Dec 18, 2012, 9:26 AM EDT
UPDATE: Rosenthal says the Dodgers have “zero intention” of trading Ethier, but will listen. He says two teams have inquired.
November: No, the Dodgers are not interested in trading Andre Ethier.
December: The Dodgers are interested in trading Andre Ethier:
Source: Dodgers shopping Andre Ethier. If they deal him, they could be in the mix for Nick Swisher.
— Mark Feinsand (@FeinsandNYDN) December 18, 2012
I don’t doubt that the Dodgers would actually like to trade Ethier, but he’s got an ugly contract, even by late 2012’s increasingly crazy standards. L.A. owes him $85 million between now and 2017. This for a guy who turns 31 next season. If anyone wanted Ethier, they’d be better off just signing Nick Swisher themselves.
Which doesn’t mean he’s untradable. For one thing — as one of my Tweeps notes — a free agent like Swisher may nit wish to go to a place like, say, Seattle, so if the M’s wanted his like, they could do a deal for Ethier. And of course, L.A. could kick in a lot of money in any Ethier deal.
Still seems pretty unlikely anyone would bite, but stranger things have happened.
- Royals even up World Series with 7-2 Game 2 victory 0
- Craig Kimbrel wins Trevor Hoffman Award; Greg Holland gets Mariano Rivera Award 4
- World Series, Game 2: Giants vs. Royals lineups 9
- HBT Daily: Are the Royals doomed, doomed, doomed? 11
- Giants inhaling the air of superiority after Game 1 7
- What’s in a name? “Big Game” James did not come up big for Kansas City 22
- World Series Reset: The Royals look to pick themselves up off the mat 8
- Royals’ World Series hopes in Yordano Ventura’s hands 7
- So, if you’re not a fan of the Royals or Giants, who ya got? (128)
- Erroneous Narrative Alert: no, the Giants are not a “gritty,” anti-stats organization (121)
- Pedro Martinez has some opinions about who the new “face of baseball” is (112)
- PANTY RAID! Homeland Security agents confiscate unlicensed Kansas City Royals underwear (95)
- “The Kansas City Royals Are the Future of Baseball” — someone actually said that. (93)