caulfield12 Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 Blake Smith, Purke, Beck, Minaya, Kahnle, Soto (pitcher), Coats, Kevan Smith, Lawrie, Leury Garcia, Avisail Garcia, Alfredo Gonzalez (catcher). That's 12, and doesn't include Liriano or Goldberg. Ynoa, either. 40 man roster space is the least of their issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMule2545 Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 27, 2016 -> 12:28 AM) Blake Smith, Purke, Beck, Minaya, Kahnle, Soto (pitcher), Coats, Kevan Smith, Lawrie, Leury Garcia, Avisail Garcia, Alfredo Gonzalez (catcher). That's 12, and doesn't include Liriano or Goldberg. Ynoa, either. 40 man roster space is the least of their issues. I personally have issue with ditching guys like Beck, Minaya, Soto, Kahnle, Avi (I know, I'm one of the few - the exit velos and launch angles along with a revamped stance he displayed in 2016 give me a sliver of hope), Liriano, Goldberg, or Ynoa for a rebuilding team. Shoot Beck, Kahnle, Goldberg, and Ynoa have potential to play useful roles in a bullpen. But I see your point - there's a lot of expendale players if push comes to shove and we receive legitimate players in return. Edited November 27, 2016 by Ro Da Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolishPrince34 Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 Interesting article on Dodgers financial situation. http://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgers/la-s...1126-story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenSox Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Nov 26, 2016 -> 11:31 PM) Which players are you okay with cutting and getting no value on? Caufield detailed that well. And not all of those guys are cinches to be grabbed. And what's the deal with Avi? Are they really sticking with him through arb? Regardless, though, I don't see a ton of pressure on the 40 man. Realistically, for Sale you are looking at 2 elite prospects 2 others in the top 60 or so, and then some low minors guys. Maybe 3 of those will need to be on the 40 man. They may eventually trade Quintana and Eaton, but they don't seem that inclined and there's no reason to completely flood the market with our young studs. (I would move Eaton if some team will pay as if he's a 5-6 WAR player; otherwise, hang tight). I can't get a read on what they will do with Abreu - if he goes, yes that may require a spot on the 40 man. So now you're down to Frazier, Melky, D Rob, Nate Jones. The better deal for those guys very well be high ceiling low minor guys. Jones could bring a top prospect, who could still be a year or 2 away. If they want ML ready guys, D Rob would bring someone like Tilson...in this situation, a low minor prospect with a lot more upside is a better way to go. Edited November 27, 2016 by GreenSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Nov 26, 2016 -> 11:31 PM) Which players are you okay with cutting and getting no value on? You have to remember if guys are taken in rule 5 draft, they would have to stick on the drafting team's MLB roster ALL season. Not sure we have guys towards the end of the 40-man who would get drafted and stick even through spring training. They would be offered back to us. Edited November 27, 2016 by soxfan2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 Dodgers apparently have to dramatically cut payroll this year due to MLB debt rules. Have to think that increases Sale's attractiveness - and potentially Frazier's (compared to Turner). Also makes me think Puig probably comes back in any deal - allowing the Dodgers to shed about $8-9 million each of the next two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolishPrince34 Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 QUOTE (Username @ Nov 27, 2016 -> 10:59 AM) Dodgers apparently have to dramatically cut payroll this year due to MLB debt rules. Have to think that increases Sale's attractiveness - and potentially Frazier's (compared to Turner). Also makes me think Puig probably comes back in any deal - allowing the Dodgers to shed about $8-9 million each of the next two years. I agree with that assumption. Also might open up the avenues of a 3 way deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Nov 26, 2016 -> 10:32 PM) I agree. But if you traded everyone with value this offseason per se (Sale, Q, Eaton, Abreu, Robertson, Jones, Melky, Frazier, Lawrie, Jennings - 10 players) you're looking at getting around 20-25 players in return. There's maybe 5 or 6 guys on our 40-man I'd be okay ditching without either seeing more of them or getting literally nothing in return for them, on a supposed rebuilding team. There is zero chance of that happening. Even if they did, the guys they would get back would mostly be pre-40 man roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 QUOTE (PolishPrince34 @ Nov 27, 2016 -> 07:26 AM) Interesting article on Dodgers financial situation. http://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgers/la-s...1126-story.html Interesting read. That could make a guy like Sale or Quintana even more important. It would also mean that a guy like Frazier wouldn't happen, while they could ask us to take back a Puig in order to dump a few bucks to make a deal revenue neutral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGajewski18 Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 27, 2016 -> 11:17 AM) Interesting read. That could make a guy like Sale or Quintana even more important. It would also mean that a guy like Frazier wouldn't happen, while they could ask us to take back a Puig in order to dump a few bucks to make a deal revenue neutral. Unless we get one of their starters back in a deal like Ryu or McCarthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSoxFanMike Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Nov 27, 2016 -> 11:32 AM) Unless we get one of their starters back in a deal like Ryu or McCarthy I definitely wouldn't mind taking on a bigger contract in a Sale trade if more prospects were coming back as a result at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGajewski18 Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Nov 27, 2016 -> 11:34 AM) I definitely wouldn't mind taking on a bigger contract in a Sale trade if more prospects were coming back as a result at the same time. I could see something like Sale and Frazier for McCarthy, Puig, Urias, Bellinger, Verdugo, Calhoun/Lux, and Alvarez. That still leaves Kershaw, Sale, Maeda, Kazmir, Wood, Stirpling, De Leon, Stewart, and Ryu for depth for the Dodgers. Edited November 27, 2016 by SoxPride18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Nov 27, 2016 -> 11:39 AM) I could see something like Sale and Frazier for McCarthy, Puig, Urias, Bellinger, Verdugo, Calhoun/Lux, and Alvarez. That still leaves Kershaw, Sale, Maeda, Kazmir, Wood, Stirpling, De Leon, Stewart, and Ryu for depth for the Dodgers. Yeah and some of those guys even come off books in next couple of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMule2545 Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 27, 2016 -> 11:13 AM) There is zero chance of that happening. Even if they did, the guys they would get back would mostly be pre-40 man roster. I said 'per se' aka 'for the sake of the argument'. You really trust Reinsdorf to take back high ceiling 19 year olds over players close to the majors? I really don't. The guy is what, 81? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lasttriptotulsa Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Nov 27, 2016 -> 11:34 AM) I definitely wouldn't mind taking on a bigger contract in a Sale trade if more prospects were coming back as a result at the same time. Well of course you wouldn't, you don't have to sign the paychecks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSoxFanMike Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Nov 27, 2016 -> 11:45 AM) Well of course you wouldn't, you don't have to sign the paychecks. Would it kill you to not be a condescending douche for once? You know what I meant. The Sox still have to field a team next year whether they rebuild or not, and adding an expensive player or two wouldn't be the end of the world IMO if more prospects with potential were also added to the deal because of the inclusion of said expensive player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southwest Sider Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 Honestly, if the Dodgers want to attach a Puig to the deal, Urias better be coming back. I think he has negative value in that he seems to be a cancerous player, and on top of that he doesn't even perform that well. Attaching him to a deal to acquire Sale should mean Urias +++. Getting the Sox to take Puig off of their hands only hurts their ability to bargain with prospects. If I were the Dodgers and I needed to dump Puig, I'd explore any alternative possible other than attaching him to a deal for one of the best pitchers on the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMule2545 Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 QUOTE (South Sider @ Nov 27, 2016 -> 11:53 AM) Honestly, if the Dodgers want to attach a Puig to the deal, Urias better be coming back. I think he has negative value in that he seems to be a cancerous player, and on top of that he doesn't even perform that well. Attaching him to a deal to acquire Sale should mean Urias +++. Getting the Sox to take Puig off of their hands only hurts their ability to bargain with prospects. If I were the Dodgers and I needed to dump Puig, I'd explore any alternative possible other than attaching him to a deal for one of the best pitchers on the planet. Urias better be coming back regardless. This is Chris Sale we're talking about trading. Even if Sale was making 20+ mil anually the next 3 seasons, Urias better be coming back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSoxFanMike Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Nov 27, 2016 -> 11:55 AM) Urias better be coming back regardless. This is Chris Sale we're talking about trading. Even if Sale was making 20+ mil anually the next 3 seasons, Urias better be coming back. Agreed...and if the Dodgers are set on not moving Urias, then the Sox should be able to clean out the rest of their system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolishPrince34 Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 27, 2016 -> 11:17 AM) Interesting read. That could make a guy like Sale or Quintana even more important. It would also mean that a guy like Frazier wouldn't happen, while they could ask us to take back a Puig in order to dump a few bucks to make a deal revenue neutral. In 2 years Dodgers will only have $47 million locked up on their active roster. That will be scary with Harper, Machado, etc. all on the free agent market. Also Yankee's will have only $55 million locked up. No chance for the smaller market teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Nov 27, 2016 -> 11:32 AM) Unless we get one of their starters back in a deal like Ryu or McCarthy Could be. That would make sense for LA, but we'd have to clean off their top prospects list if dead weight like that is added in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 QUOTE (Ro Da Don @ Nov 27, 2016 -> 11:43 AM) I said 'per se' aka 'for the sake of the argument'. You really trust Reinsdorf to take back high ceiling 19 year olds over players close to the majors? I really don't. The guy is what, 81? I really don't think you could find that many roster eligible guys in those sort of deals. 20-25 seems insanely high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 QUOTE (PolishPrince34 @ Nov 27, 2016 -> 12:03 PM) In 2 years Dodgers will only have $47 million locked up on their active roster. That will be scary with Harper, Machado, etc. all on the free agent market. Also Yankee's will have only $55 million locked up. No chance for the smaller market teams. But it sounds like they don't have that kind of time, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolishPrince34 Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 27, 2016 -> 11:17 AM) Interesting read. That could make a guy like Sale or Quintana even more important. It would also mean that a guy like Frazier wouldn't happen, while they could ask us to take back a Puig in order to dump a few bucks to make a deal revenue neutral. http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/los-angeles-dodgers/payroll/2017/ This year they have to worry about their spending with already $162 million locked up for only 8 team members and dead money for 2017 year. You have 17/18 remaining spots to fill Edited November 27, 2016 by PolishPrince34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 Devils advocate - that makes them less likely to trade for Sale as trading away a bunch of cheap talent across multiple positions is not a luxury they have now. They will not be able to use cash to plug in holes, are more reliant on their farm to produce than ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts