Names that come to whose mind?

Jim Thome...please.

I'm guessing Gurnick was just writing an article because he hadn't in awhile and wanted to use those quotes. It just outlines what the Dodgers could do this off season, rather than actually claim someone wants Beltre, much less that the Dodgers have talked to Seattle

It's a good thing people can't read the Internet while they're driving, is all I can say.

But you're right, Jon, there is no player a team shouldn't trade nor acquire if the exchange is in your favor and meets your needs.

I just want to be assured that Camille Johnston isn't polling on Beltre's approval ratings vs. Guzman's, and leading the team to make the decision based purely on what boosts the McCourt 'brand.'

Seattle must be as knee-jerk as Los Angeles if they're already giving up on front-loaded Adrian Beltre after they just paid the front.

It's a proven fact that Adrian Beltre would have played better if he had stayed in L.A.

100% proven.

Absolutely no doubt.

Bill Plaschke would not lie to me.

Rotoworld has their free agent signing predictions up. Yes, they are just predictions which anyone of us could do, so take them with a grain of salt. But their predictions did have us signing Joe Randa and E.Loaiza (3yr/$18mil). Here is what they wrote up about Randa. vr, Xei

Joe Randa (Padres) - Previous prediction: Padres - one-year, $3.5 million
That prediction can be ruled out now that the Padres have acquired Vinny Castilla. The Dodgers, Twins, Devil Rays, Red Sox, Brewers and Pirates are among the teams that might be willing to give Randa a modest raise from the $2.15 million he made last season. Prediction: Dodgers - one year, $3 million

Anyone else know that Mark Cuban wanted to buy the Pirates? That would've been interesting, but not going to happen apparently.

http://tinyurl.com/97tvt

Gurnick's article also mentions that Jeff Kent, "who met with ownership two weeks ago, has told teammates he would ask for a trade if (Milton) Bradley returns."

Hey, this was part of my "Firing of Paul DePodesta" conspriracy theory #83 a week or so ago. vr, Xei

But their predictions did have us signing Joe Randa and E.Loaiza (3yr/$18mil).

I'm going to go have a drink or ten.

I am most likely in the minority here, but I am not against trading Guzman. I think as long as he's considered one of the top 3 hitting prospects in baseball (at SS no less!), he should have insane trade value.

However, I think he eventually ends up at 3rd or the OF (diminishing his value), and I'm not sure what to make of his plate discipline.

Ideally this is the type of player that you spin off to a Milwaukee or Pittsburgh for a about-to-become-expensive pitcher (preferably) or multi-category, stud hitter.

Problem is, unless Milwaukee or Minnesota want to give up Sheets or Santana, I don't see an ace on a bad team that could be available.

And I certainly don't want to see any more articles where "trading Guzman" and "Aubrey Huff" appear together.

I hear that Ichiro is looking for a trade too. Id rather trade for him over Beltre and sign a big bat. I hear we are also interested in Konerko.
If we do get Konerko then we can package Loney to the M's to get Ichiro.

Or actually maybe that is why Loney has been playing outfield lately.

Pipe dreams?...

7. Poor Mark would have to live with the likes of Jim Tracy as manager. Cuban is actually totally into stats for his basketball team. I'm sure he'd turn to a stats guy for his baseball team. Then of course there's Jim Tracy. vr, Xei

When a 37 yr old star with big trade value gives you an ultimatum regarding your 27 yr old would be-star with no trade value, what do you do? WHAT DO YOU DO?!

[7] can we get him to do a hostile takeover of the dodgers? please???

White Sox just offered Konerko 4 years at $52mil (radio). Rumor has the Angels offering a 5th year at well over $60mil. If the Dodgers are in the running for Konerko, I expect to see Steve in bars at closing time pretty much every night. vr, Xei

Actually . . . I wouldn't mind if Mark Cuban owned the Dodgers.

13 - Keep Bradley, trade Kent for Beltre, throw Perez/Aybar at 2B, sign Giles, add another pitcher without giving any major prospects?

Oh yeah, may not be a bad idea to insert bone spurs in Beltre's ankle...

