The news of Clayton Kershaw‘s allegedly imminent extension with the Dodgers was broken recently by Mike Petriello, and since then, reporters have chimed in, all confirming the existence of talks.

—–

Jon Heyman confirmed the negotiations and mentioned that Opening Day was not a hard deadline despite what Kershaw has previously said to have preferred.

Star left-hander Clayton Kershaw and the Dodgers are quietly talking about a multiyear deal, people familiar with the situation say.

While the sides officially aren’t speaking publicly about it, based on how the new Dodgers ownership team has acted and the value it places on big-time players, it’s hard to imagine the Dodgers not locking up Kershaw at some point. Opening day isn’t necessarily a hard deadline, though Giants star Buster Posey and Tigers star Justin Verlander treated it as one before making their big deals, for $167 million and $180 million, respectively.

Tim Brown confirmed the talks but says a Dodger official shot down the report, though Kershaw himself seemed to tease that something was in the works.

Nudged again, asked if an agreement could be reached by Monday, Kershaw grinned accommodatingly and said, “Never know.” All lilting at the end, like “stay tuned” or “miracles happen,” one of the two.

Regardless, this ends well for Kershaw. It probably ends well for the Dodgers. An Internet report Friday said the two were nearing agreement on an eight-year, $200 million extension. The Dodgers have not been of the mood to comment either way, though one official shook his head gravely at the report.

Negotiations proceed. As of Friday afternoon, there was nothing. A lot could change in a day, two, almost three. Presumably, if there is a handshake, it will be to seal something in the range of eight years, and something in the neighborhood of $200 million. That would appear to be where the market is headed.

Given that the official Dodgers executive position on the matter is that rule number one about the Kershaw contract negotiations is that there is no Kershaw contract negotiations, it doesn’t shock me that a random Dodgers official refused to confirm a deal.

Locally, Bill Shaikin also confirmed that negotiations are taking place.

People familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity said Friday that the Dodgers were having contract conversations with former National League Cy Young Award winner Clayton Kershaw.

Perhaps most promising, though, were tweets by Ramona Shelburne, who yesterday after the game described the extension as “imminent” and that word around the clubhouse was the deal would “get done”.

So for everybody asking about it and worrying about it because Kershaw’s preferred deadline has already passed, I would advise you to calm down, because all indications seem to point to a deal being finished sometime soon.

Clayton Kershaw will be extended for 8 years and $200 million by the Dodgers sooner than later, according to Mike Petriello, who is now a reporter as well as a blogger.

None of that seems all that interesting any longer, because I can reliably report that Clayton Kershaw is going to sign an eight-year, $200m extension with the Dodgers, possibly as soon as tonight. If so, that would blow away all of us — myself included — who thought that $200m was an unattainable goal, though clearly deals since then have impacted that.

No word yet on the structure of the deal, but if it begins in 2013, as I expect it would, then it would cover Kershaw’s age 25-32 seasons. It’s a ludicrous amount of money, but that is exactly the timeframe I want a pitcher, and Kershaw’s obviously the kind of pitcher (and person) you’d want to lock up for that.

It’s not official yet, but I expect it to be in the next 24-48 hours, if not sooner. Much more to come, no doubt.

Most of us speculated that the sky was the limit on his extension, but $200 million warranted skepticism unless they were extending him for a decade. Well, never underestimate the unlimited bank account, I suppose, as $25 million annually is now expected to be a reality.

How the value of this and what not shakes out depends on the details, so I’ll wait to analyze that, but locking up an elite starter through his age 25-32 seasons is hard to complain about. Additionally, given the inflating market, it’s hard to find a realistic alternative to this.

So a couple days ago, I asked Eric Stephen of True Blue LA to ask Carl Crawford about his hitting mechanics, and he did so for me, primarily because he’s awesome.

Why, you ask? Because of my article for Baseball Prospectus back in October broaching that exact subject. Basically, I wanted to know if I was right so I could pat myself on the back.

:o

Anyway, he allowed me to publish the convo.

—–

Are you going back to your style and/or stance from 2010?

“I’m pretty much trying to get back to how I was doing things then.”

“When I got to Boston, my stance was more open. I’m trying to get back to being more square to the pitcher, and my batting stance isn’t as wide. Those are two of the little things I’m trying to focus on.”

On Going The Other Way

“Batting more square, more closed, instead of being more open. When I’m open the ball away looks far away, so I’m trying to get more square so everything looks closer to me.”

—–

I AM A GENIUS!

But seriously though, it’s positive that he’s trying to get back to his 2010 stance, because there’s a gigantic difference between his approach then and in 2011.

My hopes that he would carry on with his 2012 adjustment seems valid, as he appears to acknowledge that it’s something he could benefit from. Now all that’s left is to see whether he can stay healthy enough to implement it and whether or not he can stick to the plan.

—–

Amazingly, the evil dictator Mike Petriello picked up on Crawford’s comments and wrote about Crawford’s mechanics as well, though he picked up on one thing that I didn’t.

So what impact did the stance shenanigans have? Among other things, it made him unable to get to the outside pitch. Using the Baseball Prospectus heat maps, we can see that when Crawford was having his career year in 2010, with his stance slowly opening up, he was quite good at getting to pitches on the outside part of the plate. In 2011, fully open, he had absolutely no prayer. (And, it should be noted, even in September of 2010 he was beginning to have trouble getting to outside pitches.)

This is a cool finding because it expands on my point that he was struggling with hard stuff due to his timing errors. So now we have another specific thing to watch, which is his plate coverage.

In the end, a major-league player confirmed that I am an absolute genius…

…or maybe that he’s just trying to go back to the last time he was successful.

If you hadn’t seen it yet, then … that happened with Matt Guerrier.

Then Mike Petriello tweeted out this:

“I don’t always give up homers, but when i do, they travel really, really goddamn far.” — @mattygrrr

— Mike Petriello (@mike_petriello) March 5, 2013

And I think he’s on to something.

Despite all the denials, Andre Ethier‘s name continues to come up in trade rumors, and given what I’ve heard, I don’t think it’s just noise. The latest has him heading to the Mariners, and it’s via ESPN‘s Jason Churchill (1, 2, 3).

Hearing Mariners have progressed in trade talks for a hitter. Indications it’s Ethier. Multiple players involved.

@nbynwms very possible. Heard 7 or more players could be in it… Two from LAD, 4 from sea. That leaves at least one player from 3rd team

@joshuacarpino there will be cash involved

If you don’t trust Churchill, then Mike Petriello has said that he heard as much on Ethier’s situation.

—–

Anyway, given that information, one has to surmise that the deal might look something like this:

Seattle Mariners Get: Andre Ethier/Chris Capuano/Cash
Los Angeles Dodgers Get: Brendan Ryan/Franklin Gutierrez/Prospects

From the Mariners perspective, they’re getting a solid ~2 WAR pitcher in Capuano with some upside and some risk for the price of $6 million with a 2014 mutual option ($1 million buyout). In this market, that’s a bargain and exactly what you want for a pitcher like Capuano, as he’d probably garner a three-year deal as a free agent. In Ethier, they’re getting a flawed but solidly above-average regular worth between 2.5-3.5 WAR, but he’s locked up through his decline years. He has little trade value with his current contract, but there’s still the cash aspect to examine.

