<$BlogRSDURL$>
Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Dodgers Trade Bradley, A. Perez To A's For Ethier

Ken Rosenthal says the Dodgers have traded Milton Bradley to the A's for their top prospects; Daric Barton, maybe?

Update: An Athletics Nation diary says it's Andre Ethier in return, and the Dodgers are also giving up Antonio Perez. Hard to say if Colletti got rooked on this one or not, but it'll probably be a year or two before we know for sure. BTW, thanks to my commenters for picking this up.

Update 2: The more I look at this one, the more undecided I get; Ethier got yanked from the last third of the 2004 season due to microfractures of his vertebrae. Kevin Goldstein in his 2004 A's system chat called Ethier "another toolsy outfielder who can hit .300 but does little else offensively", but that was before he hit 18 home runs in the Texas League this year. Ethier was also named Texas League Player of the Year, earning a late promotion to AAA Sacramento.

Update 3: Official confirmation from MLB.com. It's probably worth mentioning that getting something for Perez wasn't a bad idea in and of itself. He's valuable, but principally on an American League team, where he can absorb DH at bats. His glove is too unreliable, as BPro's Rate2 shows him as a well-below-average defender at second (83) and slightly below average at third.

Update 4: Jon sees this as a dump of two troubled and flawed players.

The trade indicates Ned Colletti's eagerness to rid the Dodgers of Bradley's mental and physical uncertainties and Perez's defensive uncertainties. The Dodger outfield is practically threadbare, offering J.D. Drew, Jose Cruz, Jr. and Ricky Ledee as starters, which means that Ethier becomes a contender with other minor leaguers for major playing time unless/until the Dodgers acquire someone else.
Ken Arneson of Catfish Stew likes the deal, because it gives the A's a ton of depth. He's right; this looks like a dump, but at the same time, Colletti must have figured that Bradley and Kent can't both appear in the same Dodgers roster, so there was the "we've gotta trade him" mentality involved. It still looks awfully one-sided in favor of the A's.

Update 5: Now in via AP:

General manager Ned Colletti, hired last month by the Dodgers, believed he had no choice in the matter, that a reconciliation with Bradley wasn't possible.

"I went into it with the idea of trying to keep him a Dodger," Colletti said. "It was clearer and clearer there was no way to make this thing work. I got no glimmer at all that it could work."

Colletti said he didn't speak with Bradley until Tuesday.

"I was looking for a way to mediate," Colletti said. "I was looking for a way to keep him. At every turn, I just got stopped. I got it from a lot of different places including inside the clubhouse, outside the clubhouse, people who have known him very well and have known him for a long time.

Ethier also won the Dernell Stenson Award, which is something like a good citizenship award. He also had a fine AFL season, narrowly missing Baseball America's Top 20 AFL prospects.

Update 6: Remember what happened to the top prospect the Dodgers unloaded for Bradley in the first place? Iron pyrite, anyone?


Comments:
Athletics Nation suggests it's Bradley and Antonio Perez for Andre Ethier.
 
Another great trade by Billy Beane. Right now, the A's have to be the favorite to win the division in 2006.
 
I'm inclined to agree unless Kotchman and McPherson step up, and even then, the Angels' rotation has some sketchy bits in it.
 
Committing to play their kids, Stoneman and the Angels appear to be rebuilding next year, and not the A's.
 
That's fair.
 
The one "piece" the Angels need more than any other is a switch-hitting centerfielder with power . . . and that "piece" is acquired by the A's for a very good, but not great, prospect. Darn.
 
While Antonio was lousy at second base, in a similarly small sample size, he was amazing at shortstop. Take that as you will.
 
After Guillen, does anybody really think the Angels would have ever considered taking on Bradley?

That said, the A's should be favored to win the AL West.
 
