davell

The Giants would still be able to make moves though because this late into the month, just about everyone has already been passed thru anyway. Guys are either tradable right now or they aren't, if they were claimed. And while it doesn't seem like much, it does cost 20k to put a claim in, so there's not somedude sitting there with a finger on a button claiming every single guy that passes through without a horrible contract. Considering just about everyone is passed thru this month, I'd love to somehow find out the percentages of who gets claimed and who doesn't. Because,as an example, what's the use of claiming a Mike Trout, for instance? Angrls aren't trading him, not giving him away, so why waste 20k? My guess is there really aren't all that many claims.

Absolutely. as in next year, when theres more than 5 games left in the season.

By the way, here's the luxury tax deal in the new CBA: Over 189 mill, you pay 17.5% penalty on overage. 2nd year it goes to 30%, 3rd year is 40% and after that it stays at 50%. Compared to the new NBA CBA, it's a slap on the wrist. The Dodgers are going to obliterate this.

Jumbo:Come on man, it IS entertaining at times. It's OK to admit it.

Clemens started his comeback tonight. went 3.1. not getting above 88 on the gun.

Something I have no clue on, but wouldn't mind finding out is how many players were getting NTC's and what caliber of players were getting them. It certainly seemed like we had more than our fair share, considering we didn't have any teue superstars.

I didn't see discounts on Z or Soriano though. I see your overall point though with Lee and Aramis.

Their lead owner just got asked if they have a payroll limit. His response was "somewhere, I suppose."

No links. Saw it mentioned somewhere yesterday in all the flurry of that deal. I follow waaaaay too many people. Pretty sure it was a beat writer, but not positive.

300 mill payroll within 5 years. New TV deal on the way, talk of a new stadium, team thats paid for and owners that want to win.

Jensen to the DL due to a blister. I wonder if he's even got one. Seems like a very convenient way to shut him down and open up a roster spot.

Wells back to Peoria.

By the way, if the one rumor was true and we actually offered MORE for Puig than what the Dodgers did, I'd like to see us try and acquire him next season, or whenever he can be dealt. Because theu're OF is set for the next 5 seasons now basically.

Fine, but I'm thinking it.

That or when the Trib/Zell finally allowed him (or even forced him) to spend money there weren't great options on the market for the long term deals. It's been put out there that the trib was more behind signing Soriano than Hendry, or at least forced him to add some years/$$. In no way am I a Hendry apologist but I think part of the awful contracts was him being forced to spend money by ownership. I always get accused of bringing Hendry's name into these discussions and being a Hendry apologist, but many of you can't seem to discuss anything without bringing up Hendry As I've pointed out many times before that the situation was completely different because ownership gave Hendry the money and told him to buy a winning team. Theo has been given complete autonomy to spend money or cut payroll as he pleases. As for bloated contracts on a underperforming team, you might look at $262 million in contracts that the Red Sox are sending to the Dodgers and guess who negotiated those deals. BOY GENIUS!!!!!!!!! And you know what? That's not even a given. Lucchino wanted to compete so badly, they veered off the path Theo had put into place previously. Theo surely had something to do with signing those guys, but where he's learned and isn't making the same mistake twice, good ole Jimbo wouldn't have a single issue with giving Pujols 250 mill and probably a big name pitcher as well and we'd be right back to being a longterm 75 win team that needed a lot to go right to even sniff the playoffs. Wait. That's not fair. Perhaps the owners of the Cubs pushed Jimbo into signing the same contracts that Theo did. And what path did Theo put into place? He already had his core before he took over. It IS fair, because I won't even deny that Hendry may have had pressure to do those contracts. But he blamed Theo, therefore blaming Jimbo is fair game too. Theo's path was always build thru the system and add when it made sense to do so. Same thing he's starting out here doing. I listed reasons as to why Hendry was NOT a good GM and never did mention FA contracts.

They've already extended Ethier, 5/85.

