I Might've Gotten Carried Away

I was going to post a quick comment on another blog about possible trade ideas for Juan Pierre now that we have Manny, and started researching and writing and before I knew it, I kinda almost wrote an entire article on my idea. Anyway, here it is:

I have a hard time finding trading partners because I don't know how much value Pierre has to other teams (read: I don't know if they realize how bad he is), but let's take a look at the Reds.

Let's assume this is a fit for a couple reasons:

1. Dusty Baker had him for one year in Chicago and liked him enough to send him out there for all 162 games. (Minor Problem?: Dusty Baker knows the truth about Juan Pierre, and will tell the Reds GM to steer clear? I actually have no idea how Baker feels about Pierre, but let's assume he likes him.)

2. The four outfielders on the Reds 40-man roster are Jay Bruce, Willy Taveras, Norris Hopper, and Chris Dickerson, so let's say there is room for improvement. (Minor Problem: Willy Taveras is already basically Juan Pierre) Still, Pierre is an improvement over Hopper and Dickerson.

Anyway, assuming those two things, here's a couple options to chew on: Juan Pierre to the Reds for either Bronson Arroyo or Aaron Harang.

Pierre is owed $10M in 2009, $10M in 2010, and $8.5M in 2011.

Harang is owed $11M in 2009, $12.5M in 2010, and $12.75M in 2011 ($2M club option buyout).

Arroyo is owed $9.5M in 2009, $11M in 2010, and $11M in 2011 ($2M club option buyout).

Obtaining either of the pitchers would mean additional payroll, but McCourt is $30M under last years payroll, so he could stand to spend a little more.

Harang's been good, Arroyo's never been great, but both had pretty sub-par years last year, though I'm willing to bet those ERAs will lower in the friendly confines of Dodger Stadium (also, the idea of Aaron Harang or Bronson Arroyo as our #5 starter is actually pretty nice when you think about it). Plus, there's the added benefit that if they don't work out, we don't pick up their 2011 option.

The Reds also have a lot of good young pitchers coming up and filling out the rotation, so more than likely, one of the two I mentioned would have to go at some point anyway.

Personally, I like the idea (probably because it's mine), but then again, it's hard for me to be objective. I'm not really sure the Reds would go for it.

Not to say it doesn't benefit them. They lower their payroll, acquire a "solid" outfielder, and free up space in their clustered starting rotation for a young arm.

See? This trade makes sense, both in terms of economics and personel. Both sides win. This seems like a great idea to me.

...which mean it'll never happen.

Editorial: Sweeney and Maddux

Dodger game is going on right now, but I had a few assorted thoughts.

First, I said I had an interesting note about Mark Sweeney. Here's Torre's quote on Sweeney from a Dodgers.com article:

"Torre said he remains committed to left-handed pinch-hitter Mark Sweeney, despite his seasonlong slump. The popular Sweeney is batting .122 on the season and is 9-for-60 (.150) pinch-hitting with five RBIs.

Torre pointed out that Sweeney has improved since coming off the disabled list July 27 (3-for-10) after a hamstring injury that bothered him long before he was injured.

'You'd have to find somebody that's a better option and we don't have one,' Torre said. 'What he's done and his experience carries some weight. For a pinch-hitter, average isn't that important, although .120 is proof he hasn't gotten enough hits. Early on, he was terrible. But a lot of his average was when he was trying to play with the leg problem he had. He knows what to do up there. I still have faith in him to get big hits.'"

That's good that Torre still has faith in him to get big hits. I'm fairly sure he's the only one. I'm not even sure Mark Sweeney has faith he can collect some big hits anymore. This does confirm what I've said before: Sweeney is going to make it the whole year. He's with us until the end. If we make the playoffs, don't be surprised to see him there, too.

As for the Greg Maddux trade, I like it. We've already committed to winning this year, so we might as well go all out and get whoever we can for the stretch run. Still, the trade will be hard to analyze until we know who the Padres are getting back for Maddux. Hopefully, Ned Colletti had the sense to know the Padres were in a corner, and that they either had to keep Maddux, or send him to us. Supposedly, we are sending them two Players-To-Be-Named-Later, both of which are playing in the lower minor leagues, which seems ok to me, so long as those aren't the top two players in the lower minor leagues. We really shouldn't have to give that much for Maddux, but we'll find out soon enough. The Padres have to pick their two players by October.

The Shortstop Question

So there's been talk recently about the shortstop position and what the Dodgers should do there.

Well, first and foremost, Nomar Garciaparra deserves the chance to continue showing the Dodgers he can handle short, which I believe, if he can stay healthy, he can.

However, we do know how injury prone Nomar is. It is not out of the realm of possibility that Nomar could find his way back to the DL by the end of the season, and if he does, we don't have any real good solutions at short.

Recently, a lot of talk centered around the Dodgers trading for Jack Wilson from the Pirates. I don't hate the idea as far as Wilson the player, but from what I've heard, Wilson likes the Pirates and the Pirates like Wilson so they aren't too willing to part with him. And that means if we want him, we can't just ship them any nobody and they send us Wilson as a salary dump. We'd need to send them something of value, and I definitely don't think the Dodgers should give up any real value for Jack Wilson.

