Dodgers Trade Green for Prospects

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » January 3, 2005, 1:33 pm

Local new stations are reporting the Dodgers have traded Shawn Green to the Diamondbacks for some prospects. While I am not a Dodger fan, it is sad to see them giving up on the season in January.

It also seems to prove that the new owner has no money, as the rumors had suggested. I cannot see how this team will score any runs and their pitching staff is average at best. Baseball should have taken a better look at the McCourts. It needs a big name Franchise like the Dodgers around to reheat rivalries with the Yankees. Sad to see such a proud franchise become the next Milwaukee Brewers.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » January 3, 2005, 2:23 pm

There is that and also the fact the Green put up bad numbers, and the fact that the club just doesn't have a spot for him. He went from RF to 1st, back to RF and back to 1st again.

I think they still have a decent lineup with great prospects.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 3, 2005, 2:53 pm

It's nice for the D-Backs but Green is making something like 16 million this season. I don't think he's worth that kind of money. If the Diamondbacks can extend his contract for less money after this season then it might be a good trade.

This all goes back to the failed three way trade between the Yankees, Dbacks and Dodgers for Randy Johnson.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » January 3, 2005, 3:11 pm

There is no incentive for teams like Milwaukee to pay high prices for free agents when teams like the Yankees can outspend everyone else ten times over. Baseball needs a salary cap. Even a high salary cap of 75-100 million would allow all teams to have a chance. Milwaukee might even bother to field a team then.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » January 3, 2005, 3:17 pm

The Yankees have nothing to do with what Milwaukee puts on the field. Just until November or so, the Milwaukee Brewers were owned by the Selig family and they had no money to spend. They sold it, and the new owners are going to start spending a bit more money. With some of the moves they've made, the Brewers will be competitive in the next couple years even with a low payroll. They would have stayed competitive last year had their offense not stopped hitting with runners on base.

noel · Post by **noel** » January 3, 2005, 4:28 pm

Deward wrote:There is no incentive for teams like Milwaukee to pay high prices for free agents when teams like the Yankees can outspend everyone else ten times over. Baseball needs a salary cap. Even a high salary cap of 75-100 million would allow all teams to have a chance. Milwaukee might even bother to field a team then.

While I do agree that baseball needs a salary cap, I think it's important to point out that the Yankees haven't won a world series in 4 years, but they have spent more money than any other franchise for the last 5.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » January 3, 2005, 7:38 pm

noel wrote:While I do agree that baseball needs a salary cap, I think it's important to point out that the Yankees haven't won a world series in 4 years, but they have spent more money than any other franchise for the last 5.

And the Mets had the 4th highest payroll last year and finished 4th in a weak division. Money isn't everything in baseball.

noel · Post by **noel** » January 3, 2005, 8:15 pm

Vetiria wrote:And the Mets had the 4th highest payroll last year and finished 4th in a weak division. Money isn't everything in baseball.

That was my point. It's not like the Yankees have been monopolizing the World Series for the last X years. It's also not like them leading the spending is anything new.

Proctus · Post by **Proctus** » January 3, 2005, 10:36 pm

A-Rod and Randy Johnson.

How many teams can afford 2 high calibur players like that?

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 4, 2005, 11:38 am

Proctus wrote:A-Rod and Randy Johnson.

How many teams can afford 2 high calibur players like that?

A-Rod was on the Rangers(and the Yanks don't even pay what Texas was paying) and Randy, the D-Backs(and he didn't want to play anywhere else to end his career), so I would say any team could shell out the money and get whomever they want to.

A franchise as big as the Dodgers their own DES network if they wanted to, they have a ton of fans across the country. The Mets network looks to be a go for the 2006 season (the MES?

) which is probably why they are really beefing up on the name players again.

What all of that money allows the the yanks to do is brush aside their mistakes, which is unfair. But again, the players will never allow a cap, so you have to fix it some other way. Until George is breaking the rules, other teams can spend just like him.

Proctus · Post by **Proctus** » January 4, 2005, 12:25 pm

Chidoro wrote:
Proctus wrote:A-Rod and Randy Johnson.

