when the Dodgers were far superior to the Giants.

By: mazblast

mazblast — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:56:30 +0000

Good comment.

By: koufaxmitzvah

koufaxmitzvah — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:56:02 +0000

My exhibit A of being a Dodgers fan is 5 to 1.

By: mazblast

mazblast — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:55:21 +0000

Let’s analyze this trade NEXT September. As many others have pointed out, Crawford is the wild card here. If he can be anything like the Crawford of his Tampa Bay days, that’s going to be a heck of a fine outfield in Ethier, Kemp, and Crawford.

As for the SF Business Times, two observations–One, they’re just rubbing salt in the wound, which is their right; and Two, yeah, that’s the paper I always look to for analysis of major league deals, especially those that don’t involve the Giants.

By: skids003

skids003 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:33:56 +0000

I agree koufax, over the course of a full season the Dodger lineup looks pretty awesome. 26 games doesn’t make a season.

By: hlang

hlang — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:25:47 +0000

The SF Business Times is not exactly where you go for SF sports news or commentary. It packages business stories with a local angle from the nationwide Business Journal’s daily reservoir, as the Business Times in 30 other cities do in their locales. Here are the stories around this one: Interview with biotech exec, SF Fed exec defends policy, New Nodality CEO, Pandora supports proposed law, new sponsor for 49ers stadium, chef goes digital, Levis pulls brand from Asia, EPA probes Chevron.

Schulman, Baggerly, Pavlovic, Shea, Kawakami, KNBR, and 95.7FM, who together comprise mainstream media Giants coverage, can be lame enough. A stringer for a national business paper’s ramblings wouldn’t register without Craig’s attention.

That said, when the Ramirez and Gonzalez trades went down, the race was close and there was collective dread in SF. So if a sigh of relief includes a little short-term schadenfreude, would you be surprised? The Dodgers have the leisure to contemplate 2013′s golden promise. The Giants aren’t thinking about that, or the Dodgers, right now.

By: Utley's Hair

Utley's Hair — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:16:10 +0000

Everything around here is judged from the first whiff of anything happening, from trades to FA signings to nonmoves to rules changes.

By: temporarilyexiled

temporarilyexiled — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:14:36 +0000

Right…because we look for all of our sports insight in business publications…

Actually, we’re bred to dislike lame Dodger fans…

And you’re exhibit A.

By: Francisco (FC)

Francisco (FC) — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:03:53 +0000

The AL central is convincing me more and more that while we can keep the divisions we should use a general league wide standing to determine who goes to the playoffs. One of these days, we’re going to have a Seattle Seahawks situation…

By: koufaxmitzvah

koufaxmitzvah — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:47:11 +0000

Obviously, a shot in the arm would have been awesome for 2012, but that was a minor part of the trade compared to getting our 1st baseman. If Adrian Gonzalez fails to produce,in 2013, then it’s valid to call this trade a failure, but until that time, it is short sighted.