A good mention here about how Ethier will fit with the new "good citizen" Dodgers:

Stenson Award Winner

Also worth noting (from MLB.com): Ethier finished the (AFL) season with monster numbers. In 23 games, he batted .366 with two homers and 21 RBIs while leading the league with a .495 on-base percentage and tying for the lead with 21 walks.

That said, pitching in the AFL sucked dingo this year. We'll see, but I for one ain't happy about it so far...
 
Afer Guillen, one wouldn't think the Angels would take a chance on another headcase -- but they did just take a chance on a headcase pitcher, one J.C. Romero.
 
Andrew -- Perez played 29 games at 2B (85 Rate2), 35 games at 3B (96 Rate2), and 9 games at SS (113 Rate2). He played about a quarter as many games at short as he did at third; nine games isn't really enough to figure out whether he's good at short.
 
Ethier was Texas League POY, eh? Before anyone starts believing the hype, let's review the last few winners of this award...

Texas League Players of the Year
 
Lest anyone who seems to be conceding the AL West to Oakland forget, the Angels won the division by a comforatble margin last year. And that was without a full season from either Kotchman or McPherson...or Ervin Santana, for that matter. And Vlad spent a couple of weeks on the DL. Jeff DaVanon spent considerable time at the DH. The A's are hardly a prohibitive favorite for anything but second place.
 
Ethier was Texas League POY, eh? Before anyone starts believing the hype, let's review the last few winners of this award...

Dizzy Dean won the award! Say no more!
 
Obvious problems for the Halos:

- question marks at the back end of their rotation
- predictable regression from Shields
- the rest of their bullpen is unimproved
- inadequate first-half performance from Cabrera
- unknown performance from Kotchman and McPherson

A lot of things have to go right for the Angels. Fewer things have to go right for the A's.
 
Oh, and don't forget shaky offense from the non-Vlad portions of the outfield.
 
Darn Billy Beane. What a pill.

You gotta wonder if some of the Dodger execs aren't secretly happy to stick one to the Angels...
 
If I were to accuse the Dodgers of that, it would sound apranoid. But ya gotta wonder...
 
And that was without a full season from either Kotchman or McPherson...or Ervin Santana, for that matter. And Vlad spent a couple of weeks on the DL. Jeff DaVanon spent considerable time at the DH.


but the A's not getting a full season from crosby, or durazo, or dotel, or dan johnson for that matter... and harden spending a couple of weeks on the DL, and chavez having shoulder problems all season... that doesn't mean anything?
 
but the A's not getting a full season from crosby, or durazo, or dotel, or dan johnson for that matter... and harden spending a couple of weeks on the DL, and chavez having shoulder problems all season... that doesn't mean anything?

Sure it does. I'm just pointing out that it's not like the Angels were at full strength all season, either.

Of course, Oakland was probably lucky that Dotel got hurt. Houston Street performed a lot better than Dotel probably would have over the course of the season.

And I didn't even mention GA's time out of the lineup. Or Quinlan's. Or all of the AB wasted AB that could have gone to Juan Rivera.

Point is, Angels can be a lot better in 2006 with the roster as it stands today.
 
this is kind of a silly debate. both teams are very good.

dotel being injured is definitely not a bonus, though. even if he wouldn't have been exactly as good as street in the closer role, having street and dotel both in the bullpen provide valuable innings that otherwise would go to lower quality relievers. if k-rod got hurt and shields closed effectively, would that be a plus? no. you'd want to have both of those guys, regardless of the order in which they pitch.


anyway, the angels are certain to be a good team in '06, but the A's have definitely improved themselves, so if just a few things break their way (and especially if they can nab frank thomas!), watch out. :)
 
Hey, at least Billingsly wasn't included in the deal.
 
Bill Stoneman was interviewed on ESPN radio and didn't say anything newsworthy, at least to my ears.
 
Colletti said Perez did not figure to make the 25-man roster and likely would have been claimed off waivers.

Good god, man.
 

Post a Comment



Newer›  ‹Older
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Google

WWW 6-4-2