How many teams can afford 2 high calibur players like that?
A-Rod was on the Rangers(and the Yanks don't even pay what Texas was paying) and Randy, the D-Backs(and he didn't want to play anywhere else to end his career), so I would say any team could shell out the money and get whomever they want to.

Exactly my point. 2 different teams for 2 high calibur players. Now we see them on the same team.

Hell, I bet the Yankees could afford Sammy Sosa if they cared.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 4, 2005, 2:43 pm

Arizona had Randy and Curt.

Not everyone in a small to mid market has to employ the Billy Beane/Steve Schott metality to build a successful team/franchise

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 4, 2005, 8:20 pm

Not everyone in a small to mid market has to employ the Billy Beane/Steve Schott metality to build a successful team/franchise

I totally disagree with this.

They don't have to follow the Beane mentality in terms of player selection with a heavy emphasis on stats and obp. They do have to follow the Beane mentality in terms of not re-signing their best players, trading stars for prospects, and so forth.

Arizona was not a mid-market team when they had Schilling and Johnson. Their payroll was kind of ridiculous at the time. Their decline has largely coincided with the reduction of that payroll.

The two most successful small-market teams, besides, Oakland, are Florida and Minnesota. Both pursue many of the same strategies as Oakland. Florida won the World Series and was forced to part with Ivan Rodriguez, Derrek Lee, and Ugueth Urbina, each of whom was an integral part of their championship. This year they traded away Brad Penny and lost Carl Pavano to free agency. Minnesota has been saying goodbye to players for years, from Corey Koskie to AJ Pierzynski to Doug Mientkiewicz to Eddie Guardado. They're successful because they have an excellent farm system that they keep stocked by trading players for prospects. Of course even their farm system is affected by their small-market status: They couldn't draft Mark Prior with the first pick because they knew that the organization couldn't afford to sign him.

Sure, Florida and Minnesota are still competitive despite these setbacks. They would undoubtedly be better without them. It seems to me that providing such a shockingly disparate playing field is fundamentally contrary to the very nature of sports. I don't blame Steinbrenner, as he is playing within the rules, but it boggles my mind that some people defend the status quo as desirable.

I would argue that obtaining Randy Johnson would have been significantly detrimental to any team with a payroll under 60 million or so. Quite simply, a team cannot devote a quarter of their payroll to one player, because there is no player in baseball who is responsible for a quarter of his teams success. If a small-market team with a budget of around 40 million dollars were to sign Carlos Beltran for 15 million this offseason, they would simply doom themselves to years of failure. Ken Griffey Junior with the Reds and Carlos Delgado with the Blue Jays proved that aptly enough.

What this means is that, for many teams, signing the best players in the game is, competitively speaking, a bad decision. How can such a system be defended?

Any salary cap should also include a minimum payroll which would force teams like the Devil Rays, Pirate, Brewers, and so on to shell out significantly more money to improve their teams. Personally, I think a limit of 60 to 90 million dollars is more than reasonable.

Proctus · Post by **Proctus** » January 4, 2005, 10:53 pm

Schilling didn't command a huge contract like Randy Johnson or Alex Rodriguez.

Let's not forget about Beltran if the Yankees manage to pick him up too.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » January 4, 2005, 11:38 pm

There is that and also the fact the Green put up bad numbers, and the fact that the club just doesn't have a spot for him. He went from RF to 1st, back to RF and back to 1st again

Would you rather have Green or Hee Sop Choi (however you spell his name).

The Yankees Salaries do not guarantee a World Series, they have guaranteed an annual playoff visit though. Unlike the Mets that throw money at people past their prime, the Yankees generally pick decent free agents at or near their prime. They make mistakes, but have enough extra to cover most of those. In the playoffs anything can happen, that is why the Yankees have not won 10 straight.

Proctus · Post by **Proctus** » January 5, 2005, 12:10 am

Yankees biggest mistake as of late was Picking up Kevin Brown. What a nutjob that pitcher is!

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » January 5, 2005, 2:20 am

Chidoro wrote:Arizona had Randy and Curt.

