|
|
Post by 88bulldog on May 15, 2018 15:34:51 GMT
A case is made here to trade Kershaw now... baseballanalyzed.com/2018/05/11/the-case-for-trading-clayton-kershaw/THE CASE FOR TRADING CLAYTON KERSHAW Posted on May 11, 2018 by Neil R 21 comments Photo courtesy of MLB.com. Last week I wrote an article about what I think that the Los Angeles Dodgers should do based on how their season has been going. I decided to focus on one particular issue: Los Angeles Dodgers ace Clayton Kershaw. Kershaw has the chance to opt out of his contract at the end of this season, and if he does so he will most certainly be the best starting pitcher available. Kershaw has been amazing during his career, which was spent exclusively with the Los Angeles Dodgers. Well, at least during the regular season. Kershaw’s career stats: G: 299 IP: 1979 Wins: 145 Losses: 68 ERA: 2.37 FIP: 2.67 K/9: 9.86 Strikeouts: 2168 It’s not the same in the playoffs however: G: 24 IP: 122.0 Wins: 7 Losses: 7 ERA: 4.35 Strikeouts: 139 His Fastball velocity is on a downward spiral: 2015: 94.3 2016: 93.7 2017: 93.1 2018: 91.9 His K/9 are in decline as well: 2015: 11.64 2016: 10.39 2017: 10.39 2018: 9.82 In other words he seems to already be in decline. The Los Angeles Dodgers made the playoffs and won their division annually since 2013, but came away with no championships and only one pennant. I don’t think that their current core is good enough to win a championship or that he’s able to push them through as a “clutch” playoffs performer. As I said before Kershaw can opt out of his contract at the end of this season, and upon doing so will almost certainly expect over $30 million per year for the next 7-8 years. He will be 30 years old when signing that contract. There are multiple options at their disposal: 1. Do nothing until he opts out and then try to re-sign him. 2. Do nothing until he opts out and then let him leave. 3. Trade him at the trading deadline. Let’s look at these options more closely: Option #1 means that they’re giving a potentially record-breaking contract to a player who is no longer durable and that seemingly is in decline. I think that it’s pretty obviously a mistake. Baseball is ultimately a business and despite how honorable it is to be loyal, a bad investment is a bad investment. Option #2 is a potential consequence of option #1 and isn’t much better. While they avoid giving out a bad contract, they end up losing him for a lottery ticket (draft pick) in return. Option #3 is the right one in my opinion. They’re not going to the playoffs this year, there are just too many injuries and declines to overcome. Giving him a massive new contract is a bad investment, and if they move on from him they need a lot in return. Option #3 is the way to go. If Kershaw is healthy, then unless he’s pitching surprisingly bad he will have a lot of value. His contract will be an issue but how many contending teams will really pass up on acquiring Clayton Kershaw for the stretch run? |
|
|
|
Post by 88bulldog on May 15, 2018 15:42:09 GMT
Kersh is now 30 years old. While he is still elite, his durability is obviously a bit of a question mark.
If he opts out, is it smart to give him 5 or 6 years at 30-35 million? Or would it be wise to not offer those years and 200 million to a pitcher in his 30's?
I'm starting to think a little differently on this. I don't think it's a great idea right now. It may make more sense to acquire Machado now, or sign Harper and figure out the pitching another way. Buehler looks like he could be a stud, Urias will be back, and there will be other options as well.
I'm thinking Friedman/Zaidi have some tough choices, and I wouldn't be surprised if Kersh is somewhere else next year. It has become a young man's game IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blunashun on May 15, 2018 15:44:51 GMT
This is a blogger, no? Luckily the Dodgers have over two months to decide. Right now I would say it's okay to discuss this, but it would be sending the wrong message to Dodger fans. That it's the middle of May & we've become sellers. Don't bother showing up at the ballpark. We're mailing this one in.