The cash part of the deal is where it gets interesting, as the quality of prospects will likely depend on the amount of money taken on by the Dodgers. While I have heard people throw around names like James Paxton, Taijuan Walker, and Danny Hultzen, I doubt the Dodgers can coerce the Mariners into parting with any of that trio unless they eat almost all of Ethier’s contract. In a more realistic scenario, they would part with a couple solid prospects, and then what the Mariners would need is enough money to make Ethier an asset again, so perhaps something in the $20 million to $25 million range.

Other players the Mariners are parting with include Brendan Ryan and Franklin Gutierrez. Ryan is an underrated above-average regular, but he’s not the shortstop of the future for the team, as he hits free agency in 2014. Gutierrez has potential as a regular, but hasn’t been healthy in two years and also hits free agency in 2014.

All considered, if the Mariners can get a solid chunk of money in the deal and only have to surrender a couple B-/C+ prospects, the trade shouldn’t be a problem from their perspective.

—–

As for the Dodgers, this deal makes no sense for them on the surface. After all, Ethier (plus cash) is a productive player and Capuano is a solid starter. Additionally, the return of Ryan and Gutierrez seems light on present impact, which is what the Dodgers are looking to gain.

A closer examination, though, reveals how it could all make sense. For starters, Ethier has basically zero trade value because of his five-year/$85 million contract. Nick Swisher, a similar player that I compared Ethier with earlier, got a four-year/$56 million deal on the open market, so you can see the overpay there in clear and present terms. As such, the amount of cash will be what actually determines how much of an asset Ethier is to the Mariners. As far as Capuano goes, he has essentially no utility to the Dodgers in his current situation due to the sheer number of starters they have. Therefore, the return of decent but unspectacular players with expiring contracts, along with average prospects, actually makes sense.

Moreover, losing Ethier is part of the plan for the Dodgers, as we assume they would then go on to sign Michael Bourn. In an earlier comparison between him and Ethier, I found that he could be an immediate 1-2 win upgrade, so that would be a clear win for the team as it is.

Then there’s the other pieces to consider, who are actually worth more to the Dodgers than they seem. Ryan is a shortstop that can’t hit a lick, but is still a ~2.5 WAR player because of his consistently plus-plus defense across all defensive metrics and … well … if you watch the highlight reels like I do. His addition would hypothetically allow Hanley Ramirez to slide to third and Luis Cruz to become a super-sub type, which fixes a lot of the problems on the bench. Replacing Hanley with Ryan at short could be a ~30 run upgrade defensively in itself. Gutierrez also excels defensively, but has struggled to stay healthy. He can play a plus-plus center field and would be an outstanding fourth outfielder, as I think he could be a solid regular if he could ever stay healthy. As it stands though, he could end up being anywhere between a 0 to 3 WAR player. His acquisition would eliminate yet another need for the Dodgers bench and provide a solid contingency plan for every starter.

Now throw in a couple solid prospects as the cherry on top, and the Dodgers have just upgraded their starting lineup, resolved one of their starter dilemmas, filled two holes, extended their bench, and added to a sagging farm system.

—–

Granted, this is a lot of moving parts, but I struggle to see another way this works out between the two teams, if it ever does. I honestly like the trade for both sides in this proposed scenario, as I think both teams would get what they’ve been wanting.

Generally speaking, this is obviously an incredibly inefficient way to do business for the Dodgers, but if the money doesn’t matter, then these sets of moves would clearly improve the roster like they want. I do still have minor lingering concerns about where exactly the money ends, especially looking toward the future, but the details of the potential television contract have allayed my worries for at least a little while. Besides, flags fly forever and they’ve already crossed the point of no return, so why not go all out with the championship chasing while the opportunity exists?

The Dodgers are shopping right fielder Andre Ethier, according to Mark Feinsand of the New York Daily News, and that could mean they’re in the hunt for Nick Swisher to serve as his replacement in right. Normally, this wouldn’t be enough to warrant a post, but Mike Petriello said he heard similar yesterday afternoon, so the rumor appears to have legs.

—–

The news marks a surprising turn of events given that Ethier just signed a five-year extension for $85 million six months ago, but nothing regarding this team under the new ownership should be seen as truly shocking anymore.

As far as Ethier’s value goes, what is it? Not much, really, because with an AAV of $17 million, he’s already being paid above market value. However, in a vacuum, Ethier is a solidly above-average player, which would absolutely carry value if his contract was more reasonable. As such, the assumption here would be that in order to get a return on him, the Dodgers would have to eat a significant portion of his contract, thus making him attractive to a potential suitor.

Swisher ties into this drama because he’s basically the last corner outfield option left for those that missed out on Josh Hamilton and friends, so it’s no surprise that he’s drawing interest from the Red Sox, Phillies, Mariners, Rangers, and Orioles. However, that interest level is probably why Ethier is on the block, because Ethier is a similar player to Swisher, except almost two years younger.

But why would the Dodgers be interested in replacing Ethier with Swisher? I’m not totally sure, because they’re basically the same player except Ethier is younger. Swisher has a 125 OPS+ the past three years compared to Ethier’s 126, and their defense and baserunning are about pushes. The primary difference in their lines is that Ethier has a severe platoon split (.913 RHP/.649 LHP), while Swisher doesn’t (.820 RHP/.842 LHP). While that does carry some value, at the end of the day, it’s the player’s total contribution to the team that matters (WAR), and they’re about the same in that aspect.

—–

Look, I certainly wasn’t a fan of the extension that Ethier was signed to, but these potential deals surely aren’t being done with the thought of saving money by signing Swisher and dealing Ethier, at least if the payroll situation is to be believed. As such, it’s about the better player, and from that perspective, I see little value in making this trade unless there’s significant return for Ethier. That, of course, is always a possibility, but I remain skeptical since I certainly wouldn’t do it as an opposing GM.

Remember, if you guys don’t want him, then what makes you think other teams will be clamoring to give up significant pieces to get him? Cuts both ways.

—–

Update 1: Ken Rosenthal has confirmed the report and has added details.

The Dodgers are shopping Ethier, major-league sources say — and their intent might be to clear a spot for a free agent such as first baseman/outfielder Nick Swisher or center fielder Michael Bourn.

However, one official with knowledge of the Dodgers’ thinking says that the talks about Ethier originated from inquiries by two American League clubs, and that the Dodgers are not actively pursuing a deal.

That official says that the renewed interest in Ethier stems from the shrinking pool of available hitters on both the free-agent and trade markets.

The Dodgers have “zero intention” of trading Ethier, the official said, but will listen to offers. The discussions, to this point, have failed to progress.

Whatever the Dodgers’ intentions, it seems doubtful that any team would take Ethier’s new contract in its entirety. He is a career .238 hitter against left-handed pitching.

But, in the words of one source who has been in contact with the Dodgers, “I wouldn’t put anything past them. They’ve got so much money, they don’t care.”

I have no idea why the Dodgers would have no intention of trading Ethier, honestly. If possible I would like to replace him with a better player, but I just don’t think Swisher is all that different.

Update 2: Mike Petriello says the Mariners and Rangers are two of the teams that asked about Ethier.

Update 3: Jon Heyman says that the Dodgers talked with Swisher but that it was weeks ago.

The Dodgers have acquired Cardinals utility man Skip Schumaker in exchange for minor-league shortstop Jake Lemmerman, according to Mike Petriello.

Tonight — well, tomorrow, perhaps, by the time it’s official — that may change. Multiple sources tell me that the Dodgers are in agreement with St. Louis on a deal that would send minor league shortstop Jake Lemmerman for veteran Skip Schumaker.

