Mike Scioscia’s Tragic Illness: Even though he’s away from home right now, I think Mike Petriello comes away from the trade with the right approach.

So how am I feeling about it today? I think Gonzalez is going to be an incredible fit in LA, especially considering that reports of his demise in Boston seem overblown (he was outstanding last year and has been very good for much of this year after a slow start) and that he never seemed to want to leave Southern California in the first place. It’s a high price to pay, but if he is what we think he is – and don’t forget, there was little available in the first base market next year, so if you’re spending money, this is how you do it – and the team becomes a consistent contender, I think it’ll be a price we can live with.

And if not? The next decade could get ugly, fast. For now, I’m cautiously optimistic, but mainly excited for the rest of the season.

I’m the same. Hopeful, but wary for reasons that I believe are legitimate. Far too many Dodgers fans pretending this is highway robbery in our favor, in my opinion.

Dodger Thoughts: Jon Weisman invokes Pedro Martinez for Delino DeShields.

The chances of De La Rosa becoming one of the greatest pitchers of all time might be slim, but De La Rosa doesn’t have to become the second Pedro to represent a major loss for the Dodgers. He could just be really good, while Gonzalez apes DeShields’ decline.

Like I said, I’m hungry for a World Series title, and I’m not saying the risk of trading De La Rosa won’t be worth it. Don’t misunderstand me: The Dodgers need a player like Gonzalez, who boosts them at their weakest position. I even believe that a move back to his Southern California roots and away from the Red Sox maelstrom could revitalize him.

All I’m saying is, short of Clayton Kershaw, the trade of any other pitcher besides De La Rosa would have left me more comfortable.

Not sure I agree with the people flipping out on him, especially if the Dodgers can’t upgrade their rotation significantly in the coming years. However, I think Adrian Gonzalez is a far better player and Rubby De La Rosa, while one of my favorites, won’t get to ace level.

Sports Illustrated: Jay Jaffe acknowledges the risk and the reward, saying that if nothing else it makes the season compelling.

All in all, it’s a dizzying deal that could affect not only the outcome of this year’s NL playoff races, but also could turn the Dodgers into the NL West’s powerhouse for years to come, with an enviable middle of the order starring Kemp, Gonzalez, Ramirez and Ethier. Or it could blow up in the team’s collective face, saddling the Dodgers with unproductive players signed to long-term deals, and hampering their roster flexibility much as it did these Red Sox.

Given their surrender of two top young arms, and the massive savings — and saving face — that the deal offered Boston, the Dodgers should have come away with far more than $12 million in salary discounts. That they didn’t puts virtually all of the risk on them, but it makes for a compellingly aggressive play in a playoff race that remains wide open.

True Blue LA: Eric Stephen notes that the team is headed for the luxury tax.

Dodgers Now: Stan Kasten says they aren’t maxed out yet though.

If the Dodgers can add $260 million to their payroll in one trade — and close to a half-billion dollars in four months — is there a limit to their spending?

“Somewhere, I suppose,” Chairman Mark Walter said Saturday.

And where might that limit be?

“I haven’t found it yet,” President Stan Kasten said. “I’ll let you know when we get there.”

Not sure how much of that is rhetoric, but I think we’ll see in the 2013 off-season.

FanGraphs: Dave Cameron thinks it doesn’t make sense from a baseball perspective but that it might make sense if the Dodgers make a deep run into the playoffs due to financials.

From a purely baseball standpoint, this investment doesn’t make sense. Gonzalez isn’t valuable enough to make him worth taking on the albatross contracts of Crawford and Beckett, and the Dodgers almost certainly could have gotten a better bang for their buck in free agency this winter. However, making moves this winter won’t get people interested in the Dodgers in the same way that a deep playoff run this year will.

I’m getting a lot of similar comments on Twitter, so I know this isn’t a rare opinion, but I have to wonder how legitimate the train of thought is. Dodgers fans show up regardless of how the team is doing, and the only reason attendance plummeted last year was because of a fan boycott of Frank McCourt. Even with all the turmoil, they were sixth in attendance last year, and this year they’re already back up to third. As such, I don’t buy the argument that they needed to do this during the season to make the playoffs otherwise fans wouldn’t come back and they wouldn’t make money. If the tens of millions from potential playoff revenue is going to make or break a team with billions of dollars looming, then there are bigger problems here.

Also, I don’t buy that this is to create buzz for a media deal. We’re all speculating, but logically I don’t see why cable companies, who negotiate deals like this all the time, would be swayed off their valuation due to a small sample size and not take into account the big 15-to-25 year picture. It’s already rumored to be in the $8 billion range, so how much higher could it go? Maybe they are that dumb, I dunno, but it seems iffy to assume so.

There’s no getting around the fact that the Dodgers likely just paid $20 for a gallon of milk. Given the prices everyone else is paying for milk, that seems pretty silly. If you happen to have lots of $20 bills and no milk, however, and there’s only one guy selling milk in your immediate vicinity, maybe you just complain about price gouging and hand over the $20. Depending on just how many $20s the Dodgers ownership has, this might not end up being quite as nuts as it looks on the surface.

Or, maybe I’m just over-thinking all of this, and the Dodgers just made a horrible, horrible trade. I’m honestly not sure.

Maybe, but I can’t see this trade destroying the team down the road. It might make for an inferior roster, but as long as they continue to spend, the team will be competitive. I’d just rather have to go through as little big money decline phases as possible.

ESPN: Buster Olney names his winners and losers … with the Dodgers on both.

Winners: The Dodgers of 2012

They are markedly better today than they were before this deal. Adrian Gonzalez is perfect for their lineup, their lineup balance, their defense and their ballpark, and he knows the division from his many years with the Padres. Beckett might be energized, and he gets to shift out of one of the best-hitting divisions to one of the worst.

Winners: Magic Johnson, Stan Kasten and the rest of the Dodgers’ ownership group

In less than four months, these owners have managed to completely rebrand the franchise, and, even if the Dodgers don’t make the playoffs this year, they’ve set themselves up for a major bounce forward in attendance and interest and team success in 2013. The city might throw them a parade even if they don’t win the World Series because, ding-dong, the Frank McCourt era is over.

Losers: The Dodgers of 2017

The team’s stunning spending spree feels good today, but Los Angeles has set itself up to have a roster loaded with aging stars in about five years — Matt Kemp, Gonzalez, Crawford and Andre Ethier all have contracts that run through that season. By then, the Dodgers’ farm system should be replenished, and the club’s ownership should have the resources to pave over that type of problem in the way the Yankees have — and, in any event, Dodgers fans won’t have to worry about that for a while.

ESPN: Keith Law takes a good now and bad later approach as well.

This deal could end up looking good for both sides, better for the Dodgers in the very short term but much better for the Red Sox in the long term. Boston enters this winter with a new financial lease on life, freeing the Sox up to spend in a weak free-agent market or perhaps to take on a large contract someone else would like to move (Cliff Lee? Justin Upton?).

They’re also looking at a pretty interesting group of position-player prospects racing up the system, led by Xander Bogaerts, who has improved his defense at shortstop this year and might defy earlier expectations and stay at the position. That potential for an inexpensive core should help Boston avoid a similar tangle of large contracts in the near future, just at a point when the Dodgers are facing a financial quagmire and roster crunch of their own.

Baseball executives are chiming in on the trade, basically questioning what the Dodgers are doing.

Rival exec on #Dodgers: “If you had $250M to spend, is this how you’d do it?”

— Ken Rosenthal (@Ken_Rosenthal) August 25, 2012

Rival execs are wondering why LADs didn’t simply say to BOS: We’ll take your bad contracts, but we’re not giving you any prospects of note.

— Buster Olney (@Buster_ESPN) August 25, 2012

NL exec view:”The Dodgers so wanted Gonzalez they took Crawford and Beckett’s money and traded two great arms to get him.”

