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

By: giantsinthewest

giantsinthewest — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:49:58 +0000

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.

By: manchestermiracle

manchestermiracle — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:28:32 +0000

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

By: norcaldeportes

norcaldeportes — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 01:50:33 +0000

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

By: paperlions

paperlions — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:10:49 +0000

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.

By: vallewho

vallewho — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:07:24 +0000

That’s a frightening list indeed.

By: js20011041

js20011041 — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:11:18 +0000

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.

By: koufaxmitzvah

koufaxmitzvah — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:32:36 +0000

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?

By: koufaxmitzvah

koufaxmitzvah — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:29:25 +0000

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.

By: echech88

echech88 — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:17:58 +0000

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

And then miss the playoffs again.

By: echech88

echech88 — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:15:47 +0000

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.

By: tbbucs621

tbbucs621 — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:51:47 +0000

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.

By: banksatdixie

banksatdixie — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:46:50 +0000

For the record, Russell Martin was non-tendered.

By: willclarkgameface

willclarkgameface — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:32:25 +0000

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.

By: manchestermiracle

manchestermiracle — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:27:32 +0000

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?

By: geoknows

geoknows — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:26:05 +0000

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.

By: manchestermiracle

manchestermiracle — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:21:34 +0000

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….

By: paperlions

paperlions — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:59:07 +0000

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.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:54:04 +0000

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?

By: koufaxmitzvah

koufaxmitzvah — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:53:11 +0000

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.