This has been rumored for a while, and back when it was announced that a deal was likely at some point, I gave my thoughts on Schumaker.

He plays second, left field, center field, and right field, so there’s versatility there, but he’s a terrible defender at second, a bad one in center, and just solid-average in the corners. Over the last three seasons, since he turned 30, he’s had an OPS+ of 88.

Not so thrilled, really.

He’ll be 33 next season and had a .276/.339/.368/.707 line in 2012, as well as a career .288/.345/.377/.722 line. Other than that though, the upside is that he has a pronounced platoon split, hitting .305/.359/.403/.762 against righties in his career versus .205/.276/.245/.521 against lefties. So if he’s used carefully, there’s offensive value to extract.

Unfortunately, as stated in the quote above, while he can play a few positions, he’s really not good at any of them, so he lacks true versatility, IMO. Additionally, as we learned when the Dodgers acquired both Hyun Jin Ryu and Zack Greinke, their 40-man roster is now full, so a corresponding move will have to be made.

—–

Jake Lemmerman is a shortstop that was selected by the Dodgers in the fifth round of the 2010 MLB Draft. 2012 was his age 23 season, and he hit .233/.347/.378/.725 in AA.

Prior to 2012, I had him outside of my top 25 prospects in the system, and his 2012 didn’t do anything to change that.

As such, while I’m not exactly thrilled with Schumaker occupying a roster spot, the return for him wasn’t significant.

Credit: The LFP

The Zack Greinke saga is the story of the Winter Meetings, not only because he’s the top free agent out there, but also because he’s holding up the deals of other free agents, as they’re all waiting on him.

Whatever he decides, it figures to be at least borderline historical, as Jon Heyman notes.

Strong belief by people close to situation is greinke can beat cc sabathia $161M record deal if desires. #dodgers #rangers

But who’s in the lead now? Jayson Stark says the talk revolves around the Rangers…

The big buzz this morning at the winter meetings is: Watch out for Texas on Zack Greinke.

…and Joel Sherman gives a potential reason why Greinke might be leaning that way.

Told Greinke’s wife is former Dall #Cowboys cheerleader and could influence desire get back to Tex. score1 for #Rangers

The Nationals are out of the sweepstakes thanks to their Dan Haren acquisition, and the Angels are assumed to be out of it as well due to price concerns, according to Danny Knobler.

With Greinke bidding heading to $160 million and perhaps beyond, one Angels person said: “That’s going to blow us out of the water.”

Additionally, they just added Joe Blanton to their rotation.

Ken Gurnick reports that Greinke’s personal fingerprints appear to be all over the negotiations.

The speculation is that Greinke, and not Close, is orchestrating the leisurely pace of negotiations, which has log-jammed the free-agent market for pitchers. The 29-year-old Greinke could wind up with a contract bigger than CC Sabathia’s record for a pitcher of seven years and $161 million.

Reading between the lines a little, this could mean that the money is close enough where it boils down to personal matters, which could lead him to stray away from the Dodgers and the most money. It could also be the reason Josh Hamilton to the Mariners talks have picked up, as his agent might sense the Rangers will be out of the market for him.

Hopefully not, but the reports yesterday certainly weren’t as optimistic for the team as the day before.

—–

Those Dee Gordon rumors from yesterday? Well apparently they have some legs, and Jon Paul Morosi/Ken Rosenthal report that the Indians are in.

I looked at the Mariners roster yesterday to find a potential fit in a trade, but for the Indians I don’t see a clear-cut fit for the Dodgers current roster. I’m hoping it doesn’t involve Ubaldo Jimenez.

—–

As for Hyun Jin Ryu, yesterday was just a continuation of the day before.

Nor would Colletti say if he felt he was closer to a deal for Korean free-agent pitcher Ryu Hyun-jin.

“I just feel closer to Sunday,” Colletti said, because at 2 p.m. PT Sunday the Dodgers must either have a deal with Ryu or he returns to Korea.

Oddly enough, I think Jim Bowden‘s thoughts most accurately reflects reality.

Dodgers not worried about negotiations w Ryu… they know Boras style & will wait until Sunday Deadline to bear down with him & get it done

— JIM BOWDEN (@JimBowdenESPNxm) December 6, 2012

Though I would be lying if I said I didn’t cringe when Scott Boras started comparing him and his impending contract to Daisuke Matsuzaka.

“We have standards that all of us agree the guy is a No. 3 starter in the Major Leagues,” Boras said Wednesday. “And past practices, negotiations that we’ve done for [Daisuke] Matsuzaka, at that time Matsuzaka got paid [$52 million, six years] like he was a No. 3 pitcher in the big leagues. We think very highly of Ryu.

Why?

1) Expecting that contract is ridiculous to me.

2) Why would he ever want to associate an Asian pitcher’s potential career with that of Daisuke Matsuzaka?

—–

The Dodgers do need a lefty reliever in the pen for next year, and with Randy Choate now off the board, Mike Petriello brings up Matt Thornton‘s name.

With LH RP dropping off the board, #Dodgers will probably need to get one via trade. One rumored possibility: Matt Thornton of Chicago.

Would have loved this idea three or four years ago, but he’s now on a three-year negative trend, is going to be 36, and his stuff diminishing is becoming an annual event.

Still a better option than signing Choate for three years, but not exactly a guy you want to give up meaningful assets to acquire.

The Dodgers television contract will total between $6 billion and $7 billion over a 25-year span, thus potentially tripling the sale price of the team, according to Deadline‘s Nikki Finke.

Insiders tell me that Fox Sports is close to clinching the exclusive TV rights for the Los Angeles Dodgers by paying between $6 billion and $7 billion over 25 years to put the team on its regional sports network in Southern California and of course its national Fox Broadcasting Company. Fox already shows the games on its Prime Ticket local cable channel but also has Fox Sports West here.

So for those counting, just by taking the middle ground of that estimate, it puts the Dodgers television revenue at $260 million per year or $220 million more per year than they had been receiving annually ($40 million).

If true, that sort of makes a mockery of all the people who were borderline outraged at the $2.15 billion price tag of the team when it was awarded to Guggenheim Partners.

—–

The deal is still at risk of not getting done though, as FOX has apparently set a deadline.

I’m told a deal came “very close” to being done about a week ago “and then it went a little bit south”. To rattle Guggenheim’s cages, Fox Sports delivered an ultimatum that a deal had to be done by the end of this month or else it would stop negotiating. (Terms like “It’s dead” and “We’re out” were used.) The Fox Sports gambit worked. Because it would have left Guggenheim in a terrible situation without multiple bidders and with little leverage for next-in-line Time Warner Cable since CBS, Comcast/NBC, ABC/ESPN and even the MSG Network (controlled by the owners of Cablevision) never materialized. Of course, Guggenheim could have opted for the Dodgers to start its own network, as the Mets and Yankees have done. But big rewards come with big risks.

While I’m not sure the situation would be as bleak as Finke tries to paint it, it certainly seems a tad insane to be paying the rumored price, and I doubt they could get that kind of a money from anybody else, so FOX probably does have the leverage to make the demand in question.

—–

With that said, while I realize Finke is Deadline’s editor-in-chief, I have no idea how credible she is, but stuff like this makes me more skeptical than I want to be:

But the sheer greed of Guggenheim’s ask on this new deal is staggering, especially when you consider it will all get passed down to the cable systems, advertisers, and ultimately consumers. The alternative for Guggenheim included higher ticket prices which would serve to only further alienate fans. Plus the new owners claim to need the money to bribe talented players to come to the mediocre Dodgers. And then there’s the sad fact that Major League Baseball teams are shifting from broadcast TV to cable networks – so fewer games will be available on free TV. Fox Sports expects to broadcast only one or two Major League Baseball games a week for the national audience next season.