|
|
|
|
Post by 88bulldog on May 15, 2018 16:03:02 GMT
This is a blogger, no? Luckily the Dodgers have over two months to decide. Right now I would say it's okay to discuss this, but it would be sending the wrong message to Dodger fans. That it's the middle of May & we've become sellers. Don't bother showing up at the ballpark. We're mailing this one in. I wouldn't trade hm now, we are not sellers yet. I would seriously think about trading for Machado now though, we need a player like that asap. And then for next year decisions need to be made. I don't think it's a necessity to get something back for Kershaw in a trade either so there is no rush. Freeing up 35 million a year in space has a lot of value too. |
|
|
|
Post by Blunashun on May 15, 2018 16:07:43 GMT
This is a blogger, no? Luckily the Dodgers have over two months to decide. Right now I would say it's okay to discuss this, but it would be sending the wrong message to Dodger fans. That it's the middle of May & we've become sellers. Don't bother showing up at the ballpark. We're mailing this one in. I wouldn't trade hm now, we are not sellers yet. I would seriously think about trading for Machado now though, we need a player like that asap. And then for next year decisions need to be made. I don't think it's a necessity to get something back for Kershaw in a trade either so there is no rush. Freeing up 35 million a year in space has a lot of value too. If we free up that much space & were trading Kershaw anyway, I would wait on Machado, save our prospects & just back a Brinks truck up this winter. |
|
|
|
Post by 88bulldog on May 15, 2018 16:49:47 GMT
I wouldn't trade hm now, we are not sellers yet. I would seriously think about trading for Machado now though, we need a player like that asap. And then for next year decisions need to be made. I don't think it's a necessity to get something back for Kershaw in a trade either so there is no rush. Freeing up 35 million a year in space has a lot of value too. If we free up that much space & were trading Kershaw anyway, I would wait on Machado, save our prospects & just back a Brinks truck up this winter. I think we can still salvage this season of we do it now (trade for Machado). Like said, I wouldn't trade Kershaw. I would consider not signing him though and using the money available on younger players. I'm not afraid to trade prospects to get 2018 back on track. |
|
|
|
Post by boron on May 18, 2018 4:13:18 GMT
I think there are 2 issues at play here:
1. IF (again - IF), we haven't turned it around by the trade deadline, do we trade Kershaw? I think if Kershaw has rebounded and is effective, then yes. If we aren't going to play in October and it's clear Kershaw is playing well enough that he is very likely to opt out, you have to trade him. It's premature to assume we will be sellers, however.
2. Do we try to sign him to a long-term contract if he opts out? Much harder decision (and possible even if we trade him away). I've been lit up a bit for raising this question. I think there is some value in legacy, so going above what the FO is comfortable on performance projections alone is worthwhile. But how much above?
|
|
|
|
Post by 88bulldog on May 18, 2018 13:51:57 GMT
I think there are 2 issues at play here: 1. IF (again - IF), we haven't turned it around by the trade deadline, do we trade Kershaw? I think if Kershaw has rebounded and is effective, then yes. If we aren't going to play in October and it's clear Kershaw is playing well enough that he is very likely to opt out, you have to trade him. It's premature to assume we will be sellers, however. 2. Do we try to sign him to a long-term contract if he opts out? Much harder decision (and possible even if we trade him away). I've been lit up a bit for raising this question. I think there is some value in legacy, so going above what the FO is comfortable on performance projections alone is worthwhile. But how much above? 1. No, I don't see that happening, the fan base would explode. 2. This is the real question. Legacy is important. It may be a smarter choice to let him go and spend the money elsewhere. Tough choice. |
|
20DodgerMiracle24
Legend
Rob Manfred is a disaster to our national pastime.
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by 20DodgerMiracle24 on May 18, 2018 15:27:21 GMT
Kersh is now 30 years old. While he is still elite, his durability is obviously a bit of a question mark. If he opts out, is it smart to give him 5 or 6 years at 30-35 million? Or would it be wise to not offer those years and 200 million to a pitcher in his 30's? I'm starting to think a little differently on this. I don't think it's a great idea right now. It may make more sense to acquire Machado now, or sign Harper and figure out the pitching another way. Buehler looks like he could be a stud, Urias will be back, and there will be other options as well. I'm thinking Friedman/Zaidi have some tough choices, and I wouldn't be surprised if Kersh is somewhere else next year. It has become a young man's game IMO. I'm also starting to change my thinking. As recently as March, I was appalled at the very thought of parting with Clayton, but sadly, he's on the decline, but still led the bigs in ERA with 2.31 which is great, but his personal highest since '12. I'm not as concerned about his third stint on the DL in as many seasons as I am about what's happening internally within his arm. It would take Dr. Mike Marshall to really explain it in detail to us laymen, but he's allowing homers at an alarming rate, since his return from the DL last year. If he does choose to opt out and join another team, I'm confident we can fill his spot via FA signing or trade. I've said repeatedly that I frown on importing players, but this would be a necessary evil. We don't have a pitcher in our system to compare him to. Urias should be ready by next March, Santana should be ready to step up, Beuhler will have a good year's experience. The Dodgers have always had great rotations at least back to the 1940s and we've always filled a departed great pitcher with others, albeit always not as great. In 1967, the year after Koufax was forced to retire, our team ERA rose from a MLB leading 2.62 to 3.21, 5th in the league. I don't see our team ERA rising so drastically next year without Clayton cos of all our options. I'd say we'll be drafting a great college pitcher in the draft in a few weeks. |
|
|
|
Post by Blunashun on May 18, 2018 15:32:36 GMT
"Urias should be ready by next March,"
I heard July of this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blunashun on May 18, 2018 15:34:13 GMT
May 4, 2018 7:36 pm
Dodgers' Julio Urias: May throw off mound soon
by RotoWire Staff | RotoWire
Urias (shoulder) said Thursday he hopes to throw off the mound "in the near future," Bill Plunkett of The Orange County Register reports.
Urias had his throwing program interrupted to undergo tonsil surgery in early April, but he now appears back on track in his recovery from last June's shoulder surgery. The Dodgers still seem to be targeting July for the 21-year-old's return.
Share: Twitter Facebook
|
|
|
|
Post by 88bulldog on May 18, 2018 15:40:42 GMT
I'm also starting to change my thinking. As recently as March, I was appalled at the very thought of parting with Clayton, but sadly, he's on the decline, but still led the bigs in ERA with 2.31 which is great, but his personal highest since '12. I'm not as concerned about his third stint on the DL in as many seasons as I am about what's happening internally within his arm. It would take Dr. Mike Marshall to really explain it in detail to us laymen, but he's allowing homers at an alarming rate, since his return from the DL last year. If he does choose to opt out and join another team, I'm confident we can fill his spot via FA signing or trade. I've said repeatedly that I frown on importing players, but this would be a necessary evil. We don't have a pitcher in our system to compare him to. Urias should be ready by next March, Santana should be ready to step up, Beuhler will have a good year's experience. The Dodgers have always had great rotations at least back to the 1940s and we've always filled a departed great pitcher with others, albeit always not as great. In 1967, the year after Koufax was forced to retire, our team ERA rose from a MLB leading 2.62 to 3.21, 5th in the league. I don't see our team ERA rising so drastically next year without Clayton cos of all our options. I'd say we'll be drafting a great college pitcher in the draft in a few weeks. All good points... |
|
20DodgerMiracle24
Legend
Rob Manfred is a disaster to our national pastime.
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by 20DodgerMiracle24 on May 18, 2018 21:53:16 GMT
May 4, 2018 7:36 pm Dodgers' Julio Urias: May throw off mound soon by RotoWire Staff | RotoWire Urias (shoulder) said Thursday he hopes to throw off the mound "in the near future," Bill Plunkett of The Orange County Register reports. Urias had his throwing program interrupted to undergo tonsil surgery in early April, but he now appears back on track in his recovery from last June's shoulder surgery. The Dodgers still seem to be targeting July for the 21-year-old's return. Share: Twitter Facebook Well, imagine that after the ASB, Urias spearheads our comeback and we win the west? Baseball is a funny game and we're not that far back, only 8 games. Plenty of teams have overcome bigger deficits than that, like the '78 Yanks, who were buried 14 games back in mid July and were the greatest comeback team ever, even over my '78 Dodgers, who had a great comeback story of their own that year. Urias in '18 could be the Bob Welch of '78. We might be saying "Clayton who?" this October, though the loss of Corey Seager is another matter. |
|
|
|
Post by azulblues on May 18, 2018 22:44:54 GMT
Trade Urias for Machado, if they'd take Urias.
|
|
20DodgerMiracle24
Legend
Rob Manfred is a disaster to our national pastime.
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by 20DodgerMiracle24 on May 19, 2018 1:29:38 GMT
Trade Urias for Machado, if they'd take Urias. Machado wont be that cheap. The Birdies will want at least another high ranked prospect, maybe Jerren Kendell? |
|