That or when the Trib/Zell finally allowed him (or even forced him) to spend money there weren't great options on the market for the long term deals. It's been put out there that the trib was more behind signing Soriano than Hendry, or at least forced him to add some years/$$. In no way am I a Hendry apologist but I think part of the awful contracts was him being forced to spend money by ownership. I always get accused of bringing Hendry's name into these discussions and being a Hendry apologist, but many of you can't seem to discuss anything without bringing up Hendry As I've pointed out many times before that the situation was completely different because ownership gave Hendry the money and told him to buy a winning team. Theo has been given complete autonomy to spend money or cut payroll as he pleases. As for bloated contracts on a underperforming team, you might look at $262 million in contracts that the Red Sox are sending to the Dodgers and guess who negotiated those deals. BOY GENIUS!!!!!!!!! And you know what? That's not even a given. Lucchino wanted to compete so badly, they veered off the path Theo had put into place previously. Theo surely had something to do with signing those guys, but where he's learned and isn't making the same mistake twice, good ole Jimbo wouldn't have a single issue with giving Pujols 250 mill and probably a big name pitcher as well and we'd be right back to being a longterm 75 win team that needed a lot to go right to even sniff the playoffs.

Haha what? Rubby de la Rosa ABSOLUTELY has TOR stuff. Hell, he's had Pedro comps thrown out numerous times. To say he can have a Josh Beckett career isn;t going too far whatsoever. But he is just coming back from TJS surgery, so even though his velo is back, it could take a him a while to build up the arm stregth to go deep in games and could be on an innings limit next season. But he most certainly has TONS of ability.

If they can't keep Ellsbury, it's pretty much going to be a rebuild. I guess they could rebuild fast, if things fall their way, but to me, with only one core bat remaining (Pedroia ... Ortiz is too old IF he returns), it would feel more like a rebuild. May be an issue of semantics, though. I'm not completely sure if our market will be OK if we throw out an 80 mill payroll team next year. But theirs won't be for sure. They may sign shorter term deals and such, but I can't see them blowing things up. They just got to reset though, which is good for them.

Of course. I'm just saying they sent him thru early. For all I know, he gets DFA'd this week by the Red Sox.

Hendry allocated money very poorly. Tons of money spent on relief pitching, middle infielders, etc. He was too player friendly in giving out NTC's. He would change themes every offseason and never stick to a plan. He never did a good job in selling players off. He never spent big money on the draft. He had no clue about adding supplemental picks. They didn't get serious in Central America until everyone else was. He scoffed at statistical analysis until his owner had to hire a guy to do it for them. I'm sure there are plenty more reasons too, but those came to me in a single thought.

I can't see them in a rwbuild mode. Retool, more like it. That market and fanbase, partially because of the Yankees, will not let them do what we're doing.

The Red Sox won't touch Greinke, after their big money mistakes they just got out of. They'll make smarter, smaller moves. I fully expect Greinke to be a Dodger though and their payroll to be in the 220 range at the start of next season. With McCourt's deferrments for Manny and Andruw and whoever else, they're sitting at 190 after this deal already. I wasn't kidding when I asked earlier if they'd have a 300 mill payroll within 5 years. I think it's a very distinct possibility. Plus, I'm also really starting to believe they'll be getting a new stadium as well.

For 260 mill, do you think you can get more than Gonzo, Beckett, and Crawford, if you're the Red Sox? They obviously think so, or they wouldn't have done it. If you're the Dodgers, would signing Hamilton and Greinke in the offseason be just as good or better for your franchise? I guess they don't think so, which is why they did it. Gonzo looks like he IS in slight decline. Crawford's obviously not a big city player and Beckett is a fat [expletive]. Maybe LA rejuvenates the last 2, Gonzo will be good in the middle of that lineup, no doubt. Rubby has a pretty decent chance to duplicate Beckett's career, in my mind. His arm is flat out electric. Webster's a very solid prospect in his own right. Both teams did well here.

You only have to pass through waivers once. The Dodgers probably sent Loney through waivers at the beginning of the month. He's the ony guy on their side that couldn't be sent down to the minors. Teams that need 1B and have over 20 mill a year to spend on one aren't many and that was why Gonzalez made it through. No one in their right mind was going to claim Beckett or Crawford and no one saw a videeo game trade like this going down, so that's how it was relatively easy to do. But it was probably worked on for a long time to get a deal like this done anyway.