I'd rather not get Beltre. Just saying, if we had to trade Kent, I'd rather trade Kent for Beltre than trade prospects for Beltre. Prospects for Kent would be throwing in the towel, at least to Plaschkers.

16 - Neither would I. Cuban has money, likes stats, and isn't related to Frank McCourt.

16 - Cuban would be a dream. He's a terrific owner.

trade both kent and bradley.

Kent to the mets for Petit and Milledge. I would be more than happy to do this trade. Kent is a great player, but I rather build for the future then just be mediocre for next season.

17 Hmm, I'd picture Kent going to a "win now" team like NY or Boston. The Mariners could use Bradley though.

Another vote for Cuban.

22 the Mets are a 'win now' team. Pedro's arm isn't getting any stronger.

21 That's such the DePodesta trade. You have to start thinking like an Old Schooler! :)

22 - 17 wasn't something I would champion. Just with the Beltre buzz, one possible scenario.

22 - If I were Kent, I'd try to pry my way into St. Louis. If they added Kent and Giles jeez.

a little bit of dreaming here:

*kent to mets for petit and milledge

*bradley and odalis to mariners for beltre+ 12 mil over 4 yrs

*sign nomar to 2 yr deal

*sign brian giles to 3 yr deal

*sign matt morris to a 2 yr deal

lineup

2b- aybar
ss- nomar
cf- drew
3b- beltre
lf- giles
1b- choi
rf- cruz
c- navarro

penny
lowe
morris
petit
jackson

Contact Mark Cuban here:

http://www.blogmaverick.com/contact/

Actually, the page seems more like it's for the blog than Cuban directly, but on his blog, the link says "Contact Mark Cuban."

Now we can all ask him to buy the Dodgers. I wonder if Jon would mind if we all said we were from Dodger Thoughts.

28 - Is Petit farther along than "our kids"?

Soriano to the Mets seems inevitable. Let's construct a 3-way with Kent going to Texas, Soriano to the Mets and all the good stuff coming to us.

to add to 28, our AAA offense would be like this:

c- martin
1b- loney
2b- young
ss- guzman
3b- laroche
cf- milledge

haha, that makes me drool more than the big league club.

Is Petit farther along than "our kids"?

a little bit, not by much. petit reminds me a lot of livan hernandez. not the greatest of stuff, but durable and always seems to get people out. he could be a good change of pace guy to billz and jax.

Ok, Im sold, bring back BELLY!
We miss you belly!

28, 32

Send this to Ng ASAP!

re29

thats a good idea fanerman. cuban can be the leader in our hostile takeover of the dodgers.

27-
St Louis does not have much to offer.
28-
Obviously I like the Kent deal and I think adding Beltre would be nice (means LaRoche is gone though), but I would not even bother to sign Nomar and Giles. Clearly we are building for the future if we trade Kent away so I highly doubt Giles would come here.

Petit was born 11/22/84 so a few months younger than Billingsley. He did get 3 starts in AAA this year. 11.2 K/9 vs. 2 BB/9. Dreamy.

I rather trade Kent right now. I think he can get us a lot in return that will help us in the long run. I really am not expecting anything great for next year so let's build for the future. Mets want a bat up the middle to replace Matsui (rumored to be after Furcal). Kent allows them to add a better bat and Reyes is perfectly fine playing shortstop. The D Rays were getting these players last year for trading Baez and Lugo so I think we can definitely get Petit and Milledge for Kent. Minaya has traded a lot of top prospects to get a big name for the short term before (the Colon trade when he was GM of Expos).

The first paragraph of Rob Neyer's latest:

"Last weekend, I attended (as a speaker of sorts) 2005 First Pitch Arizona, an annual fantasy baseball symposium organized by fantasy maven Ron Shandler. I'm contractually prohibited from revealing anything I learned that might be particularly interesting -- for example, the reason the Dodgers weren't all that interested in re-signing Adrian Beltre a year ago -- but I'm perfectly free to write about the four Arizona Fall League games we saw in two days."

So, there was some sort of secret reason? No fair teasing us, Neyer!

This is completely uninformative, obviously, but I thought I'd throw it into today's Beltre thoughts stew.

re 40:

molokai was there!!! molokai, gives us the dirt on beltre!

Why are we all interested in Beltre now? Just because his name was mentioned in a standard dodgers.com article? Did 2005 not happen? I'm a little confused here, I must admit

He was on roids? That is something secretive. I hate when people say something like that. Do not mention it if you are not going to tell us.

molokai, where are you? Please tell us he knows...

The real reason the Dodgers weren't that interested in Beltre is because they've learned through his son (currently a 17 year old prospect in the Dodgers' system) that Beltre is actually 38 years old.

I'll have another.

42 - The idea that Beltre might be available at a discount from his 2005 price. Other than that, you certainly don't have to be any more interested in Beltre than you already were.

these simulated press conference segments on espn are neato. i hope they do one for the dodgers.

A couple of Beltre thoughts:

1. 2005 was his big salary year on his contract - $17MM, I believe. The balance of his contract would potentially be cheaper than market rate.

2. I recall that DePodesta made a vague allusion to Beltre in a discussion about there being certain players connected with steroid use that the Dodgers did not pursue.

48-
It is a cool concept but there is not much substance to it. The Cubs one they just said we will add Furcal.

If Dodger Thoughts was around in 1999 I'm sure we all would've been theorizing about the Mike Piazza do-over too. Course in that case the stat-heads and the sentimental types were equally ticked off.

I'm not contractually obligated but you won't like what they said. Plus the person who delivered the info I'm very skeptical about. I don't think it is any secret but he said the Dodgers did not pursue Beltre because they felt his performance in 2004 was helped by outside factors. I'm surprised Neyer mentioned that. I found the source to be an idiot who seemed to want to appear on the inside with Dodger management(kim ng) by making a scoop. Neyer seemed smarter then that to quote a source like him. It may be true, I'm sure by the end of 2005 we all suspected it.
I posted other items about the conference at
http://www.minorleagueball.com/story/2005/11/7/172518/170

51. Baseball Prospectus recently did a notebook on the Mets, in which they looked back at Piazza's contract, which shows that the Mets overpaid for Piazza by about $40 million. For most of his time with the Mets he wasnt worth the money he was getting paid. I dont think that the Dodgers were unfortunate to trade Piazza, it looked really stupid at the time, but in the long run the Dodgers won out.

20,28

Nate - You and Rocker used to mock me for

1. Not wanting Kent and Bradley on the team
2. Suggesting that Kent might very well ask to be traded this off-season
3. Suggesting that the Dodgers trade Kent this off-season

Now you're saying we should trade Kent and Bradley. You guys should really control your mockery and treat people better.

Beltre, minus the insane upfront payment Seattle made to him for 2005, and minus whatever shekels we could extract from Seattle to take him off our hands, could possibly be had at less than his market value. Seattle being a last-place team that is desperate to improve, would be interested in a lot of the pieces that seemingly don't fit in LA anymore--Bradley, Choi, Perez.

As much as the Mets are in a hurry, they won't give up Milledge and/or Petit for one year of Kent. They might fear he's next year's Steve Finley. Milledge got a big write-up in the NY Times recently. Minaya just can't do that. The more likely scenario in my mind is to get the Mariners to take Bradley, Perez and Choi for Beltre plus money to offset his salary. Then work a deal for Thome that has Philly eating part of that contract. Give up LaRoche, or a couple second-level prospects, to do that:

Thome 1B
Kent 2B
Robles/Aybar/Izturis SS
Beltre 3B
Werth LF
Drew CF
Cruz, Jr. RF
Navarro C

Penny
Lowe
Jackson or FA
Billingsley or FA
Houlton or FA

That's a team you could win the division with, while hardly causing a ripple in the prospect chain. I know Steve and others choke on Thome, but there's every reason to believe he can still hit. Don't like Thome? Substitute Helton. I'd rather pay stupid amounts of money to guys I know can hit home runs, than near-stupid amounts of money to guys who we think might (i.e. Dunn, Giles, Randa).

oh sweet. the dodgers simulated press conference is up next tomorrow on sportscenter.

Steve plays Dodgers GM tomorrow hahaha. First off let me say as the Dodgers GM I do not exist.

