Talks with the Dodgers centered around Kemp/Ethier

[Ripken]

:agree: This. exactly this.

DD said the problem was the money. Clearly, the Dodgers weren't offering enough salary help in the trade negotiations to make a trade for Kemp or Ethier sensible. Both of those contracts are albatrosses that would take us down. How can anyone really be upset by this?

Yeah, unless LA was paying at least 40% of those contracts I don't want them...

[russ snyder]

I am not going to get up in arms without knowing the particulars. I am assuming that the Dodgers wanted us to take on all, or at least most of Kemp or Ethier's contracts. I like both of those players, but no thanks. There is a reason that a team with limitless resources is trying to get rid of those guys. They are bad contracts; much worse than Johnson.

Kemp is obviously a very good player. But he has missed 145 games over the last two years and still has six years and $128M left on his contract. The Dodgers seem very anxious to deal a guy that should have been the NL MVP just two years ago. I have always liked Ethier, but he will be 32 soon after Opening Day, is really a middle of the road outfielder, still has four years and $69M left on his contract, and misses a lot of games himself.

We were looking to get rid of a player that we determined was not worth the contract he was set to get. Why trade him for a much worse contract? If they wanted us to take on all or most of either of those deals, I probably would have said no too.

The voice of reason in this thread IMO. The reasons you list here are why the Dodgers were not a good fit for the Johnson deal. I would have not have traded Johnson for either of these players.

[hoosiers]

I am now fully on board the "This team will not win with Angelos as owner" train.

You reach this conclusion after two winning seasons including one playoff appearance?

After Roch writes an article that it is a bad day because the Os no longer have Hammel, BRob, JJohnson, Feldman and McClouth .... which by my calculation represents over $31M in 2013 salaries that provided only 5.4 WAR. IMO, what DD is doing is basic blocking and tacking - relatively good moves.

Regarding the Dodgers, the offseason is early and they have to shed $ to make room in the outfield. Someone is likely to take Ethier or Kemp off their hands this offseason, IMO and I hope it is not us, but that door is hardly closed.

[Guest]

LMAO at the people that think Davis will be here in 2 years/

[bt12483]

You reach this conclusion after two winning seasons including one playoff appearance?

Yeah because the erases the previous 14 years...under the same owner.

The one playoff appearance could be a mere anomaly. Pure luck.

This team should be able to spend anywhere from $105-$120M easy. No excuses.

[TradeAngelos]

I am now fully on board the "This team will not win with Angelos as owner" train.

Welcome aboard Dip.

This train has been picking up hoards of passengers lately so hurry up and grab a seat, gonna be a long ride.

[TiredofLosing20]

Yeah because the erases the previous 14 years...under the same owner.

The one playoff appearance could be a mere anomaly. Pure luck.

This team should be able to spend anywhere from $105-$120M easy. No excuses.

It doesn't matter what you think they should be able to spend. All that matters is what they will actually spend. If the budget is $100mm then they need to operate that way.

[bt12483]

It doesn't matter what you think they should be able to spend. All that matters is what they will actually spend. If the budget is $100mm then they need to operate that way.

Well then my 2014 O's budget might be $0. I am sick of it. I'll give my money to the other team in town that obviously cares about winning.

[Prayin4Reign]

In case you were wondering.

http://www.masnsports.com/school_of_roch/2013/12/more-random-thoughts-and-ramblings.html

Not shocking at all. The Orioles were not going to exchange one high salary (albeit for a year) for another multi-year contract where they'd have to shell out a Jones-like commitment. It just wasn't going to happen. The thing that was surprising was the amount of posters here that actually thought that had a chance of happening.

They're looking at their own internal commitments. My guess is they'll try to sign Davis and Tillman (possibly) to extensions. No way would they be adding to their financial 'stress'. It just is the way it is.

[Prayin4Reign]

Yeah, unless LA was paying at least 40% of those contracts I don't want them...

I had said 50%, even then it would have been surprising.

[TiredofLosing20]

Well then my 2014 O's budget might be $0. I am sick of it. I'll give my money to the other team in town that obviously cares about winning.

That is clearly your prerogative. My guess is that if this offseason goes the way it has gone thus far you will not be alone.

[MarCakes21]

You reach this conclusion after two winning seasons including one playoff appearance?

After Roch writes an article that it is a bad day because the Os no longer have Hammel, BRob, JJohnson, Feldman and McClouth .... which by my calculation represents over $31M in 2013 salaries that provided only 5.4 WAR. IMO, what DD is doing is basic blocking and tacking - relatively good moves.

Regarding the Dodgers, the offseason is early and they have to shed $ to make room in the outfield. Someone is likely to take Ethier or Kemp off their hands this offseason, IMO and I hope it is not us, but that door is hardly closed.

However, two years ago on the FA market, 1 WAR was worth about $5mil. So we overpaid, only slightly for 5.4 WAR, which should have cost us about $27mil. And those cost are increasing. I'd venture to guess 1 War is close to $6 or $7 million now.

So is Kemp or Either worth this? At last years value, no. Kemp 2 years ago, heck yes. Kemp for the next 6 year....who knows??

[NedFromYork]

I would have been much happier if the JJ trade was for two minor leaguers under 24 YO with upside than Weeks (27 YO) and a PTBNL who is hopefully a< 24 YO minor leaguer with upside.

If DD gives up our first rounder this offseason after the huge gaffe of giving up our comp pick in the Bud Norris trade, I will be really upset.

[bt12483]

That is clearly your prerogative. My guess is that if this offseason goes the way it has gone thus far you will not be alone.

Nor should I be.

[mrbraswel3]

I would have liked Kemp but I would not want to be obligated to pay him $128mm. I am reluctant to judge this non-move without understanding how much (if any) the Dodgers were willing to send with him.

That said, just knowing (without context) that we could have had Kemp and ended up with Weeks is pretty disappointing.

I heard the following and it seems plausible enough to me that I tend think the logic is close:

Dodgers are/were willing to pickup/offset some of that Kemp money for a return in talent to balance. Dodgers were very excited to maybe move Ethier, and Os were not as excited. Markakis name may have been involved with JJ and who knows what else for Kemp, but regardless some in LA media believe P.A. Nixed some kind of deal DD liked because of some monetary reason. DD went back to Dodgers to try and counter a bit more and that discussion crumbled quickly.

The Markakis mention seems the most rumormongering portion of the theory to me, simply because of somewhat well publicized PA Greek connection there are plenty of people that could come up with that out of thin air. Plus, if the Dodgers want to move Ethier what would they want w Markakis.

I am not claiming to have information outside of a theory a LA media buddy (editor not a writer or anyone who covers this stuff himself) who he himself was explaining to me this morning what he had heard from other media 2nd,3rd hand.

Wanted to share because I like so many on here am really down about the state of affairs in the warehouse. I believe I am quite moderate and maybe even have been a little to optimistic about a potential change once revenue and talent rose. Not calling for a spending spree but creative trades like these are what I would expect way more then a free agent splash, and if there is any truth at all that a reasonable financial and talent deal was struck and we simply aren't allowed to play that game, well...

P.S. hell no to Ethier unless LA wanted to pay him to play for us is my opinion.