Arizona's also in major, major debt to the rest of the owners.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 5, 2005, 12:49 pm

Vetiria wrote:
Chidoro wrote:Arizona had Randy and Curt.
Arizona's also in major, major debt to the rest of the owners.

Blame Az fans and/or the D-backs marketing department for that then.

Suev, again it all comes down to putting money into your product. I do agree on the min cap. If the franchise can't be supported by a fan base (not to mention the huge tax breaks it receives) then it shouldn't be in business. Brilliant idea putting a baseball team, a summer sport, in florida where half the population goes somewhere else during that time.

Hell, some of these owners just do it for the tax breaks. Don't be fooled by the red ink claims of some of the smaller markets. Money comes in from so many directions in baseball, a simple revenue/expense balance sheet won't tell half of the story. This isn't hockey by any stretch of the imagination. Teams could resign their free agents if they really wanted to. Teams have every opportunity to spend more. I refuse to believe all smaller market owners can't sign free agents, even their own. Owners/GMs decide where they will allocate their resources as well as decide how many resources they are willing to use overall. Steinbrenner/Cashman don't have to spend all of this money. He could just back up of brinks truck if he wanted to. He could let a city's taxpayers subsidize a new stadium like a lot of other places have done.

Again, you'll never get a cap by the PA, never ever ever. I proposed a system awhile back that was something along the lines of 5 franchise players that could be paid whatever you want and the remainder of the 25 man roster gets capped at something like $50 mil. Until then, George will continue to put money into his team, even games against the Devil Rays will draw over 50,000 on a tuesday afternoon, and the other owners will get more money from the cap penalty because of it.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » January 8, 2005, 5:33 am

Anyway, Green has refused the trade because he wants a 4 year extension and the DBacks aren't willing to give that to him. The commissioner has given them two more days to work out an extension, but everything says the deal is dead.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 8, 2005, 5:59 pm

Vetiria wrote:Anyway, Green has refused the trade because he wants a 4 year extension and the DBacks aren't willing to give that to him. The commissioner has given them two more days to work out an extension, but everything says the deal is dead.

I see problems here. Green thinks he's worth more than he is. He'd be a nice addition but isn't worth megabucks. I hope the D-Backs kill the deal if he doesn't realize his own mortality.

Proctus · Post by **Proctus** » January 8, 2005, 7:09 pm

Yeah, there's no need to repeat the mistake after Sexson.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » January 10, 2005, 3:11 am

Okay, so now Green is officially going to the Dbacks. 3 year/$30 million extension.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 10, 2005, 1:17 pm

Vetiria wrote:Okay, so now Green is officially going to the Dbacks. 3 year/$30 million extension.

He'll help us, I can't say I'm excited about paying him 30 million after the 16 million he'll make this year.

Green is streaky. He had a month or so two years ago where he was the best hitter in the game with an amazing run. I wish he was a little more consistent.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » January 10, 2005, 5:07 pm

I was hoping the deal wouldn't go through so the DBacks might be interested in Sosa. Even gone a month, he still put up better numbers than Green. Oh well...

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 10, 2005, 5:41 pm

Vetiria wrote:I was hoping the deal wouldn't go through so the DBacks might be interested in Sosa. Even gone a month, he still put up better numbers than Green. Oh well...

I see your location is Illinois...your true intent is to get Sosa off of the Cubs roster!

I can't see Sosa putting up better numbers than Green next year except in HRs maybe.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » January 10, 2005, 7:54 pm

We'll see. It's a contract year for him. I expect him to return to the Cubs next year. With Beltran off the market now, maybe the Cubs will sign Ordonez, assuming he's healthy.

Proctus · Post by **Proctus** » January 10, 2005, 11:16 pm

Sosa would have been financially a better choice, IMO. No one is going to watch a D-Backs game after last year, even with Luis Gonzales. But with Sosa, it would certainly spark fan interest whereas the departure of Randy Johnson may have left a foul stench in our mouths.

Randy will surely be missed.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 10, 2005, 11:58 pm

Proctus wrote:Sosa would have been financially a better choice, IMO. No one is going to watch a D-Backs game after last year, even with Luis Gonzales. But with Sosa, it would certainly spark fan interest whereas the departure of Randy Johnson may have left a foul stench in our mouths.

