Dodgers Trade: Thoughts?

[Stotle]

I'm in the camp that would stick to Britton for Puig - and you can make small adjustments to that.

I would NOT trade Gausman - period. I think he'll be a 1 or 2 starter, and he certainly doesn't have the trade value of a 1 or a 2.

A major point of trading for Puig is that he's under-valued. I don't think the OP idea reflects that. Another point is that LA can spend like nobody else. Take advantage of that. It's a reason they would consider Britton for Puig.

Puig is undervalued by compensation, as well. Significantly so, even. And for several more years.

[Stotle]

He's seriously undervalued if he's putting up a 5-win season at $8M. But he might be seriously overpaid if he's a headcase with an entourage and 80 games on the DL. I wouldn't assume the former.

He's undervalued as a middle-case of those extremes, too. Heck, he might be "appropriately valued" in your worst case scenario. 80 games in RF of 1.5 win production.

Four years at $8-9 MM. Four years.

[mdbdotcom]

Britton for Enrique Hernandez.

[Stotle]

All I know about Anderson is what I've looked up in the past five minutes. At very first glance it seems he had a mediocre year in AA at 23, with worse K/BB than Gausman had in the majors. You say he projects as a #2-4, why hasn't that manifested itself in his performances yet? What happened at the end of the year with the 15 runs in six innings in AAA?

Thanks. I know there's talent there, but it just seems like a big risk of a huge debacle.

He threw well in Tulsa; some issues with maintaining consistency throughout starts and bouts of imprecision. I wouldn't pay any attention to 3 appearances in Triple-A, two in relief. #2 is high side, #4 most likely. Late-inning arm as fallback.

[DrungoHazewood]

He's undervalued as a middle-case of those extremes, too. Heck, he might be "appropriately valued" in your worst case scenario. 80 games in RF of 1.5 win production.

Four years at $8-9 MM. Four years.

Yes, that's true. But you're acquiring Puig to be a player that pushes you to the playoffs, a guy whose upside is 5 wins or more. If he's playing 80 games at 1.5 wins, and then you're playing Travis Snider and Julio Borbon the other 81 games and you're dealing with Puig's baggage, maybe you don't care that the dollars per win worked out okay. And I go back to the thought that if I'm the Dodgers and I have a potential MVP-caliber player on a dream contract why am I trading him for Zach Britton+ unless he really is a nutcase.

[Ruzious]

Puig is undervalued by compensation, as well. Significantly so, even. And for several more years.

Agreed - as is Britton but for less years. Point I was trying to make is that it's not a big deal for LA, because they can spend - as in money - more than anyone else. They are much more concerned with improving the team than they are in budgeting issues that could arise because of a swap of Puig for Britton.

[Stotle]

Yes, that's true. But you're acquiring Puig to be a player that pushes you to the playoffs, a guy whose upside is 5 wins or more. If he's playing 80 games at 1.5 wins, and then you're playing Travis Snider and Julio Borbon the other 81 games and you're dealing with Puig's baggage, maybe you don't care that the dollars per win worked out okay. And I go back to the thought that if I'm the Dodgers and I have a potential MVP-caliber player on a dream contract why am I trading him for Zach Britton+ unless he really is a nutcase.

No, you are trying to incrementally improve your team. There's no reason to force Puig to be a "difference maker" in order for a trade to make sense. It's a question of value and team construction. Nothing more.

It's not solely about the bottom line. But it's a little about the bottom line.

Sure, Britton for Puig would be great. I'm not sure there is a GM who wouldn't prefer Puig (4/~$38 MM) over Britton (3/~$29 MM), baggage and all.

[Stotle]

Agreed - as is Britton but for less years. Point I was trying to make is that it's not a big deal for LA, because they can spend - as in money - more than anyone else. They are much more concerned with improving the team than they are in budgeting issues that could arise because of a swap of Puig for Britton.

Britton has some surplus value attached. Maybe in 2017. Probably not in 2018. And hopefully he's healthy for those three years. And doesn't see any reduction in effectiveness. Relievers can be funny.

[DrungoHazewood]

Sure, Britton for Puig would be great. I'm not sure there is a GM who wouldn't prefer Puig (4/$34 MM) over Britton (3/~$29 MM), baggage and all.

That's really the question, isn't it? For it to make sense for the Dodgers to trade Puig given his contract and potential the whole narrative about him being a wacko has to be somewhat true. And if it's true, do you really want to deal with that at any cost? Why should we think that the Orioles would be able to better deal with Puig than the Dodgers?

[weams]

Considering Anderson is the best pitcher in that deal... sure. Bundy is done and Guasman just has not found a good secondary pitch.

Tertiary. And that is now debatable.

[Horsepower]

These trades you propose are crazy. Why do you want to trade Britton? An old Choo and a headcase Puig?

[Ripken]

Tertiary. And that is now debatable.

I would love nothing more than Guas becoming an ace... and I firmly believe it will never happen. IMO, he's our highest of sell high candidates. That said, I think we could get more for him but I like Anderson so the deal for me is Britton for Puig. If Buck was on board with the Cuban I'd do the trade.

[Stotle]

That's really the question, isn't it? For it to make sense for the Dodgers to trade Puig given his contract and potential the whole narrative about him being a wacko has to be somewhat true. And if it's true, do you really want to deal with that at any cost? Why should we think that the Orioles would be able to better deal with Puig than the Dodgers?

There's reduced value, and there's insane reduced value. If Puig had no "issues" and just had a down year with injuries, the above deal would not happen. The above deal, to my mind, represents a reduced return for "no issues" Puig.

[Stotle]

These trades you propose are crazy. Why do you want to trade Britton? An old Choo and a headcase Puig?

I'm not a very good baseball guy. Sorry.

[TheWall]

These trades you propose are crazy. Why do you want to trade Britton? An old Choo and a headcase Puig?

He wants to trade Britton because he's going to get expensive, we would be selling at his highest value, and he's our best trade chip to bring in a legitimate position player for one of the corner OF spots.

Puig is the ultimate buy low candidate right now. If you had asked me prior to this season, I would have ranked Puig as a top 10 player easily. The combination of his poor showing in 2015, his attitude, and the Dodger's payroll / surplus talent in the OF might make him expendable. They don't need to worry about the fact that he might still easily be worth his affordable contract, since they're willing to spend nearly $300 million per year on the roster.

Britton represents one of their biggest needs and he might also be the best closer they can get their hands on. I have no idea if they will end up moving Puig, but DD better at least be asking.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk