• Welcome Guest
Los Angeles Dodgers

Welcome to the Los Angeles Dodgers.
Before posting, please review our Message Board Guidelines

    • Interesting Story on Dodgers, Sabathia
  • To:All
  • 7/8/08
  • tommylasordid

Sources: McCourt nixed Dodgers' possible trade for Sabathia
By Tony Jackson, Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 07/07/2008 08:23:18 PM PDT

Shortly after the Milwaukee Brewers finalized a trade for reigning American League Cy Young Award winner CC Sabathia on Monday, the Daily News learned that sometime in the days leading up to that deal, Dodgers owner Frank McCourt nixed a trade that would have brought Sabathia to Los Angeles, along with Indians third baseman Casey Blake and utility man Jamey Carroll.

McCourt's reason was financial, according to multiple industry sources. But that is a charge McCourt flatly denied.

"It's just totally false," he said. "The players didn't match up, and that's just the way it was."

All three players are potential free agents in the fall, although Carroll's contract includes a club option for next season. The 2008 base salaries of Sabathia ($9 million), Blake ($6.1 million) and Carroll ($2.15 million) total $17.25 million, a figure that drops to somewhere between $8 million and $9 million with more than half the season already gone.

Carroll also has a $150,000 buyout on his $2.5 million option for 2009.

It is unclear which players the Dodgers would have given up to acquire the trio. But with the defending AL Central champion Indians presently in last place and holding out little hope of getting back into contention, it is a reasonable assumption that package would have consisted of young players not making much more than the major-league minimum of $390,000.

"Trades are complicated, and (the Indians) weren't just going to give us three players," McCourt said. "They were asking for something in return. The point being that in this deal, the give and the get just didn't match up."

Dodgers general manager Ned Colletti declined to confirm any part of the report.

"Trades are complex," Colletti said. "There is no one ingredient that goes into making a trade, and really, there is no one ingredient that goes into not making a trade. As far as the McCourts are concerned, I don't think anybody in this organization doubts that they are in it to win. For proof of that, all you have to do is look at the investment they have made in the stadium and in the baseball team."

McCourt also denied that the decision to kill the trade was his alone.

"Ned and I were on the same page," he said.

The Indians are looking to fill several holes for the future, with a corner outfielder believed to be high on their wish list. That probably means power-hitting Matt Kemp, arguably the Dodgers' hottest commodity as the July 31 non-waiver trading deadline nears, would have been included in the deal.

It also is unclear whether the Indians would have been willing to pay a portion of the salaries of the players the Dodgers would have been acquiring. If not, the trade presumably would have pushed the Dodgers' payroll to somewhere between $125 and $130 million.

The trade potentially would have filled two glaring needs on the left side of the Dodgers' infield. The club basically has been forced to improvise at third base since March 7, when Nomar Garciaparra suffered a right hand injury that kept him out until mid-April. And there is no guarantee shortstop Rafael Furcal, who underwent surgery last week for the partial removal of a bulging disc from his lower back, will return this season.

Mostly, though, acquiring Sabathia would have provided a tremendous lift to an already solid starting rotation and possibly given the Dodgers the flexibility to deal either Brad Penny or Derek Lowe, two veteran starters who are potential free agents in the fall.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 7/8/08
  • tennismenace
hard to make a judgment about this, without knowing who we were supposed to give up. Plus, McCourt denies it. Who do you believe?
  • Reply to this Message
  • 7/8/08
  • tommylasordid
I believe the trade was discussed and the Dodgers eventually declined, probably due to a combination of money and the players Cleveland wanted, starting with Kemp. The only way it would make sense is if LA felt they could sign CC long term.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 7/8/08
  • couchgm77
Even if it was true can you blame him? Most of his money this year was on the DL. He's probably still stinging from that.
  • Reply to this Message
  • To:All
  • 7/8/08
  • Caughtlk'n
Tell me something Dodger fans.... How come every other team in baseball offers up their MINOR leaguers for major league talent but, when it comes to the Dodgers, we have to give someone up from our major league roster? Cleveland didn't recieve even ONE major league ready player from the Brewers.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 7/8/08
  • tennismenace

No, I can't blame him.

But, the hiring of AJ was not well thought out IMO. 16 or 18 mill for a guy on the decline is insane if you ask me.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 7/8/08
  • laddude
Most of the great young Dodger talent with the exception of Clayton Kershaw is already in LA. The Dodgers don't have many hot minor league prospects anymore, they are now big leaguers.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 7/8/08
  • tennismenace

Not totally accurate - May, Santana, Elbert, Meloan, McDonald.

All of the above are either pitchers or catchers.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 7/8/08
  • frankeinstein
Exactly, but with us it's probably Kemp and a lot more to get that package done. I know these guys are young and yes they are learning on the job, but they aren't prospects anymore. I say kudos to McCourt for trusting in the value of his young players and being willing to hold out until we know better exactly what we have and what we need. At this point Nomar is even holding his own at SS and Berroa has shown some signs of doing better. If confidence can make this team start to gel and play better, then why do we need to make a big move mid season? We have some good pieces still on the DL, working to come back. Granted money may have played a part in his decision, but I think there's a lot more to these decisions then a lot of people give credit for. It's easy to criticize after the fact and when you're not one of the decision makers.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 7/8/08
  • Azul Blues

McCourt did not deny it. He denied that it was called off for financial reasons. He also said it was not just him but also Colletti who agreed with him.

But the basics were not denied.

I don't think that the idea that he and Colletti were on the same page makes sense, though.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 7/8/08
  • dodger23mm

We still have some very good prospects who, despite still being overshadowed by the guys who are now young major leaguers, are nothing to sneeze at. Guys like McDonald, DeJesus, Meloan and Elbert. Even this Carlos Santana who came out of nowhere. Technically, even guys like Kershaw and Laroche are still "prospects" even though Kershaw is untouchable and Laroche probably won't be moved.

Plus, after all that, the next wave is very young but will be in high demand in just a year or two. Guys like Withrow, Lambo, Orr, Baez, Adkins and Morris.

So, after saying "no" to giving up our young major leaguers (Kemp, Loney, Martin, Billingsley, Ethier), we can still offer a plethora of good to very good prospects in the right deal in line with what pretty much most other teams can offer.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 7/8/08
  • zephyrsfan
None of them are elite prospects, though. Elbert, Santana and McDonald might be top 100, but not top 50. Lambo's another one that might be top 100, and he probably has the best shot at a top 50 ranking.
  • Reply to this Message
Message 93654.13 was deleted
  • 7/8/08
  • globetrekker
I don't blame Ned/Frank for nixing the deal because if what they're reporting is true, they're asking us major league talent in Matt Kemp while only asking for minor league talents from the Brewers. I think the price was too high for 3 rent-a-players (and before people say we could have signed CC long term, I don't think CC and his agent are that stupid to sign an extension when CC's 3 months away from free agency).
  • Reply to this Message
  • 7/8/08
  • eastcoastf

doesn;t make much sense...they are worried about expiring contracts..of hardly nothing..compared to what they pay pierre, jones, and schmidt..

also mccourt nixed the trade?..i'm not going to pretend that owners don't get involved..but if mccourt is calling the shots..what is ned doing?

  • Reply to this Message
  • 7/8/08
  • Bluetrain

ehhh, i like May, bu the's not making anyone forget Martin at Jax, and Santana is in A ball. Out side of a couple of pitchers we have no good prospects at AA or above and few in the low minors.

train


Edited 7/8/08   by  Bluetrain
  • Reply to this Message
  • 7/8/08
  • Bluetrain

"He also said it was not just him but also Colletti who agreed with him."

"I don't think that the idea that he and Colletti were on the same page makes sense, though. "

Sounds like the exact same page to me What part of sentence #1 did you have trouble understanding? Or is it just more fun to complain?

train

  • Reply to this Message
  • 7/8/08
  • Bluetrain

"So, after saying "no" to giving up our young major leaguers (Kemp, Loney, Martin, Billingsley, Ethier), we can still offer a plethora of good to very good prospects in the right deal in line with what pretty much most other teams can offer"

Not exactly a "plethora" of very good prospects down on the farm. Santana who you mentioned is in A ball as is Lambo (low A), and neither you or anybody else will see them within 4-5 yrs in a Major League Stadium.

The only elite prospect we have is Kershaw and with his major league playing time calling him a "prospect" is debateable. Before this year and its injury wave, you cold have added Laroche and Dewitt. At his moment we have no player in the minors in the top 100 .

train

  • Reply to this Message
  • 7/8/08
  • johnny57
When I read this article I thought McCourt is just taking the high road when he said he and Colletti are on the same page. I think McCourt reviewed the deal Colletti was offering and said forget it. Colletti was probably offering Kemp or Ethier, McDonald or Meloan and someone like Hu. Colletti trying to save himself for the bad signings he has made, McCourt steps in and says he is not trading those players for players that will test the freeagent market. Not worth it.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 7/8/08
  • glfnrtrvr
I agree. Hopefully, McCourt will continue to give Colletti a short leash on deals and be "Big Brother" to anything he tries to do. Ned has to know that his job is on the line and all of his past failures are catching up to him. Personally, I am leary of ANY deals that Ned comes up with.
  • Reply to this Message
Recent Discussions
Ok, I'm switching!
Latest by full count - 12:01 PM
Last question on TV Games
Latest by 88bulldog - 11:54 AM
Here's the thing
Latest by trulablu - 11:53 AM
Question from a Giant fan
Latest by raythedodger - 11:51 AM
Kemp & Eithier = AWFUL
Latest by raythedodger - 11:48 AM
Dee Gordon
Latest by erod26 - 11:48 AM
Hanley's Hand
Latest by nofreerides1978 - 11:39 AM
instant replay vs Giants
Latest by dking4953 - 11:34 AM
Morale
Latest by faulkr - 11:27 AM
D.M. outcoached again
Latest by koreman1 - 11:19 AM
Powered by Mzinga