Randy will surely be missed.

Kobe would have been the better choice for butts in the seats as well...want him over Nash/Q-Rich? (if we could have gotten Kobe or the coaches wanted him in the first place)

Proctus · Post by **Proctus** » January 11, 2005, 1:29 am

Winnow wrote:
Proctus wrote:Sosa would have been financially a better choice, IMO. No one is going to watch a D-Backs game after last year, even with Luis Gonzales. But with Sosa, it would certainly spark fan interest whereas the departure of Randy Johnson may have left a foul stench in our mouths.

Randy will surely be missed.
Kobe would have been the better choice for butts in the seats as well...want him over Nash/Q-Rich? (if we could have gotten Kobe or the coaches wanted him in the first place)

There's no way you can compare Kobe to Nash. Why would we even need Kobe when we already had Amare/Marion? Don't you recall that the suns are a "Shining Image" team? Get rid of Cliff Robinson for his image, get rid of Jason Kidd cuz of his image, etc etc.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » January 11, 2005, 4:19 am

Winnow, I think you may be mistaken as to the production you're going to get from Green. Sosa will put up better numbers if the last two years are any hint. However, I just remembered that he doesn't get along with Two-Face Grace, so he probably wouldn't have approved a trade to the DBacks.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 11, 2005, 2:56 pm

I disagree. Sammy Sosa's production has been declining steadily over the last few years. Additionally, there are lots of concerns over his potential steroid use. If he actually was using steroids then it is likely that his production will continue to sink just like many other steroid babies. Even if he wasn't, his production has been sinking as he gets older, a situation that very few ballplayers manage to reverse. He's also been a malcontent, unhappy with batting sixth despite the fact that his teammates were clearly outperforming him. His home runs, RBI's, batting average, on base percentage, slugging percentage, walks and runs scored have all declined for four consecutive years (although admittedly those numbers were pretty astronomical four years ago).

Shawn Green is a useful but overpaid player. He's played at least 150 games for seven consecutive years. If he can get back to his '01-'02 power numbers (40+ homers, 110+ rbi's) then he'll absolutely outperform Sosa next year. Even if he can't recapture that form, he'll probably hit 25+ doubles and 25+ home runs with a solid batting average, a good eye, and no attitude issues. He's also four years younger than Sosa.

I'd rather have Green for both team chemistry and performance reasons.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » January 11, 2005, 3:16 pm

I don't agree about Sosa's performance. He has a chip on his shoulder coming into this coming season and he'll perform. I wanted him out the Cubs clubhouse because of his attitude as well.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 11, 2005, 3:23 pm

Vetiria wrote:I don't agree about Sosa's performance. He has a chip on his shoulder coming into this coming season and he'll perform. I wanted him out the Cubs clubhouse because of his attitude as well.

Lets put 500VVs on the line for this next season. The bet is who will have the better season as judged by VVers with a one week poll after the season.

"Who had the better season in 2005?"

-Shawn Green
-Sammy Sosa

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » January 11, 2005, 4:34 pm

If anyone remembers by next October, I'm in. Regular season only.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » January 12, 2005, 11:43 am

Winnow wrote:
Vetiria wrote:I was hoping the deal wouldn't go through so the DBacks might be interested in Sosa. Even gone a month, he still put up better numbers than Green. Oh well...
I see your location is Illinois...your true intent is to get Sosa off of the Cubs roster!

I can't see Sosa putting up better numbers than Green next year except in HRs maybe.

sosa is a huge inconsistent inflated ego piece of shit

edit: and he can stay in chicago imo

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » September 26, 2005, 12:17 am

Winnow wrote:
Vetiria wrote:I don't agree about Sosa's performance. He has a chip on his shoulder coming into this coming season and he'll perform. I wanted him out the Cubs clubhouse because of his attitude as well.
Lets put 500VVs on the line for this next season. The bet is who will have the better season as judged by VVers with a one week poll after the season.

"Who had the better season in 2005?"

-Shawn Green
-Sammy Sosa

Take your damn VV's!

Okay, what gives? How do you give VV's?