40- I read somewhere that the Dodgers were worried that Beltre was juicing. Depodesta was looking for players who were obviously not taking steroids (like Lowe and Drew). No I would not want Beltre back. The guy left for the money. Let him rot on that terrible team.

Kent is showing his true colors. Didn't he say that he wouldn't ask the Dodgers to trade Bradley? Instead, he threatens them that he'll demand a trade if they keep Bradley.

Kent to the Twins for Francisco Liriano and Lew Ford

Andy Marte is on the block and is ready for the majors. The Dodgers could trade for him and if LaRoche pans out, Marte could move to 1B.

d4p, your reasoning for trading kent and bradley vastly differs from my reasons. you want to trade them because of "chemistry" and "character".

i want to trade them because i want lastings milledge.

I would love to get Lirinao not much of a Ford fan but I will take Liriano in a second.

59
But didn't you want lastings milledge back when you didn't want to trade Kent and Bradley? Why do you want to get rid of them all of a sudden?

It is very clear, you do not play Bagwell at first. These mock GM press conferences try to be too nice and diplomatic.

58
If you happen to visit the ESPN Dodger board, you may have read my postings there where I speculated after Beltre signed with Seattle that Depo may have known or at least suspected that Beltre had been juicing, and that such knowledge/suspicion reduced his desire to resign Beltre.

just to keep in mind: Beltre's salary(according to hardballdollars.com
2005:$17m
2006:$11.75m
2007:$11.75m
2008:$11.75m
2009:$11.75m

-even if Seattle were to send along $12m/4yrs like nate suggested, that the Dodgers would be paying $35m/4yrs for a guy that is basically Vinny Castilla. Not to mention that he would block LaRoche and possibly Guzman and Dewitt. I really cant see a situation where Beltre being a Dodger is a good thing.

He gained a large amount of muscle in one off-season (the year before his free agency). I think deep down we all had thoughts he did it. I really thought he did.

Liriano looks like a poor man's Duaner Sanchez. No thank you.

Liriano looks like a poor man's Duaner Sanchez. No thank you.

liriano looks like santana.

This is what John Sickel's said about Liriano...
8) Francisco Liriano, LHP
Began the season as a decent prospect with good upside, ended it as the best LHP prospect in the game. Has always had a live arm, but he improved his command this year, and looks very much like Johan Santana during his breakthrough. Which doesn't mean Liriano will be another Santana, but that is the kind of ceiling Liriano has.

Does not sound like Sanchez to me.

Im open to the idea of trading Kent because he's old, and very unlikely to maintain last years performance. Even if the Dodgers retain Kent, your looking at a drop in production from 2B. If the dodgers can aquire some younger talent (i really like the idea of milledge), and replace Kent's bat with a secondary deal, i think it make a lot of sense, especially since it give us a chance to see what Antonio Perez can do over a full season.

I don't see how DePodesta could have "known" but I think that unless Beltre makes some kind of admission (if there's something to admit) it's going to be one of those things we'll always wonder about, like what the hell was really going on with the Clay/Liston fights.

But didn't you want lastings milledge back when you didn't want to trade Kent and Bradley? Why do you want to get rid of them all of a sudden?

some things d4p.

1- when i said "lets trade bradley and kent", i wasnt wholeheartily serious. the ideal scenario would be for both to stay, but if they cant, then why not, lets rebuild.

2- back then, we had a GM who had a plan going into the offseason. things have changed as you know.

3- i would trade anyone on this team if the return warranted it.

I think all of this steroid speculation about Beltre is way, way off course. So far no one as anything close to evidence, just idle speculation.

How about Kent for Beltre with the Mariners picking up a third of Beltre's salary?

How many pounds of muscle did he claim to gain in the off-season? That can tell you right there.

70. Depodesta let Beltre sign with Seattle because he didnt want to pay $65 million to a guy that could (and did) go back to hitting like Vinny Castilla.

73. I still cant see it. Kent will probably hit better than Beltre next season, and 2006 either Laroche or Guzman would be ready to play 3B.

Liriano turning into Santana is as likely as Joey Ballgame turning into Jeff Kent. Sorry to burst your bubble.

