zbhargrove (02-10-2020)
If we hadn't already signed Neck I'd be all for it. But we aren't getting rid of Neck so Pederson doesn't really fit.
What killed the Angels deal?
Markakis has nothing to do with dealing for Pederson imo. They could still deal Inciarte play Acuna in center. An OF of Ozuna - LF, Acuna - CF and Pederson - RF would be deadly with Markakis/Duvall spelling the guys.
Acuna
Albies
Freeman
Ozuna
Pederson
Flowers/D'Arnaud
Camargo
Swanson
The problem with that is it hurts the OF defense pretty substantially. What if Acuna gets hurt? Pederson has proven to be pretty terrible in CF. Yes Pache/Waters are close, but I'd rather not rush them, and they could fall flat on their face too.
Also, I'm not convinced Pederson is much of an overall upgrade over a healthy Ender. He's a better hitter for sure, but Ender is a significantly better defender. They both should be roughly 2-3 WAR players if healthy. It seems like it's making a move just to make a move.
Last edited by Carp; 02-10-2020 at 12:28 PM.
Snowman (02-10-2020)
It always seemed to me that the Pederson deal was done strictly as a way to get under the Luxury Tax threshold. Either they've found a way in one of the Betts/Maeda deals to get under it without moving him, or the new Betts/Maeda deals are pushing their payroll past the point where moving Pederson and Stripling won't be enough to get them under the Luxury tax.
It is note worthy to mention that Neck was signed on Nov 4th which is before the 5th day after the last World Series game thus nullifying his auto no trade protection given to Free agents signing.
Coppy
JohnAdcox (02-10-2020)
I think Pederson lost arb, so maybe that changed how the Dodgers valued him and their ask.
Carp (02-10-2020)
I love how every time a deal falls through, or is rumored and doesn't happen, someone here says "We should go get that player!"
UNCBlue012 (02-10-2020)