— Peter Gammons (@pgammo) August 25, 2012

While I don’t necessarily disagree with their assessment, one has to wonder how much of this is legit and how much of this is just being jealous.

The Dodgers finalized a trade today that will send Rubby De La Rosa, Allen Webster, Jerry Sands, James Loney, and Ivan De Jesus to the Red Sox for Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford, Josh Beckett, Nick Punto, and Cash.

I gave my initial reaction to the deal yesterday, but after an in-depth analysis, did anything change?

=====

Adrian Gonzalez

The Dodgers are paying ~$130 million for six years and a month of his services. Accounting for inflation over the course of the contract, every win will come out to ~$5 million, so the Dodgers are paying for about 26 WAR or 4.2 WAR per year.

Will he be worth it? I’m quite confident he will be, despite issues that others have concerns about.

In 2011 with the Red Sox, he hit .338/.410/.548/.957, posting a ~6.5 WAR season. He got off to a slow start in 2012, however, and thus only has a .300/.343/.469/.812 line. However, he has come on of late, and he projects to finish the year on a .301/.369/.504/.873 tear, so I don’t think he’s at the start of a precipitous decline. The primary concern is that his career 10.7 BB% has dipped to 5.9%, and it will need to rebound for him to live up to his usual standard. With that said, his batting projection puts his OPS around .860 or so, which presumes a gain in walk rate.

His fielding has never been in doubt, as he is a plus defender across all advanced metrics and I don’t think anybody would argue with it. He does lack foot speed though, which is why his baserunning total comes in low.

That’s not to say there’s minimal risk though, which makes sense, since he wouldn’t have been let go otherwise. He’s in his age-30 season right now, and aging curves tell us that he’s likely to regress over the course of his contract, as the mid-30s are generally the danger area. On the upside, I don’t see a reason to be concerned about injuries, as he has never played in less than 156 games in a full season.

Factoring everything above, A-Gon comes out to about a 5 WAR player, and he figures to be worth around 27 WAR after accounting for age regression. While he won’t be providing much surplus value beyond what he’s being paid by the Dodgers, he should be well worth the acquisition, especially considering the barren first base market and the lack of internal options. The A-Gon part of this deal is cause of excitement.

Reaction GIF Analysis

—–

Carl Crawford

The Dodgers are paying ~$105 million for five years and a month of his services. Accounting for inflation over the course of the contract, every win will come out to ~$5 million, so the Dodgers are paying for about 21 WAR or 4.1 WAR per year.

Unlike A-Gon, where I have trouble seeing how he’s not worth it, I have trouble seeing how Crawford will even get anywhere close to worth it.

For the past two seasons, Crawford has been … uh … a mess. He’s been worth a total of around 0.5 WAR, which needless to say doesn’t bode well for his 4.1 WAR goal. Even if you completely believe that his skills are intact, his body throws a sizable wrench into the equation to say the least, and it doesn’t help then that he may miss a few months of next season. He was projected to post a .283/.323/.446/.769 line for the rest of 2012, which is quite generous since his actual line has been .260/.292/.419/.711 for 2011 and 2012. For the projection, I put him around a .780 OPS, which is almost what he posted in his last few years with the Rays.

On the basepaths, despite his basestealing ability, he’s never been a plus baserunner, but he does clock in on the positive side of the ledger due to his speed. His defense will probably generate the biggest debate, as it was once a plus tool, but it has since regressed to average at best across the advanced metrics due to injury or whatever else. Personally though, I think he should benefit from the bigger spaces in Dodger Stadium, so he should return to form. However, it would be dishonest to just grant him plus status after two clear years of regression, so I made him just good instead of elite.

Like Gonzalez, Crawford is in his age-30 season and will regress over the course of his contract, including the dreaded mid-30s. Unlike Gonzalez, there’s ample reason to worry about Crawford’s health, and his projected playing time reflects that, clocking in at ~550 plate appearances.

Factoring everything above, Crawford comes out to about a 2.9 WAR player, and he figures to be worth around 12 WAR after accounting for age regression.

So he should be worth a bit more than half his contract, and when that contract totals in excess of $100 million that burns quite a bit. Unlike at first base, the options in the outfield, either short-term or long-term, to get better value were plentiful. Therefore, I can’t see how anybody would be excited about taking him on. The “he’s better than Juan Rivera” argument only works for this year because the Dodgers would have options in the offseason, and since Crawford won’t be playing this year there’s really no defense for this. I’m assuming a lot in his favor as it is, and if he’s right he should be a decent player for the team until late in the deal, but he certainly won’t be worth what the Dodgers are paying him unless lighting strikes.

Reaction GIF Analysis

—–

Josh Beckett

The Dodgers are paying ~$35 million for two years and a month of his services. Accounting for inflation over the course of the contract, every win will come out to ~$4.75 million, so the Dodgers are paying for about 7.5 WAR or 3.5 WAR per year.

I’m actually more confident that Crawford will make meaningful contributions than Beckett for reasons that go beyond statistics, so needless to say, I’m skeptical about him earning his keep.

In 2012, Beckett has a 5.23 ERA, 4.27 FIP, 4.39 xFIP, and 4.28 SIERA. That’s about the profile of Bud Norris of the Astros at the moment … if Norris was set to make $16 million annually.

The reason I only mention 2012 is this report by Kevin Goldstein of Baseball Prospectus:

Goldstein says that Beckett’s 70 fastball has turned into a 55/60. His once-biting curve has lost a similar amount of stuff: Goldstein reports that he would be “leery” of putting a 60 rating on it and might call it a 50-plus. His cutter, he explains, is at best a 40. Given how often he throws it, the cutter could be something of an Achilles’ heel for Beckett going forward.

Goldstein is not terribly optimistic about Beckett’s performance going forward and grades him as a no. 4 or no. 5 starter going forward.

That scouting report is backed by fastball velocity that has dropped from 93.8 MPH for his career to 91.6 MPH, and a strikeout rate that has gone from a career 22.2% to 17.2%. I’m not sure how anybody could reasonably expect him to bounce back to 4-5 WAR levels with that profile.

Like Gonzalez and Crawford, Beckett isn’t young. He’s in his age-32 season, is showing signs of decline, and is under contract into his mid-30s. There’s reason to worry about injury too, as he missed significant time (60-day DL) two years ago with a back strain and was placed on the DL for shoulder inflammation this year. Since he’ll likely only get to ~160 innings this year, I think giving him ~175 is generous enough.

Factoring everything above, Beckett comes out to about a 2.1 WAR player, and he figures to be worth around 4 WAR after accounting for age regression.

Like Crawford, he projects to be worth a bit more than half what he’s being paid, but it burns a lot less because it’s only a two year commitment after 2012. Of course, there’s opportunity cost here as well, because there’s always bargain options that can provide 1.5 to 2.5 WAR for a lot less than what Beckett will be paid, as Chris Capuano and the likes have proven. I suppose there’s upside hidden deep in Beckett’s profile in that maybe he regains his stuff, but I can’t bet on it due to his age. Besides, both his numbers and the scouting match each other, and that’s usually a recipe for accuracy. Hope for the best, but I wouldn’t expect anything better than a #4 starter.

Reaction GIF Analysis

—–

Nick Punto

The Dodgers are paying ~$2 million for one year and a month of his services. Accounting for inflation over the course of the contract, every win will come out to ~$4.5 million, so the Dodgers are paying for about 0.5 WAR or 0.4 WAR per year.

Don’t think I need a table for this one, as it’s purely to give the Dodgers a utility guy, I believe. Punto is at .200/.301/.272/.573 for 2012 and is projected to hit .229/.327/.271/.598 the rest of the way, which matches his age profile and career hitting ability. He’s above average on the bases and can play second, third, and short, where he grades out as a plus defender at every position.

His value on the bench is contingent on the Dodgers finding guys that can hit because he’s purely a defensive replacement or a spot starter. Still, he’s a solid utility guy because of his defense and versatility. He’ll be serviceable, which is all he’s being paid for, so it should be fine.