Also, yesterday, Ken Gurnick of Dodgers.com noted in his game recap:

"After hearing constant rumors during the day that he was headed home to Detroit in exchange for Tigers shortstop Edgar Renteria, Lowe focused on outdueling Tim Hudson in a 2-1 win over the Braves..."

After hearing about a really bad possible trade with Cleveland that was vetoed a few days ago, now there's news of this. Again, what a ridiculous trade. How would giving up a solid part of our starting rotation for a shortstop who has not been hitting well at all this year help us? Would Renteria really help us win more games than Derek Lowe would? If we trade Derek Lowe, we are basically saying we are out of it and not looking to make the playoffs this year, and if that's the case, trade him for a good prospect, not a declining, older shortstop.

MLB.com has a section devoted to the trading block, and one specifically dedicated to middle infielders.

Here are some options I'd look at if we were to try and pick up a shortstop:

There is also David Eckstein. I like him as a player, but he's not great, and he's probably not a long term solution. However, he could be probably be gotten pretty cheaply. There is a question as to how much he has left but he might be worth a shot if it doesn't cost us much.

Cristian Guzmán is having a great season, and is still fairly young. The page says the Nationals might try to negotiate an extension with him, but if they feel they can't they might trade him. The Nationals, however, are one of those teams that enjoy building up themselves with prospects, so they might ask for a good amount from us for him.

The page also mentions Juan Uribe. I think Colletti tried getting Uribe before Berroa. He's not too bad. He's hit for power in the past, but he's got a pretty low average. He's pretty good defensively, and the page says that might be enough for the White Sox to keep him.

Also, Felipe Lopez. The page says he's making 4.9 million this year. He had one good year in 2005 and hasn't come close since, he's got ok speed. I think I'd only take him if he came really cheap.

Finally, from the page, Bill Hall. His stats have been sagging since his great year in 2006 so that might make him cheaper to come by, but I don't care for his complaining over playing time. There is also the question of if he can play ss, he hasn't since 2006, though he has been playing some infield this season. He still might cost a pretty penny, and I'm not sure if it's worth it for the Dodgers.

Now, thinking outside the box a little bit, there are two other options the page didn't mention. There is an issue however, and that is that they are both from NL West teams and there always seems to be an issue trading within the division.

In any case, the Rockies have four players who can all play in the middle infield positions: Clint Barmes, Troy Tulowitzki, Ian Stewart, and Omar Quintanilla. Quintanilla isn't too good a hitter, and the Rockies are high on Stewart and Tulowitzki, so I see Barmes as an option. He had a good year in 2005, has struggled a little since, but is making a good comeback this year, and is still young enough to be a long term solution at short for us. There is the question, though, of how much it will cost us and if we are willing to deal within the division.

Another idea from in the division might be Khalil Greene from San Diego. He's under performing this year, and many in San Diego are losing patience with him, which could make him a cheaper pickup. He's solid defensively, and can hit for some power, even in ridiculous Petco Park. The main issue is that the Padres don't have anyone to replace him. Therefore, we'd need a package that included a replacement ss for them, and we don't necessarily have that. We could offer them someone like Berroa or Maza just so they'd have someone (anyone) to play shortstop, but we'd need to give them a good prospect as the real meat of the trade, or possibly Chin-lung Hu and another prospect.

Ultimately, I want to see how well Nomar can still handle shortstop. So far, he's done well. The question is: for how long? The big dilemna comes around July 31st. If Nomar is still healthy, should we gamble and assume he can make it the rest of the season, or play it safe and add another shortstop? That's for Colletti to decide. And that worries me a little...

Sabathia Trade Talk

There was a lot of talk recently about the attempts the Dodgers were making to obtain C.C. Sabathia from the Indians and ultimately why the Dodgers didn't acquire him.

In my opinion, it wouldn't have been a good idea to trade for Sabathia. As of right now, pitching is not our problem, hitting is, and almost all sources indicated that Matt Kemp was likely to be involved in the trade, along with a few other prospects as well. And that was just a deal for Sabathia...

Well, according to Tony Jackson of the L.A. Daily News:

"Dodgers owner Frank McCourt nixed a trade that would have brought Sabathia to Los Angeles, along with Indians third baseman Casey Blake and utility man Jamey Carroll."

This was a great call. First off, for Sabathia alone, the Milwaukee Brewers had to give up four prospects. Can you imagine how many players we'd have to give up for Sabathia, and Blake and Carroll on top of that?

Secondly, how could this trade have helped the team? We would have added Sabathia, who is an excellent pitcher, but he would have pushed someone out of our already crowded starting rotation, that has been doing very well recently. On top of this, we'd acquire Casey Blake, who will be 35 in August, and has seen his numbers decline the past few years, and frankly, wouldn't add much to our starting lineup. I'd rather see Blake DeWitt or Andy LaRoche out there. Also coming over in the deal would have been 34-year old Jamey Carroll. Carroll is a light-hitting (and I stress light hitting: 9 career hrs, .272 career average, plus not too much speed to speak of) utility infielder. What could Carroll give us that we couldn't already get from Luis Maza?

And to think, we could have given up some good prospects for that? I haven't agreed with too much Frank McCourt has done, but he gets some points in my book if he did, in fact, veto this trade. Now there's talk about what to do at the shortstop position, and whether or not there should be a trade. I'll write about that later.