He will still be better than Duaner Sanchez.

Isn't a non-steroids Laroche better than a non-steroids Beltre?

77 Out of curiosity, why? His stats were great, and most prospect people love him. How often does someone post a 1.72 ERA in the PCL?! Not to mention he has consistently had 10+ K/9 throughout his minor league career

There are lots of other reasons for Beltre's drop in performance last season. Big contract jitters, new league, lost plate discipline (did those bone spurs really help him, or is that a joke?). He didn't lose a bunch of weight like some other suspected ex-roid users did.

He's an emotional player, in a bad way. He needs to be relaxed to play up to his full potential, but peace of mind has been difficult to find during his career for many reasons. I think Seattle got the worst possible end of that deal. They probably should keep him; I think he'll be much better in '06 now that expectations for him will be lower.

80 In case you huys are picky, I meant 1.78 ERA

77. Do you even know who Liriano is? There is of course no guarantee that the best LHP prospect in the game will develop into Santana-level dominance, but the thurston-kent comparison if laughable.

Liriano turning into Santana is as likely as Joey Ballgame turning into Jeff Kent. Sorry to burst your bubble.

i still dont understand this. Liriano has amazing stuff, good control and is just filthy. his 96mph fastball is his 3rd best pitch. what are your claims to back it up that he is nothing more than duaner sanchez?

re 83, im starting to believed hes getting liriano mixed up with some other pitcher.

Francisco Liriano's only resemblance to Duaner Sanchez is that they are both Dominican. There is not a prospect in the Dodger chain I would not trade for Liriano except for Billingsly.

When I look at Beltre I don't see a decline in 2005 performace. I just see 2005 being the same as every other year except 2004.

15, 20, 13, 21, 23, 48, 19

one of these numbers do not belong I am sorry to say.

81. you seem to assume that Beltre's 2004 was his established level of production. Look at his career, and 2004 is the outlier, in 2005 Beltre reverted to the hitter he was in 2001-2003 when he didnt have to adjust to a new league or have big contract jitters.

the numbers

15,20,12,21,23, and 19 dont belong.

the number 48 is the true measure of his ability.

You're basing all of your drooling over Liriano over his August performance. Whatever happened to sample size around here? Check his September performance for a better dose of reality. I have no doubt that the kid is great in AA, and could even be great in AAA in 06, but to trade a 60-VORP 2b for him and Lew fricking Ford? Can I have a small helping of that big bowl of crack that you're smoking?

I had never really thought about Beltre juicing until now, and agree there is nothing but juicy speculation. I admit also that the thought of getting Beltre back at a cut-rate had a certain knee-jerk appeal to it. Still, and notwithstanding the myriad of explanations available, these numbers of Beltre's caught my eye: (Year/ABs/OPS+)

2001 515 93
2002 635 98
2003 608 89
2004 657 163
2005 650 90

It's, uh, eye-catching if nothing else. Wow.

Beltre is the last person I want back in a Dodger uniform (okay, not last, but close). It could have been steroids, but my hunch all along has been the big contract thing. It's a common practice in fantasy baseball to target guys going into a free agent year because they have a lot more incentive to put up the best stats of their career. True it only applies to players with questionable focus, but I think Beltre would have to be the poster boy for that one.

Mark, I'm not sure where you're coming from, but Liriano has always been tabbed as a superior prospect, the only hang-up being him staying healthy. Lefties who throw as hard as he does with his amount of stuff don't come around too often.

Finally, who's to say Kent has all that much trade value? He only has one year left on his contract so he would have to go to someone like Boston who has a need at 2B and wants to win now. Getting Milledge and Petit is veeeery optimistic, those are the same names being thrown around to get Manny, and Manny's considerably younger with a lot more years left on his contract. Not to mention he's one of the best hitters in the game while Kent is only one of the best hitting second basemen in the game.

90 Your opinion is based off his September call up? And you're using smaple size as your counter argument when it's clear that September was likely a sample size problem (not to mention adjusting to the majors for the first time)

If Kent wants out we have to trade him and I do not see us getting better deals then dealing for prospects. Face it next year we are not goin to be World Series contenders or anything so