Reaction GIF Analysis

—–

Rubby De La Rosa

As a starter last year, he posted a 3.71 ERA/3.87 FIP/3.55 xFIP/3.85 SIERA with a 23.6 K% and a 12.2 BB% before succumbing to Tommy John surgery. After rehabbing for a year, he’s back and so is the velocity, so it seems the only thing lost was a year of development. Regardless, he has plus velocity and two potential swing-and-miss off-speed pitches in the change and slider. He’s rotation quality right now, and with command improvement, I don’t see why he couldn’t be a #2 or #3 rotation option.

Reaction GIF Analysis

—–

Allen Webster

After being demoted to the bullpen early in 2012, he may now be every bit the prospect that Rubby or Zach Lee is for the reasons Kevin Goldstein of Baseball Prospectus details here:

“It’s all there,” said a National League scout who was taken off his coverage to see the team. “When everything is going, he has three average-to-plus pitches and knows what to do with them.” The scout noted that Webster’s game has matured, as well. “He knows he has a really good—and potentially special—changeup, but he’s not over-relying on it anymore,” the scout explained. “It’s like he finally figured out that setting that pitch up with 92-94 mph heat is the best way to go about it, and his curveball has improved as well. He used to get over the ball and it wouldn’t finish, but now it’s breaking through the zone much better.”

His ceiling seems to be in the #2 range as well, with #3 to #4 a more likely destination. He should test the waters at the MLB level this year, and could be ready in 2013.

Reaction GIF Analysis

—–

Jerry Sands

For his career, his line at AAA Albuquerque is .291/.363/.557/.921 … but it’s Albuquerque. Still, I like his chances of becoming a major league contributor, though I’m not sure he’ll be worthy of holding down a left field spot for a team like the Red Sox. There’s a shot he becomes a regular, but I see him as more of a platoon guy or temporary starter as opposed to a long-term fit there.

Reaction GIF Analysis

—–

Ivan De Jesus

A .301/.354/.416/.770 line at Albuquerque paired with his .231/.282/.277/.559 career line with the Dodgers doesn’t bode well for him. Furthermore, while he can play second, short, and third, he’s only above average at second, so I’m not sure he even fits as a utility guy.

Reaction GIF Analysis

—–

James Loney

He’s been worth 0 to -1 WAR this season while making $6.5 million and he’s a free agent to be. Bye.

Reaction GIF Analysis

=====

So the Dodgers are paying ~$272 million to get the four mentioned players from the Red Sox, and the Red Sox will be kicking in about ~$12 million back to the Dodgers. So the team is paying for ~55 WAR of production, but is getting about ~43 WAR in value (~$212 million). As such, just by taking on the contracts alone, they figure to be looking at a surplus value around -$50 million. Then factor in the two top prospects, one solid prospect, a fringe prospect, and the corpse of James Loney, and you’re looking at quite a deficit to overcome, especially if any of them develop and hit their ceilings.

On the other hand, this undoubtedly makes the Dodgers better in the short-term, perhaps by as much as 7 or 8 wins in 2013. It should solidify the squad as a playoff favorite for this year and the next two years, perhaps even longer than that, depending on the decline phases of Crawford/Gonzalez.

While I understand that fans are excited by the prospects of that immediate improvement, I just have to wonder whether the Dodgers couldn’t do better if given ~$260 million to spend and the prospect package in question. Of the players received, only Adrian Gonzalez really fills a hole that couldn’t have been addressed in either 2013 or 2014. Then there’s the potential problems with payroll flexibility and the luxury tax that I’ve mentioned before. Also, as you can see through Jay Jaffe‘s work here, they’re really hemmed up in the short-term payroll-wise, and they now have $90 million sewn up in four players through 2017, which unfortunately doesn’t even include Clayton Kershaw yet.

As such, fans should surely enjoy the ride this year and in the immediate future, but it’s easy to justify significant concern over the long-term future of the roster, as all the risk in this deal is being taken by the Dodgers.