SOURCE: 2 horse race between Dodgers and Astros

[caulfield12]

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.

[KMule2545]

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

[PolishPrince34]

Interesting article on Dodgers financial situation.

 

http://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgers/la-s...1126-story.html

[GreenSox]

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

[Bob Sacamano]

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

[username]

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.

[PolishPrince34]

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.

[southsider2k5]

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.

[southsider2k5]

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.

[GGajewski18]

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

[YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES!]

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.

[GGajewski18]

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

[Bob Sacamano]

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.

[KMule2545]

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?

[lasttriptotulsa]

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.

[YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES!]

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.

[Southwest Sider]

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.

[KMule2545]

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.

[YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES!]

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.

[PolishPrince34]

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.

[southsider2k5]

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.

[southsider2k5]

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.

[southsider2k5]

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?

[PolishPrince34]

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

[bmags]

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.