The amount of editorializing in that news story is … weird. She has a point, sure, but it’s not as if this is a new trend started by the Dodgers with FOX or something, as Mike Petriello pointed out in his own writings on the subject.

Heck, she points out as much in her own story:

Freer really knows this business – he ran the Fox regional sports networks for nearly half a decade – and knows not to overpay. He’s not when you consider that the Dodgers will play 162 games when the season starts in April. And yet TV rights to the Lakers who play 82 games just sold to Time Warner Cable for $3B over 20 years. And Fox just paid $3B for 49% of the YES Network which owns TV rights to the New York Yankees for 20 years. Considering that Fox also has the right to own 80% of YES (and will surely exercise that option), then $6B-$7B for this Dodgers deal sounds about about right given the hyper-inflated finances of sports TV rights. In the era of DVR, Hulu, Netflix and other ways to watch TV, sports viewers (overwhelmingly male) watch live and therefore don’t always skip through ads.

So I’m not seeing the reason for outrage at this specific deal.

—–

As far as the team goes, this would go a long way to assuaging any doubt or apprehension about the team’s payroll both now and in the future. The Dodgers would be setup to spend and spend big for a long while, and when the ink hits the paper, it’ll truly mark the beginning of a new era.

Up until now, people have just been doing a lot of optimistic assuming, but if this story holds up, it looks like all that optimism will finally be justified.

Mike Scioscia’s Tragic Illness: Mike Petriello has a list of the players up for the Rule 5 Draft along with who he thinks will be protected on the 40-man roster.

True Blue LA: Brandon Lennox has basically the same thing but from his perspective.

Both are interesting reads, and I was considering doing one myself, but this off-season has been/will be a mess, so I’m not entirely sure how this will go down or how many spots are even available in reality. I mean, at this rate, some guys who get put on the 40-man might need to be designated or traded later anyway.

I’m not sure how many eligible minor-leaguers are actual threats to stick the whole season with an MLB club. Steven Ames and Tony Gwynn Jr. and … that’s about it?

—–

Plaschke Thy Sweater Is Argyle: Greg Zakwin‘s IBWAA ballot.

Feelin’ Kinda Blue: Dustin Nosler‘s IBWAA ballot.

In case you missed it, I posted mine here, along with the 2012 results.

—–

Plaschke Thy Sweater Is Argyle: Greg Zakwin questions whether or not the Dodgers moves to this point have been primarily public relations based.

The MLB has confirmed that the Dodgers won the bidding on the rights for Korean left-hander Hyun Jin Ryu, just as Mike Petriello said yesterday, despite ESPN refusing to credit him.

—–

Since Scott Boras is his agent, Boras won’t care about the posting fee and will look to gouge the Dodgers for as much as possible, and his PR campaign has already started.

Dylan Hernandez spoke with him and the quotes by Boras gave insight into why I previously said this is just the start of things.

Ryu Hyun-jin could immediately be a No. 3 starter in a major league rotation, according to his agent.

“He’s ready to pitch in the big leagues right now,” Scott Boras said. “He’s not a developmental project.”

Translation: “He can help you from Opening Day, so pay him more money.”

“We have to strategically plan out his career,” Boras said.

Among the considerations: compensation and when Ryu can become a free agent.

Because Ryu is only 25, he could sign a shorter contract that would allow him to enter the free-agent market while still in the prime of his career. Or he could remain in Korea for two more seasons, after which he would be a free agent and wouldn’t be subjected to the posting system.

“Is it a good business decision to make the jump now or wait for free agency?” Boras asked.

Translation: “Here is our leverage angle, so pay him lots of money otherwise we’re taking our ball and going home.”

More Boras: “If he doesn’t sign, the posting fee will dramatically increase next year.”

— Dylan Hernandez (@dylanohernandez) November 10, 2012

Translation: “Here’s more leverage foundation! Plus a vague monetary threat!”

I’m not sure I understand this logic though, because technically he would lose leverage due to being a year closer to out-and-out free agency. But hey, he has to say whatever he can to give his client bargaining chips in a situation where he has little to none, especially given the Dodgers finances and rotation situation.

Ryu Hyun-jin wants to be a starter in the major leagues, according to Boras.

— Dylan Hernandez (@dylanohernandez) November 10, 2012

Translation: “He will throw a lot of innings, so pay him more money.”

This makes sense though, since he’s a starter and always has been.

I’ve observed people arguing over whether or not he’s a starter or a reliever, but I don’t see this as up for debate. Even if you think he has reliever stuff, as Keith Law does, nobody would be so dumb to drop $25.7 million on rights if they saw him as a situational lefty. He’ll start in the MLB if signed, and rightly so.

All in all, nothing out of the ordinary here, though I do have concerns that he wants #3 starter type money, as apparently those types feel they can demand six years and $90 million in this market.

The Dodgers officially announced the hiring of Mark McGwire as hitting coach, replacing Dave Hansen. McGwire spent the past three years with the Cardinals as their hitting coach.

Under his tutelage, the Cards offense was top-five in OBP in each of his seasons at the offensive helm, leading all of baseball last year.

McGwire has stated that his philosophy includes not forcing change upon established sluggers, so Matt Kemp will be allowed to be himself. Hopefully McGwire can rub off on some of the lesser bats in the lineup while aiding Hanley Ramirez and Adrian Gonzalez in regaining some of their previous offensive clout. The willingness McGwire displayed as a player for drawing a walk could also be a great starting point for most of the team, as that aspect of the game can never be emphasized enough.

—–

As Chad noted yesterday, the Dodgers won the rights to Korean southpaw Hyun Jin Ryu, according to Mike Petriello. The Dodgers are spending money like they have a printing press hidden away in Ned Colletti‘s suite, and this seems like just another example.

—–

The club has outrighted Alfredo Silverio to AAA Albuquerque, opening up a spot on the 40-man roster. Silverio missed the entire 2012 season while dealing with multiple injuries suffered in a car crash.

—–

23 minor-leaguers, most notably Ramon Troncoso and Josh Fields, became free agents earlier this week.

If Troncoso were to return, it would just be as AAA roster filler, as the Dodgers possess a plethora of bullpen arms and Ramon has been mediocre at best recently. Fields is your typical AAAA player, and he could be a back of the bench player with some pop, though considering that he didn’t see The Show in 2012, he’s not all that likely to see it in 2013 with the Dodgers.

=====

Greg Zakwin is the founder of the site Plaschke Thy Sweater Is Argyle. Follow him on Twitter @ArgyledPlaschke.

The Dodgers have won the rights to Korean left-handed starting pitcher Hyun Jin Ryu with a bid of $25.7 million, according to Mike Petriello.

Earlier today, I linked to a summary of thoughts on Hyun Jin Ryu, which ranged from preferring him as a reliever to comparisons to David Wells, though the latter was primarily on the basis of his body type.

A 25-year-old Tommy John survivor, the Dodgers have to be expecting him to start, and reports have him sitting between 87-92 mph with two solid average breaking balls in a curve and a slider, and a plus out-pitch in his change-up. Even the reports that like him pencil him in as a #4 or #5 type, but the Dodgers will end up paying him like a #3, and I think his profile could reach that status as he adjusts to the league.

