Skip to content

The Dodgers are “open to the idea” of trading Andre Ethier this offseason

Oct 30, 2012, 9:14 AM EDT

Back in June the Dodgers made a commitment to Andre Ethier in the form of a five-year $85 million extension. But when it comes to commitments they’re not fanatics about it, baby:


It’s hard to picture what kind of trade could actually happen given Ethier’s age, his recent injury history and the widely-held perception that L.A. overpaid him. And as Matthew noted last June, his list of similar players is somewhat frightening.

A reminder for those who forgot what the offseason is like: everyone gets talked about in some way, shape or form eventually. This just happens to be Andre Ethier’s turn. A trade would be quite surprising.

  1. koufaxmitzvah - Oct 30, 2012 at 9:53 AM

    It’s a whole other era of sports. The Dodgers are “worth” $2.4 billion and a majority share in the Cleveland Browns is “worth” $900 million. In this context, $17 million for a decent and consistent bat is somewhat affordable. It wouldn’t surprise me if the Dodgers find a taker.

    • paperlions - Oct 30, 2012 at 9:59 AM

      The dodgers were not worth 2.4 billion, most of that value is just the extensive tracts of land as well as the lots and stadium that came with the team.

      • manchestermiracle - Oct 30, 2012 at 10:21 AM

        Since those assets are part of the team I guess that would make them worth, oh, about $2.4 billion. You could build a stadium just about anywhere else in L.A., move the team into it, and then sell the land in Chavez Ravine for a couple billion….

      • paperlions - Oct 30, 2012 at 2:10 PM

        No, that assets were owned by the Dodgers, not part of the team. To state that the Dodgers were worth 2.4 billion is to say that the franchise is worth that much, which it is not. If MLB collapsed tomorrow, the land would still be worth upwards of 1.5 billion.

    • giantsinthewest - Oct 31, 2012 at 6:49 PM

      17m/year is affordable? That notion is laughable. That kind of salary classifies a player as a franchise leading player. If a player makes that kind of salary they better produce at an elite level. So far we’ve seen that Ethier is able to do that through July. Color me biased but I’d rather have Soriano who warms up with the weather. The second half is what really matters anyway.

  2. paperlions - Oct 30, 2012 at 9:54 AM

    They’d have to eat money to trade him….considering that….do they even have anyone to replace that production if they did trade him?

    • geoknows - Oct 30, 2012 at 10:26 AM

      We don’t know what the production will be, but they made a substantial investment in Yasiel Puig. Of course, he’s only 21 and he hasn’t played at a level any higher than the numbers-inflating Cal League yet, so one would think he’s still a couple of years away.

    • echech88 - Oct 30, 2012 at 11:17 AM

      They probably are having conversations about signing Hamilton to make another big splash.

      And then miss the playoffs again.

  3. manchestermiracle - Oct 30, 2012 at 10:27 AM

    Sounds like the Dodgers are continuing their fairly recent tradition of trading away productive players: Pedro Martinez, Russell Martin, Paul Lo Duca, Adrian Beltre, Rafael Furcal…..and now Andre Ethier? Who’s next, Clayton Kershaw?

    • banksatdixie - Oct 30, 2012 at 10:46 AM

      For the record, Russell Martin was non-tendered.

      • manchestermiracle - Oct 31, 2012 at 11:28 AM

        True, although the Dodgers worked hard right up until the deadline to trade him. Same bad result.

    • koufaxmitzvah - Oct 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM

      They didn’t trade Beltre, either. McCourt had decided to let him go in free agency to fund his next 7.5 years in haircuts.

  4. willclarkgameface - Oct 30, 2012 at 10:32 AM

    Thanks for taking tips from me Buster Olney. I started this rumor yesterday. I’m expecting a check to be in the mail.

    Need we recap? I said Ethier to the Giants for Lincecum. GET ‘ER DONE BOYS.

  5. tbbucs621 - Oct 30, 2012 at 10:51 AM

    We could use him in Tampa. We have plenty of pitching depth and if the Dodgers will eat some of his salary it could be a perfect trade.

    • js20011041 - Oct 30, 2012 at 1:11 PM

      Why would the Rays want that? For about 30 fewer points of OPS, the Rays have a RF in Matt Joyce that is both younger and much, much cheaper. Not to mention that they wouldn’t have to give up a prospect.

  6. echech88 - Oct 30, 2012 at 11:15 AM

    I literally cannot wait for the Dodgers to deal him and have to eat $15-20M to do it.

    This team now operates like a drunk housewife on Amazon.

    • koufaxmitzvah - Oct 30, 2012 at 11:32 AM

      Are you saying Ramirez, Beckett, and Gonzalez failed to play any more effectively for the Dodgers than for their previous teams? And are you also suggesting that 3 minor league pitchers, 2 minor league position players, and a .250 batting 1st baseman would have furthered the Dodgers season beyond game 160?

  7. vallewho - Oct 30, 2012 at 2:07 PM

    That’s a frightening list indeed.

  8. norcaldeportes - Oct 30, 2012 at 9:50 PM

    They should talk to the Dodgers, I bet they’d trade for an average player with an egregious contract…. Oh wait.

Leave Comment

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

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. B. Crawford (2817)
  2. C. Correa (2608)
  3. Y. Puig (2524)
  4. G. Stanton (2489)
  5. G. Springer (2423)
  1. H. Pence (2349)
  2. J. Hamilton (2197)
  3. M. Teixeira (2002)
  4. H. Ramirez (1970)
  5. J. Fernandez (1949)