Bedard to Dodgers rumors?

by lemonjello on Dec 4, 2007 3:23 PM EST Comment 15 comments

According to WFAN, the Orioles and Dodgers are discussing a deal involving Jonathan Broxton and Matt Kemp in exchange for Erik Bedard. This seems like a reasonable deal for both teams, but it makes you wonder if this type of package would be enough to get Santana from the Twins. It certainly seems superior or at least comparable to the Red Sox's current offer to the Twins.

Thoughts?

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Baltimore has to do that deal

They have no closer and Kemp can hit.

by Bravesin07 on Dec 4, 2007 3:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Do 4th or 5th place teams

really need a closer? or can they wait until Ray heals, Liz is converted, or Hoey gets the ball?

by cooper7d7 on Dec 4, 2007 3:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Do 4th or 5th place teams

need an ace that becomes a free agent in 2 years if they don't think they'll be able to compete for 3? This deal helps them significantly for 2010, which is what the O's should be shooting for at this point. If I were the O's, I'd pull the trigger. Seems like an even deal on both sides. It hurts to give up the players they're giving up, but each has a higher relative value to the other team than they do to the teams they're with.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Dec 4, 2007 4:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Geez

Of course the O's shouldn't hold onto Bedard if they think they can't sign him. However, they shouldn't trade him to fill a need today, a closer, when they won't be contending for 3+ years and today's need won't be a need then (Ray, Liz, Erbe, Hoey, etc)

by cooper7d7 on Dec 4, 2007 4:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bedard for Kemp/Broxton

I'm not sure what I think about this potential deal yet. It would make the LA rotation among the best in baseball, but the Dodger offense was the real problem most of the year. I'm not sure that it makes sense to trade away the guy who is potentially the biggest power threat in the lineup.

by count sutton on Dec 4, 2007 3:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

could be the first of multiple deals

I'm just guessing, and we of course don't know if this Baltimore trade is really going to happen. But if the Dodgers were to get Bedard for this package, maybe they would be more willing to trade Kershaw in a Cabrera deal.

by bolton on Dec 4, 2007 4:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

agree

I was thinking that they step up their offer for Andruw Jones as well

by count sutton on Dec 4, 2007 6:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bedard is worth more than Santana

Bedard should cost more than Santana given price/years. I'd imagine if the Dodgers wanted Santana, they could have him for that package.

by Galt on Dec 4, 2007 3:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Would any Twins fans prefer this package?

Broxton could step in for Nathan if they deal him to fill a hole in the infield or the rotation, and Kemp could step into centerfield and provide great production. They would probably still need another starter or two, but maybe the Dodgers could throw in a pitching prospect (not Kershaw).

http://mvn.com/milb-yankees/

by lemonjello on Dec 4, 2007 3:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Actually

I would think that a deal of Kemp/Broxton/Hu/McDonald would be more what the Twins would want. Obviously they would want Kershaw with Kemp and Brox, but that would be rejected by the Dodgers. But I wonder if the Dodgers would be willing to part with my proposal of Kemp/Broxton/Hu/McDonald. That way the O's get the outfielder(albeit not a CF) and SS that they would be getting from BOS as well as a potential middle of the rotation starter in McDonald (that's his upside IMO) as well as a stopper in the pen. That would go along way to help the O's especially if they traded Tejada away for more part. The Dodgers would be giving up alot of talent but it might be worth something considering? I wonder what BJB and NPurcell would have to say about it?

by tbach81 on Dec 4, 2007 5:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

my take....

....though i'd be curious what npurcell has to say as well, is that your package is a little much. i would imagine Broxton, Hu or McDonald would be replaced by a (much) lesser prospect.

of course, i'm really not sure any deal with Kemp in it is going to get done. by all rights, Kemp should be as untouchable as Buccholz or Hughes. the problem for the Dodgers is that they have so many young stars like that that teams would view it as being "cheap" if they put Kemp AND Loney AND Billingsley AND Martin AND Kershaw AND LaRoche at that status.

however, in terms of equivalent value, look at the Red Sox package for Johan:

Lester, Masterson, Lowrie, Crisp and Kalish

What would an equivalent Dodger package look like?

Well, for ease's sake, let's just say that McDonald and Hu are the same as Lowrie and Masterson (does anyone have a problem with this? let me know if you think i'm under- or overrating one side here).

That leaves Lester, Crisp and Kalish.

it's a hard argument to make that Lester is a better prospect than LaRoche, for example. so the real question comes down to how much the Dodgers have to give to equal Crisp and Kalish.

in my mind, substituting Kemp for LaRoche MORE than makes up that difference (in fact, i'm really not sure Bedard for Kemp would be a good trade straight-up, given the amount of cheap years Kemp still is owned for).

so who would equal Crisp/Kalish? i think Broxton is major overcompensation as well.

maybe Delwyn Young and a low-minors arm? Crisp is certainly better than Young, but he's owned for a lot less time.

anyway, those are just some of my thoughts.

also, obviously, the real question is, "is it WORTH those players for the Dodgers to get Bedard?" and not "how much did the Red Sox pay for Santana?", but i thought this might be an interesting way to look at it.

as for "is it worth it?", my answer is that almost any trade with Kemp won't be worth it, unless the other prospects are pretty peripheral, or if the Orioles include more in the package.

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 4, 2007 5:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dodgers

I think part of the problem people are having when theorizing about trades with the Dodgers is that they treat a lot of the Dodgers young players like they are still prospects. Loney, Brox, Bison, Bilz, Ethier and Martin are now young MLB players and not prospects. They have - to some degree - proven that they can handle that level. That really increases their value.

Do you think people lose sight of that sometimes?

The prospects are LaRoche, Hu, MacDonald, Meloan, Abreu, Elbert (probably little value right now because of the shoulder) and - of course - Kershaw.

by count sutton on Dec 4, 2007 6:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

100% agreed

it's like the box scores from last year still haven't made their way to the east coast.

trading for Kemp is not trading for a "possible" asset that will pay dividends "in the future." he's a young major-league star.

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 4, 2007 6:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Broxton

I don't like Broxton as part of the deal. Our bullpen was awful, but we have more glaring long term needs to fill. It seems like Kershaw isn't going to be traded, so I'd see if I could get Kemp, McDonald, and LaRoche or Hu.

by Harold Baines on Dec 4, 2007 5:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

My Thoughts

Losing key pieces to the big league team would make this move a very lateral move.

Players on the big league team should not be moved. We have enough pieces in the minors to make deals but other teams are always shooting for our young major league players.

I really like Bedard. I think he is electric but we are not in a position to deal for him right now.

Kemp is needed to make our outfield respectable, Broxton is needed because Saito is going to be 38 and Laroche is needed because Nomar has fallen off a cliff.

Maybe at the deadline in 2008 when Elbert and Morris both come back and show they are elite prospects and Josh Bell goes bonkers in Inland Empire.

by npurcell on Dec 5, 2007 2:43 AM EST reply actions 0 recs