Given that Scott Boras is his agent, this is only the start of things, as he figures to get a lot more expensive than this. Honestly, I’m not sure anybody expected his bidding price to go this high, but given the free agent market and trade scenarios, I suppose the Dodgers preferred this option over the rest.

True Blue LA: Eric Stephen looks at the available free agent starting pitchers and concludes that it’s Zack Greinke or bust.

When it comes down to it, if the Dodgers are hellbent on adding a starting pitcher they should only add a difference-maker. Dempster is a fall back, while Sanchez (money) and Kuroda (draft pick, age) seem overly expensive and not without significant risk. That leaves Greinke, the pitcher with the best track record and highest ceiling among available options.

Greinke or bust.

I think he’s right, but only assuming that Anibal Sanchez actually gets anywhere close to what he’s asking, and I don’t necessarily buy that. I mean just the other day Jeremy Guthrie was allegedly asking for around $12 million annually.

Feelin’ Kinda Blue: Dustin Nosler says that after pairing age risk and the cost of losing a draft pick, bringing Hiroki Kuroda back is too much to give up.

I get it. Kuroda is a quality pitcher, something the Dodgers could use in the rotation. But he’s not a young guy and having to give up the draft pick is the only reason I don’t want to see the Dodgers bring him back,

This rings especially true if the Dodgers plan to trade away even more players from their dwindling farm system, because then constantly hitting on and having first-round picks is crucial.

Mike Scioscia’s Tragic Illness: Mike Petriello has a nice summary of everything regarding Hyun Jin Ryu.

The reason I’m skeptical about throwing money at him is because reports seem to have him sitting in the 88-91 range with only his change-up grading as a plus pitch.

So the Arizona Fall League started yesterday, and if you don’t already know what’s going on with that, you can check out the Dodgers players who are there in this article I wrote two months ago.

One glaring difference between that list and what you’ll actually see or hear about is the absence of Yasiel Puig, as he’ll be missing the entirety of the AFL due to a staph infection in his elbow.

Top Dodgers outfield prospect Yasiel Puig will miss the Arizona Fall League because of a staph infection in his right elbow that required a surgical procedure.

Puig is expected to be fully healed in three to five weeks and will rehab at the club’s Camelback Ranch-Glendale facility.

Puig, signed this summer for a $42 million bonus, developed an infection similar to one that sidelined former Dodgers infielder Casey Blake for a month in 2011. Like Blake, Puig underwent a surgical cleaning of the infected area and his throwing elbow will remain immobilized for another week.

It’s not a gigantic deal, but I think basically everybody was looking forward to seeing how he would fare in the AFL in order to get a better read on him.

—–

Remember Pedro Baez? Yeah, the third base prospect whose career stalled due to his inability to develop as a hitter. Well he’s finally been moved to the mound for instructional league, which is basically what most of us have wanted for a while now. Mike Petriello has called for it in the past, I have for a while too, and I think Dustin Nosler has previously as well. It just made sense given the path his career was on as a field player.

The possessor of a plus-plus arm at the hot corner, Baez’s position switch gives birth to new hope for him as a prospect. Yes, his age still matters, but now it’s less about that and his performance and more about whether or not he can adjust to the mound and learn a breaking ball. Looking forward to seeing those velocity readings.

Mike Petriello recently wrote an post, titled, “Finishing Strong Could Impact More Than Just Playoff Hunt“, and a lot of fans felt it hit the nail on the head. That is, the strong finish gives fans optimism for 2013.

Now I’m not writing here to criticize his post, but it did get me thinking about the odd shift in mindset that Dodger fans seem to be going through upon being confronted with the reality that this much-hyped team won’t even make the expanded playoffs. The narrative has clearly gone from “oh geez, I don’t know if they can win 60 games next year” to “they’re going to destroy next year, just you wait”.

While it’s absolutely correct to say that the hot finish gives Dodger fans reason for optimism, should it?

As a fan myself, I understand looking for things to latch onto, but why does the strong finish indicate anything? Besides irrational hope, why do the last 10 games matter anymore than the first 10 or the middle 10?

—–

To me, Adrian Gonzalez‘s season is the perfect representation of everything that’s going on with Dodger fans right now.

A-Gon finished 2012 with a 15-game hitting streak after struggling immensely following being acquired by the Dodgers. Fans are using that streak as evidence that he’s “settled” or that he’s “back”, and while he was the sole reason I could see The Trade working out, I still see him the same as before: a potentially elite player with multiple concerning trends.

Why? Because during the 15-game hit streak, his line was .390/.429/.542/.971 with a .467 BABIP. When he struggled initially after being acquired, on the other hand, his line was .227/.288/.348/.636 with a .264 BABIP. During the streak, A-Gon had four walks for a ~6 BB%, and 12 strikeouts for a ~19 K%. What were those peripherals over the entire season? His BB% was 6.1 and his K% was 16.1. So the primary difference between the cold, “he’s gonna suck forever, isn’t he” stage and the hot, “A-Gon for 2013 NL MVP” stage is basically a ton more singles falling in than before. At the end of his Dodger stint, all of that equals out to a .297/.344/.441/.785 line, and that’s with a .351 BABIP. I don’t know about you, but that’s not anything to flip out about for me.

Over the entirety of 2012, the larger sample size at stake here, he has put up a .299/.344/.463/.806 line, and that’s with the third-highest BABIP of his career (.344). Yet because of a 15-game sample that fit a narrative, fans are automatically giving him his status back as an elite player despite the fact that he’s coming off his worst hitting season … uh … ever.

—–

Now as far as the team goes, from August 25th to September 25th, the Dodgers went 11-17. People panicked. People burned their cars. People ran around screaming “ANARCHY!” in the streets. But then they ran off eight wins in the final nine games of the year, and now the Dodgers are apparently setup perfectly to win the World Series in 2013 or something. I just don’t get it.

If fans were willing to chalk up the early struggles after the trade to small sample size, then why wouldn’t the strong finish, over an even smaller sample, be vulnerable to the same thing? Oh right, because the latter occurrence fits the narrative that they just needed to “jell” or because the players are “finally playing up to their potential” or they’re just now “getting it”.

I don’t buy it though, as fans seem to be currently chock full of confirmation bias.

—–

As far as individuals are concerned, there’s nothing wrong with optimism. Anything that makes a form of entertainment entertaining makes sense and is understandable to me, but I do start to worry when expectations get out of control, because it inevitably sets people up for fire and brimstone rage when their out-of-control visions are met with reality (see: uh … the 2012 Dodgers season ten days ago).

The point here isn’t to blunt excitement or to say that the team will be bad in 2013 (I expect them to make the playoffs), it’s more about imploring people to question why the extreme peaks and valleys of the 2012 season even happened, and whether or not they should have ever existed to begin with.

LAist: In what I had not seen reported anywhere else, oddly enough, Dodger Stadium is scheduled for renovations.

ESPN Los Angeles: Jamie McCourt is suing Frank McCourt for fraud. I’m sure we could fill the Grand Canyon with the amount of shits you all give.

—–

Mike Scioscia’s Tragic Illness: Mike Petriello says that the people already declaring the Adrian Gonzalez trade a failure are off-base. He’s right, of course, since this was always a long-term deal.

MLB.com: John Ely and Joc Pederson were named the Dodgers minor league players of the year.

—–

The Wall Street Journal: Now we have scientific proof that Vin Scully is awesome.

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.

