Y2Jimmy0 Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Should the White Sox be interested in Andre Ethier if the Dodgers would eat LaRoche's contract? Ethier is 33 years old and is owed $37.5 million the next 2 years. How much would the Dodgers have to eat? Ethier put up a 2.9 fWAR and had a wRC+ of 137 last year. He was really good vs RHP. Vs RHP: .385 wOBA, 150 wRC+, high .336 BABIP, with a .900 OPS. My question is: What would it take? Who would the Dodgers have to take back in return and how much money would they have to eat? Ethier would give the Sox the LH run producer against RHP that they need and if they could dump LaRoche, it could give them flexibility with DH spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Dec 4, 2015 -> 07:50 AM) Should the White Sox be interested in Andre Ethier if the Dodgers would eat LaRoche's contract? Ethier is 33 years old and is owed $37.5 million the next 2 years. How much would the Dodgers have to eat? Ethier put up a 2.9 fWAR and had a wRC+ of 137 last year. He was really good vs RHP. Vs RHP: .385 wOBA, 150 wRC+, high .336 BABIP, with a .900 OPS. My question is: What would it take? Who would the Dodgers have to take back in return and how much money would they have to eat? Ethier would give the Sox the LH run producer against RHP that they need and if they could dump LaRoche, it could give them flexibility with DH spot. Dodgers wouldn't be interested in LaRoche for Ethier. 1) already have Gonzalez at first 2) Ethier is useful and likely their starting RF next season (probably moving Puig this offseason) We would have to include something significant to make it worth their time for them to take on LaRoche and cut him and pay him for the full season. Our farm isn't deep enough to make that type of move. Edited December 4, 2015 by soxfan2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenSox Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) Either + cash for Laroche seems fair. Can't trad young talent for Ethier. Some NL team could use him as back up first baseman. Ethier did have a bounce back season which will inflate price. Should have gotten him for nothing last year instead of Melky. Edited December 4, 2015 by GreenSox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 I wouldn't mind Ethier but I can't see why the Dodgers would take LaRoche just to sit him on the bench. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox59 Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 4, 2015 -> 07:55 AM) Either + cash for Laroche seems fair. Can't trad young talent for Ethier. No it doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted December 4, 2015 Author Share Posted December 4, 2015 QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Dec 4, 2015 -> 07:57 AM) I wouldn't mind Ethier but I can't see why the Dodgers would take LaRoche just to sit him on the bench. Well Rosenthal tweeted this morning that they'd like to move one of Ethier or Crawford. The only way it works for White Sox is without LaRoche. They could take LaRoche back and release him. They've done it before. Multiple times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunt Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 I would be ok with that if they took a bad contract back. John Danks anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Abreu Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 QUOTE (Dunt @ Dec 4, 2015 -> 08:07 AM) I would be ok with that if they took a bad contract back. John Danks anyone? Now that I think of it, John Danks could actually be an ok pitcher in the NL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox59 Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 QUOTE (Dunt @ Dec 4, 2015 -> 08:07 AM) I would be ok with that if they took a bad contract back. John Danks anyone? That's a more realistic swap than LaRoche, tho I'd obviously rather move Adam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Avi, LaRoche, Danks. Man, all 3 of these guys have been mentioned in proposed trades that bring back useful parts. You guys are smoking some nice bud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenSox Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Dec 4, 2015 -> 08:08 AM) Now that I think of it, John Danks could actually be an ok pitcher in the NL. Danks was 61 in pitcher WAR last year. Fly ball pitcher that could work in bigger parks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSoxFanMike Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 4, 2015 -> 08:10 AM) Avi, LaRoche, Danks. Man, all 3 of these guys have been mentioned in proposed trades that bring back useful parts. You guys are smoking some nice bud. LMAO. I was thinking the same thing. Those 3 have literally no value whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lasttriptotulsa Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 4, 2015 -> 08:10 AM) Avi, LaRoche, Danks. Man, all 3 of these guys have been mentioned in proposed trades that bring back useful parts. You guys are smoking some nice bud. You could get something for Avi. It wouldn't be much, but you could get something. The only way LaRoche and Danks are moving is by getting released, swapped for an equally as bad contract or given away with the Sox eating a s*** load of money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenSox Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) And let it be know that Danks had a higher War than James Shields and without the help of the fly ball park. Edited December 4, 2015 by GreenSox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 4, 2015 -> 08:28 AM) And let it be know that Danks had a higher War than James Shields and without the help of the fly ball park. Hero worshipper. Danks is what he is at this point, and is a bit more useful than the worthless