Jump to content

Please can we trade for LaRoche...


bej6789

Recommended Posts

Bradford for LaRoche makes sense for both sides. LaRoche has nowhere to play and can't stay healthy enough to show what he's got. The Dodgers need relief help now with Saito out.

The Orioles can afford to lose Bradford for the potential of LaRoche even if he's on the DL more than he's on the field while under team control.

No way do I trade Sherrill for him straight up though - too much of a risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply
The increased mentionings of Bradford as a reliever on the move combined with his post season experience, Coletti's love of veterans, and LaRoche's falling out in LA all lead me to that conclusion.

Its unlikely but, as I said, it would be silly to dismiss the possibility of it happening as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt Kemp is not even arbitration-eligible, while BRob is a free agent after '09. And BRob is at his peak, while Kemp has a ton of upside. I'd give Kemp the edge in terms of value, especially to a rebuilding team.

Andy LaRoche is the top prospect in their system right now that's still in the minors. It really isn't going to happen -- not for Chad Bradford.

Peak is your opinion really ... While I agree he's in his prime years that is perfect for a team wanting a leadoff hitter. Basically He's more valuable to the Dodgers then Kemp is. Also Brian has a year left on his contract & I dont see any reason he wouldn't sign a extension.

Kemp has potential upside .... Which may be more valuable to Mcphail. Neither you or I are AM so the edge would need to be determined by him. The disadvantage in this hole matter would be on the Dodgers because if the determined they needed a Leadoff hitting 2B for the pennant race time would not be on their side. The Orioles & Mcphail never appear to be in a rush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So those who want LaRoche for Sherrill straight up:

What if LaRoche is on the DL more than he's on the field for the seasons he's under team control. Would it be worth losing Sherrill then?

LaRoche has been injury prone for the past two seasons, and the reason LA is fed up with him is most likely because he can't stay on the field.

There's a reason MacPhail wants two players for Sherrill, because one may not pan out and we can't afford to give up our best trading piece at the deadline for a guy who may or may not be the future at 3B, when we could potentially get a guy or guys that have a much more certain future.

MacPhail said he'll only make a deal if it improves the future of the club. You can't say that for certain about LaRoche because of his injuries and the value that Sherrill has to the club and the trade value he has in general. Now if we trade Bradford for LaRoche, then it's worth the risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So those who want LaRoche for Sherrill straight up:

What if LaRoche is on the DL more than he's on the field for the seasons he's under team control. Would it be worth losing Sherrill then?

LaRoche has been injury prone for the past two seasons, and the reason LA is fed up with him is most likely because he can't stay on the field.

There's a reason MacPhail wants two players for Sherrill, because one may not pan out and we can't afford to give up our best trading piece at the deadline for a guy who may or may not be the future at 3B, when we could potentially get a guy or guys that have a much more certain future.

I hear what you are saying here, Jtrea, but you can't base everything off of what COULD happen. What if Sherrill gets hurt pitching tomorrow and is out for the season and possibly next?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...