Mike Scioscia’s Tragic Illness: Mike Petriello asks whether we should start worrying about Andre Ethier. Go over and read the whole thing, but he brings up points I wanted to address:

The obvious answer is that it’s yet another injury, but I’m not sure it’s that simple. Yes, he strained his oblique in San Francisco at the end of June and landed on the disabled list, and as his return coincided with the start of the second half it is technically accurate to say that “he’s been awful since he was injured.” The thing is, that oblique strain hardly interrupted a hot streak; over his previous 30 games before that, he’d been only at .241/.317/.352 (.669).

Nice. I had brought up on Twitter that maybe he just needed time off after the season to rest his oblique (notoriously naggy injury that can sap power), but he’s been struggling longer than that. Also, I looked at his swing to see if anything has changed, it hasn’t.

Here’s what I mean by that. Check out the percentage of lefty pitching that Ethier has faced over the last six years, shown in the table at right. For years, Ethier routinely faced lefties 25-30% of the time. This year it’s well over 40%, and as I hardly need to tell you, Ethier is absolutely awful against lefty pitching.

In my brain, I called bullshit on this. Either managers are figuring it out or he’s just run into an abnormal amount of lefty starters this season. My gut said it was the latter.

While I don’t have the exact amount of plate appearances against lefty starters for the team, I do have this:

So the dip that MSTI’s chart shows from 2010 to 2011 is expected, and so is a spike in 2012, but Ethier’s spike is around double that of the rest of the team. This suggests that while he has run into a bit of bad matchup luck this year, Ethier is indeed facing a greater diet of lefty relievers.

The league is learning, so when will the Dodgers?

—–

Beyond The Box Score: A frightening look at young stars who went on to disappoint during their primes, centered around Hanley Ramirez. It had me worried for a while, but his line is now at .311/.368/.544/.912 with the Dodgers, so that makes me feel better.

—–

ESPN: A.J. Ellis wrote a guest article at Buster Olney‘s blog and gave insight into what players are feeling around the trade deadline. Good read.

The Dodgers announced moments ago that Jerry Sands would be getting the call from AAA and that Tony Gwynn Jr. has been designated for assignment.

OFFICIAL: @dodgers today designatedTony Gwynn Jr. for assignment and recalled outfielder/first baseman Jerry Sands from AAA Albuquerque.

— Los Angeles Dodgers (@Dodgers) August 6, 2012

Sands has done his part to deserve the shot, hitting .286/.368/.521/.889 at AAA, including a BABIP around league average. He’s hitting lefties and righties about equally well, so putting him down as a platoon guy seems a bit asinine, and unlike last year, when he posted a 1.153 OPS at Albuquerque and a .659 OPS away, this year he’s at .964 and .826, respectively.

It’s also worth noting that even if you don’t believe Sands will be a regular in the future, he has put up a .248/.329/.381/.710 line in his MLB career, which puts him 60 points higher than James Loney and Juan Rivera in 2012.

That fact happens to be exactly what I don’t understand about getting rid of Gwynn though.

Mike Petriello doesn’t mind ditching Gwynn because he doesn’t think Gwynn has any utility left for the team. While that’s true, I’m not quite sure what utility the others have either.

Designate plus-plus defender and fourth outfielder, keep two mediocre 1B who are only useful in a platoon and all around useless 3B.

— Chad Moriyama (@ChadMoriyama) August 6, 2012

I guess my argument is less that the team needs Gwynn and more that it needs Rivera, Loney, Juan Uribe, and Adam Kennedy less.

Gwynn’s .232/.276/.293/.570 line is terrible, without a doubt, but he’s still a plus-plus defender that’s better than anybody in the Dodgers outfield by a long shot. The type of player he is has value as a pinch runner, as a defensive replacement, and as an emergency starter — even if they can’t hit.

What utility do Loney, Rivera, Uribe, and Kennedy have? To me, they aren’t even useful off the bench as a pinch hitter (maybe Rivera).

Tony Gwynn Jr.: career .305/.372/.405 hitter in 147 PA as pinch-hitter. Between that and defense, should have been kept instead of Uribe

— Jay Jaffe (@jay_jaffe) August 6, 2012

Dodgers had (at least) four guys who are let’s say offensively challenged (Uribe, Loney, Rivera, Gwynn). They cut the best defender

— Eric Stephen (@truebluela) August 6, 2012

Regardless, it’s hard to get worked up about it, as we’re likely talking about 50-75 PA for Gwynn and whatever amount of defensive replacement appearances he would have got, but I just disagree that moving Gwynn instead of one of the other four was in the best interests of the Dodgers roster.

Hanley Ramirez‘s agent Adam Katz told Tim Brown of Yahoo! Sports that his client is thrilled:

Hanley agent Adam Katz:”If he was going to be moved then this was his first choice. He can’t wait to get here, compete, do what’s asked.”

— Tim Brown (@TBrownYahoo) July 25, 2012

Well, at least the most important guy likes the trade.

Mike Scioscia’s Tragic Illness: Mike Petriello likes the deal for the Dodgers.

So for the price of a decent pitching prospect, a low-level minor leaguer, and giving Miami salary relief, the Dodgers have filled two huge holes. If Ramirez doesn’t get his mojo back, then this is probably a win/win for both sides, since even a lessened Ramirez is superior to Uribe and Miami gets Eovaldi and out from Ramirez’ salary. If Hanley rebounds to be something like what he was before – and at 28, there’s still time for him to do so – then this becomes a massive steal for the Dodgers.

It’ll be a while before we know how this turns out, because it could be years until we see what Eovaldi really turns into. Today, on the morning of the deal, I can at least say something I don’t really get to say too often around here: good job, Ned. This isn’t a slam dunk deal, but with everything considered, it is one that is absolutely worth making.

Feelin’ Kinda Blue: Chad Moriyama‘s own Dustin Nosler loves the trade.

So, the Dodgers gave up a couple talented arms for a former and potential superstar (seems weird to write that). The Dodgers were able to use their best asset — deep pockets — to make this deal happen. It seemed the Dodgers weren’t going to be able to swing a deal or acquire a decent player without giving up Zach Lee. However, they found middle ground with the Marlins and were able to absorb all the money, allowing them to acquire Ramirez.

And by moving Eovaldi, the Dodgers are almost a lock to trade for a starting pitcher (*cough* Ryan Dempster *cough*) before Tuesday’s trade deadline.

I absolutely love this deal and I still can’t believe it happened. I wish Eovaldi and McGough all the luck in the world, but the Dodgers got the better end of this deal.

Marlins Daily: Dave Gershman doesn’t think the Dodgers package was worth Hanley Ramirez.

A weird start to the day here on the East Coast, and who knows, it could get weirder if the Marlins continue unloaded pieces whom they don’t see as part of their future plans. For now this one deserves to soak in. Eovaldi is a guy with hard stuff which includes an explosive fastball, something of a potential #2 or #3, I’d say, but I don’t think he’s worth Hanley Ramirez.

FanGraphs: Jack Moore points out that the Dodgers needed to improve and they did.

This Hanley Ramirez is no longer a superstar, but he fills the holes of the Los Angeles Dodgers nearly perfectly. If the Dodgers are going to make a run at the playoffs, they need contributions from the left side of their infield, and Ramirez makes that a possibility again.

Baseball Prospectus: Colin Wyers, Kevin Goldstein, and R.J. Anderson analyze the pieces in the trade.

If Hanley’s upside is a return to something approaching his All-Star years and his downside is puttering along at around league average, the Dodgers have made a gamble they simply can’t lose. Don Mattingly is going to have his own version of Sophie’s choice to make when Gordon returns: “You can lose Juan Uribe or Dee Gordon from your lineup. Pick one and only one.” But either way, the Dodgers have improved their lineup over what it was yesterday.

Sports Illustrated: Cliff Corcoran offered a rare negative take on the Dodgers side of things.

Ramirez has now hit .245/.328/.405 (.249 GPA) in 776 plate appearances over the last two seasons combined. That is not a $15-million-per-year player. That, plus his poor fielding (by the advanced stats, which are generally in agreement, he grades out as every bit as much of a liability in the field at third base as he was at shortstop), means he is not a player who is going to single-handedly put the Dodgers into the playoffs.

Even the diminished Ramirez will be an upgrade over the production Los Angeles has been getting from the left side of the infield (it’s not yet known where he’ll play for the Dodgers). There’s also the “change of scenery” fantasy. The last imagines that getting away from manager Ozzie Guillen, with whom he butted heads, and from a team on which he was literally pushed aside by a new $106 million bauble named Jose Reyes, who has been no more valuable than Ramirez this season, could give Ramirez a fresh start that would rejuvenate his bat. That, however, is wishful thinking, not sound decision-making.

Mike Scioscia’s Tragic Illness: Mike Petriello gave his mid-season grades for the offense.

Thought he was a bit friendly to Bobby Abreu given that most of his production wasn’t so much skill-based as luck-based.

Mike Scioscia’s Tragic Illness: Mike Petriello gave his mid-season grades for the pitchers.

I don’t quite understand why Chris Capuano gets an A basically for his ERA (actual performance) when he recognizes that he’s been fortunate. Yet the grade for Ted Lilly is primarily based on the fact that he was lucky. Same for Jamey Wright, who currently has a negative WAR on the basis of his actual results but gets a solid grade because of his peripherals.

I feel like it was harsh on Chad Billingsley on the basis of results versus peripherals and the fact that I don’t think expectations should have been so high. Same goes for Nate Eovaldi, because he posted a 4.35 FIP/4.80 xFIP/5.11 SIERA last year, so I’m not sure where the expectations were supposed to be at.

—–

FanGraphs: Twins GM Terry Ryan gave an interesting view on how their front office evaluates their scouts.

DL: How do go about evaluating your scouts?

TR: Well, they pretty much make that assessment pretty easy. When they send us their guys over the course of a couple years, you start to get a pretty good cross-section of what they’ve sent you. Now you can’t — a 31st-round draft choice that a scout signed, that’s pretty deep. How is he fitting in? Has he got a chance? Has he helped the organization get better? If a scout sends us guys that don’t want to get with the program too often, those are the types of guys that — each one of our scouts has a direct supervisor that’s in communication with him constantly. They’re the guys that funnel the information to that supervisor. Has he got his stuff in? Is he thorough? Does he got the medical? Does he got the signability? Is he taking me to see guys that don’t have a chance? Those are how you evaluate scouts. Usually the supervisor has the best grasp of what kind of scout we’ve got.

They also graduate into professional coverage. That’s when I start to get involved, because I read the reports daily. If their numbers and their verbal and their role don’t add up, they get calls. It doesn’t take too long to figure out “Listen, this guy doesn’t know what he’s doing. We better get him pointed in the right direction.” That’s how we evaluate scouts.

DL: Some fans are guilty of judging scouts only by who they signed, with no knowledge of who they recommended.

TR: We have their list, obviously. But there’s nothing more frustrating to have an area scout say, “I had him right there, but we didn’t get him.” Well, you didn’t have him in high enough, then. We don’t ever want to hear that. That’s an excuse. “Oh, I had all those guys in. We didn’t get any of them, but I had them in.” That’s protecting your hind side. That doesn’t work.

Not going to agree or disagree, but the interview provided insight into an aspect of things that I had not seen elsewhere.

Deadspin: Deadspin made GIFs of the strike three call of every umpire. Seriously.

This is part one.

Deadspin: Part two.

ESPN The Magazine: Molly Knight with a must-read profile on Matt Kemp.

Mike Scioscia’s Tragic Illness: Mike Petriello points out that the Dodgers bullpen is excelling … and on the cheap.

ESPN Boston: Theo Epstein provides a cautionary tale for the Dodgers.

“If I have a regret about the way we handled that offseason (after the 2009 season), it was that instead of being more patient and saying, ‘We’ll strike when the time is right,’ there was a lot of pressure in the environment at the time to do something,” Epstein said. “If I learned a lesson from the offseason, it’s never feel the need to do something. If you’re trying to avoid one move that you don’t think is going to work out, don’t then settle for a different move that maybe doesn’t check all the boxes. Be true to the philosophy and understand the bigger picture. There’s always another day to fight. You don’t have to get everything done in one offseason just because of what’s going on in the environment around you.”

Should be obvious to anybody with a brain that spending a $100 million budget wisely will make a far better team than a $200 million budget and randomly signing the biggest name on the market every now and then.

The Kansas City Star: Zack Greinke is weird … and awesome.

Mike Scioscia’s Tragic Illness: Mike Petriello once feared the exact deal that Andre Ethier signed, and while he holds some concerns, he finds it hard to argue against the deal.

What interests me more right now is trying to figure out just how much a big 2012 could enhance Ethier’s value on the market, because there’s a big difference between a deal for, say, 3/$36m (which I’d certainly love to do) and something more like 5/$85m (which I’d run away screaming from).

So the end result, in my view, is that the Dodgers paid a fair price to lock up one of the two best and most popular hitters on their team, a player with his share of flaws, but one who provides a service which couldn’t easily be replaced on the open market or via trade. I’m slightly apprehensive about the idea of Ethier being a $100m type player, yet I suppose I can’t really argue with the logic behind the move.

So he thinks they got market value, that it helps public relations, and that it was the best fit.

—–

Baseball Prospectus: R.J. Anderson thinks the deal is fair.

No extension is complete without hemming and hawing over the financial figures. Ethier is being rewarded handsomely for being a consistently good player (his Wins Above Replacement Player totals seem locked in around three wins per season). Is Ethier worth this kind of investment? It isn’t an easy question to answer. Consider the Dodgers’ perspective. These are new owners taking over a club whose previous owner soured the fan base. Fan morale should be improved thanks to the club’s first-place standing, but locking up a large part of the team’s recent good times gains public relations points, too.

Here’s something else to consider: the Dodgers know their own budget the best, and also know that the league might be flush with cash this offseason. It’s possible, not likely but possible, that Ethier’s deal looks prudent should teams splurge this offseason.

Even if the deal doesn’t win awards for being the most efficient usage of resources, the Dodgers should be happy to retain Ethier’s bat for an additional five or six seasons.

He believes the team may have gotten market value, that it will help public relations, and that it may prove to be a solid fit.

—–

FanGraphs: Dave Cameron thinks it’s an overpay but that the team should have the finances to overcome it, rendering the overpay meaningless.

From an abstract point of view, Ethier’s not worth this contract, but when you consider the Dodgers specific financial position, the team’s attempts to rebuild credibility with an alienated fan base, and the fairly minor scope of the overpay, this just isn’t something that anyone should get all that worked up over. The Dodgers paid a nice player a little bit more than he’s worth in order to keep him, and the difference probably won’t have much of an impact on their ability to do anything else. It’s an overpay, but an irrelevant one that shouldn’t garner all that much criticism.