he is tagged to be, but I doubt anyone is looking to pick him up unless the White Sox are willing to do them a big favor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Dec 4, 2015 -> 07:59 AM) Well Rosenthal tweeted this morning that they'd like to move one of Ethier or Crawford. The only way it works for White Sox is without LaRoche. They could take LaRoche back and release him. They've done it before. Multiple times. I think the Dodgers can find a better deal for Ethier than trading for LaRoche only to release him. Ethier's value has rebounded and could go up more depending on how much the big FA outfielders contracts look after they've signed. Danks could be a somewhat realistic option but very doubtful since the Dodgers need a legit front line starter and have McCarthy coming back. Danks would certainly fit into that ball park very well though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted December 4, 2015 Author Share Posted December 4, 2015 QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Dec 4, 2015 -> 08:39 AM) I think the Dodgers can find a better deal for Ethier than trading for LaRoche only to release him. Ethier's value has rebounded and could go up more depending on how much the big FA outfielders contracts look after they've signed. Danks could be a somewhat realistic option but very doubtful since the Dodgers need a legit front line starter and have McCarthy coming back. Danks would certainly fit into that ball park very well though. Yeah you are probably right. Ethier doesn't really make sense on the Sox though with LaRoche also on the team. That's why I put it the way I did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunt Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 If the Sox decided to go the route of trading a prospect or two for him and having the Dodgers eat some cash, he would definitely be an interesting rotational piece with Thompson and LaRoche. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFutureIsNear Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) Think I've been advocating a Danks for Ethier swap for about 3 years now lol...Ethier probably upped his value by having a good year so I'm not sure a 1 for 1 swap makes a ton of sense. Although, an easily attainable 17.5M vesting option in '18 for Ethier is a little scary. Dodgers would have to eat a lot of money and in doing so they'd probably want something decent in return. They need pitching depth though so maybe Danks + Beck makes sense for them hoping to fill their 5th spot in the rotation while still saving a couple million on Ethier this year. Ethier + $12M(? end up somewhere close to 3/ 40M for '16-'18 for us) for Danks and Beck? Edited December 4, 2015 by TheFutureIsNear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lasttriptotulsa Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 4, 2015 -> 08:28 AM) And let it be know that Danks had a higher War than James Shields and without the help of the fly ball park. Shields definitely pitched better than Danks in 2015. The only reason Danks had a higher fWAR is because fWAR uses FIP. Shields' FIP was destroyed by a ridiculous 17.6% HR/FB rate. His xFIP, which normalizes HR/FB to a league average 10.5%, was 3.70. Significantly better than Danks. I don't think there is a GM in baseball that would take Danks over Shields if you ignore their contracts. Edited December 4, 2015 by lasttriptotulsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Dec 4, 2015 -> 01:50 PM) Should the White Sox be interested in Andre Ethier if the Dodgers would eat LaRoche's contract? Ethier is 33 years old and is owed $37.5 million the next 2 years. How much would the Dodgers have to eat? Ethier put up a 2.9 fWAR and had a wRC+ of 137 last year. He was really good vs RHP. Vs RHP: .385 wOBA, 150 wRC+, high .336 BABIP, with a .900 OPS. My question is: What would it take? Who would the Dodgers have to take back in return and how much money would they have to eat? Ethier would give the Sox the LH run producer against RHP that they need and if they could dump LaRoche, it could give them flexibility with DH spot. imo, the dodger will start with rodon then move on to Q is they are expecting to eat laroche contract and get ethier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted December 4, 2015 Author Share Posted December 4, 2015 QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 4, 2015 -> 09:55 AM) imo, the dodger will start with rodon then move on to Q is they are expecting to eat laroche contract and get ethier. No chance. Q would cost Joc Pederson +. I think Rodon would actually cost more than Q. No chance the Dodgers would ask for that in return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunt Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 4, 2015 -> 09:55 AM) imo, the dodger will start with rodon then move on to Q is they are expecting to eat laroche contract and get ethier. Rodon or Q for Ethier? Nooooo Edited December 4, 2015 by Dunt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenSox Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 QUOTE (Dunt @ Dec 4, 2015 -> 08:45 AM) If the Sox decided to go the route of trading a prospect or two for him and having the Dodgers eat some cash, he would definitely be an interesting rotational piece with Thompson and LaRoche. Sox just can't trade prospects for 33 year olds when the org is in this shape Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGajewski18 Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 4, 2015 -> 12:26 PM) Sox just can't trade prospects for 33 year olds when the org is in this shape But we can trade our valuable guys for unknowns. With your ideas, you can't even provide names when you do want to trade Quintana, Eaton, Sale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.