He thinks the Dodgers paid over market value for Ethier, that it will help public relations, and that the future budget will take care of the overpay.

—–

True Blue LA: Eric Stephen takes a different approach to looking at the contract and compares Ethier to similar players.

Sammy Sosa, Jim Edmonds, and Carlos Beltran were the only three of the bunch to improve in their age 31-35 seasons. This group collectively averaged 2,844 plate appearances from age 26-30, and averaged 2,216 PA from ages 31-35, a 22.1% drop, with only three of the 13 players accumulating more PA as they aged. Four of the 13 players didn’t even make it to their age-35 season.

There is a fair amount of risk that Ethier could fall off a cliff from a production standpoint, with fellow Dodgers right fielder Shawn Green providing a prime example. But if Ethier does decline, the Dodgers are hoping for more Magglio Ordonez and less Trot Nixon.

You should go look at the chart, it’s interesting and much better than the similarity scores from Baseball Reference.

—–

Baseball Nation: Grant Brisbee makes the case that the message behind the deal was more important than the deal itself.

Maybe the Dodgers overpaid, and maybe they assumed a lot of risk with the Ethier deal. It’s not a bad deal, especially when you think of Jayson Werth and Carl Crawford as possible corner-outfield comps. But the Dodgers were sending a message just as much as they were trying to build a 2014 roster. If Magic Johnson is to be believed, the message will have several parts, and they’ll all be expensive. That’s the brand of the new Dodgers. It just happened to kick off with some old Dodgers.

This is yet another analysis of the contract that mentions the public relations angle, which is an interesting way to look at the deal. I actually didn’t think much of it before, but laid out like this, yeah, I can see how this might influence their decision to give him what he wanted, even if it is a little over market value.

Whether I agree with that logic is a different story though.

—–

Dodger Thoughts: Jon Weisman is upbeat about the outcome of the contract.

It’s hard to get a true bargain with established stars — which is why it was so wonderful for the Dodgers that Ethier (acquired as a minor leaguer from Oakland in 2005) and Matt Kemp emerged from their farm system in the first place. On some level, if the Dodgers can avoid with Ethier what happened with the Toronto Blue Jays and Vernon Wells, they should be happy. A major hope of the new ownership is that it won’t have to penny-pinch. As long as Ethier remains a reasonably productive player and not an albatross, the Dodgers and their fans should be happy to have him, even if he ends up pocketing something more than he’s worth.

He thinks that it’s probably an overpay, but it’ll be fine if he doesn’t become terrible.

Well yeah, but I think the risk that he does become terrible is built into the analysis of the deal, no? I mean, if I could rule out the possibility of attrition, then yeah, I love the deal.

—–

ESPN: Uh, I guess Keith Law couldn’t even be bothered to write an article on it, but it’s probably safe to say he doesn’t like it.

Someone needs to hand Ned Colletti a pen and a blank piece of paper and ask him to draw a typical hitter’s aging curve.

— keithlaw (@keithlaw) June 12, 2012

More like ROFLMAO “@Crev10: @keithlaw Did you ever publish a write-up on Either’s contract or would it have just read: “LOL”?”

— keithlaw (@keithlaw) June 13, 2012

I don’t think many are quite at this end of the spectrum.

=====

All in all, most seem to agree that’s he’s getting a deal that’s over market value and that there are concerns about regression as he ages. However, their concerns are mitigated primarily due to public relations reasons or because of the assumed budget.

The public relations angle is wonderful, and the expanding budget is part of the reason I’m somewhat neutral on the deal. However, all I care about is the Dodgers being a quality team again, so call me heartless or whatever, but I couldn’t care less about public relations or the loyalty of the fans or how many people would cry if Ethier wasn’t re-signed.

All I want to know is whether or not the deal was worth it from a baseball perspective, and judging by most of the analysis purely from that angle, the consensus seems to be that the jury is still out and they will be that way for a while.

The popular discussion about this game will revolve around the blown call that ended it, but that kind of stuff will happen from time to time, just ask the Padres. For my interests, the real discussion should revolve around exactly what Don Mattingly was thinking late in the game.

—–

As it got down to the late innings of a tie game on the road, it wasn’t hard to see that Mattingly was going to save closer Javy Guerra for a save situation. Many of us speculated on that move well before it happened, and sure enough, Matt Guerrier entered the game in the ninth.

Now Guerrier has been excellent this season and Guerra has struggled lately, but overall, Guerra is the better reliever and he’s the team’s closer. Yet instead of making sure that, you know, the game actually continues, Guerra was saved for when the Dodgers took the lead, a lead that never came.

That was a managerial mistake, and Guerrier compounded it by making a mistake of his own with the walk of Jonathan Lucroy. The Brewers gave the Dodgers a gift by bunting into an out without advancing the runner, but the Dodgers gave it right back when Nyjer Morgan stole second and advanced to third on a throwing error by A.J. Ellis.

Now this is the point where I felt Mattingly’s decision making got really odd.

Mattingly proceeded to intentionally walk Rickie Weeks to put runners on first and third with one out. If you’re going to go that route, the next course of action is to:

1) Walk George Kottaras to load the bases and create a force play at home.
2) Play the corners in and at double play depth up the middle, and try to induce a grounder.

Instead, Mattingly brought in Jerry Hairston Jr. from the outfield to make five infielders and then proceeded to play all of them in, negating the point of walking Weeks to begin with. The fact that the walk was useless was further driven home when Weeks took second base on defensive indifference, thus showing that the Dodgers never cared about creating a force at second.

So if they had no intention of using the force play at second, why didn’t they walk Kottaras after they walked Weeks? Presumably because they didn’t want to face Ryan Braun with the bases loaded, but if that was indeed the case, why not pitch to Weeks since they weren’t banking on a force play being around to begin with?

1) Pitch to Weeks and pitch to Kottaras.
2) Walk Weeks, play the corners in and the middle at double play depth, and try to induce Kottaras into hitting a grounder.
3) Walk Weeks, walk Kottaras, and face Braun.

I prefer going with option one or option two over option three by a lot, but all seem to make some semblance of logical sense. Instead, Mattingly went with option four, which involved still having to face both Kottaras and Braun, both with no force play in tact if Guerrier did his job, meaning they actively choose to face one of the best hitters in the National League and gave the Brewers two chances to win it.

With option one, you potentially miss having to pitch to Braun. With options two and three (especially two), there’s a chance you can get out of it with one pitch. Yet, Mattingly seems to have chosen the scenario that both gives the opposing team the most attempts at driving in the runner from third and results in having to face the best hitter on the Brewers.

Swell.

Granted, most of this discussion was negated when Guerrier unintentionally walked Kottaras, but it still revealed a lot of what Mattingly was or wasn’t thinking.

It’s just so … what?

Ugh.

—–

As far as the last play of the game, he was out, as Mike Petriello‘s GIF shows.

I initially thought Ellis completely whiffed on the tag, but having now seen it slowed down, I see where the glove bends back as he makes contact with Morgan.

Terrible setup and throw by Matt Kemp, by the way.

—–

What is Adam Kennedy on the team for?

I feel no more confident with him up at the plate as opposed to a pitcher, and quite frankly, he’s done nothing in recent years to prove he’s a significant improvement.

—–

Let’s not lose sight of the fact that Guerrier was signed for three years by Colletti and is the 4th best reliever to 3 guys making $500k.

— Chad Moriyama (@ChadMoriyama) April 19, 2012