Peraza debuts for Dodgers

sturg33 said:
The guy was given $60M to be an immediate contributor and hasn't seen the field this year.
Click to expand...

Because he has nowhere to play when LA was healthy.

He's not starting over Kendrick, JRoll or Turner.

Keep making stuff up though.
 
sturg33 said:
I guess he wasn't good enough to unseat Justin Turner

And he's only see the field for 13 minor league games.

Just an unbelievable, and completely unnecessary risk, the FO took on this guy
Click to expand...

In 87 games, Turner has a .323 AVG, .387 OBP, 13 HR's, 44 RBI's, 20 doubles, 82 hits.

I know you dont know much about baseball but Turner can rake.

You act like they traded away Mike Trout with how mad you are.
 
Heyward said:
In 87 games, Turner has a .323 AVG, .387 OBP, 13 HR's, 44 RBI's, 20 doubles, 82 hits.

I know you dont know much about baseball but Turner can rake.

You act like they traded away Mike Trout with how mad you are.
Click to expand...

I've been on Turner for a while.

Would you have traded Wood/Peraza for Turner?
 
Chico said:
Cespedes got 4/36 when he came over Olivera got 6/62. So obviously there are some who have factored in talent and like Olivera more. The fact is we do not know Olivera's true value since we have not seen him. We're all just guessing, but Braves fans are the only ones who are devaluing him, which leads me to believe it's more of an emotional thing than logic.
Click to expand...

This is some seriously bizarre reasoning. Olivera got more when he came over than Cespedes did...so people like Olivera more now than they did Cespedes at the time. And now that Cespedes has 4 years of major league time under his belt, proving what kind of player he is, and is about to get X amount, then Olivera is worth that, despite the fact that he has the same track record that he had when he got his initial deal.

First, the signing bonus on the front end is not as big of a deal to teams, especially a team like the Dodgers, as the actual AAV of a contract is. So while technically the cost of Olivera was 6 years, $62 million, and I'm fine with using that as a dollar valuation, the true value was a little shy of the $62 million because they could front-load it with money and pay him less toward future payrolls. It's also why you see teams able to spend money on the international market, for instance, that they would never give the same player out of the yearly payroll. While it is the same cost, the value is different.

Second, the market has changed. That deal Cespedes got was obviously 4 years ago. Aramis Ramirez got a 3 years/$36 million deal that year after putting up an OPS of .871. Markakis just got a 4 year/$44 million deal after putting up an OPS of .729. Also, Cuban successes, like Cespedes and Abreu and Puig, etc., have bumped up the contracts for those guys. Olivera would almost certainly not have gotten even the 4/$36 that Cespedes got in that market.

And yes, of course we haven't seen him. I'm fine with someone saying, 'My opinion is that I'd rather spend on Olivera and use the savings in cost elsewhere.' I am not fine with someone saying, 'Olivera is like Cespedes, so in addition to the player, we also got an extra $68 million in value.'

Personally, I'd rather spend $100 million on a guy like Cespedes than $32 million on a similar player while also giving up two good future assets. Because we have the money and could use the assets elsewhere. And that's if they're similar. There's little to suggest they actually are.

Regardless, we already know what Olivera's value is on the open market. Using a different player to artificially bump up that value is insane.
 
smootness said:
If you think Kendrick is blocking Olivera, that is not a good sign for Olivera's value.
Click to expand...

Kendrick is a 2B, bud.

Peraza is a 2B, use your head.

And yes, it's asinine to not think Olivera wasnt blocked.

Between Kendrick, Rollins, Turner, Guerrero, even Seager cant come up and play.
 
thethe said:
So by that logic then we really only traded 2 years of wood at expensive rates and 5 years of Peraza?
Click to expand...

No because you have to factor in the opportunity cost of potentially trading them for a better value, or if Peraza was a best then we could trade Simba, or if Jace sucks we'd have a replacement ready, etc etc etc
 
sturg33 said:
I've been on Turner for a while.

Would you have traded Wood/Peraza for Turner?
Click to expand...

No, i've stated many times i hated giving up Peraza, i dont see why they had to include him for Olivera when LA wasnt giving a ton else back, maybe if they gave the Braves, Austin Barnes.
 
Heyward said:
Kendrick is a 2B, bud.

Peraza is a 2B, use your head.

And yes, it's asinine to not think Olivera wasnt blocked.

Between Kendrick, Rollins, Turner, Guerrero, even Seager cant come up and play.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. The point is if Olivera couldn't unseat Kendrick, Turner, or Guerrero - then what the heck did we just acquire?

For the record, I'm a big fan of Turner. I would have laughed if LAD tried to trade him for the package we gave up for Olivera.
 
Heyward said:
No, i've stated many times i hated giving up Peraza, i dont see why they had to include him for Olivera when LA wasnt giving a ton else back, maybe if they gave the Braves, Austin Barnes.
Click to expand...

Neither would I. Yet we traded for someone who is older, unproven, not healthy, and likely worse than Turner
 
thethe said:
Also, kendrick has been a good player.
Click to expand...

He has been, yes. This year he has merely been decent, so I would hope he wasn't blocking Olivera.

If Olivera can't play 2B, though, that brings his value down a little more for a couple of reasons. First, part of the value for a team like us in Olivera is that he can play in multiple spots. So if we can get another 3B, we can move him to LF. Or if a team really likes Peterson, we can use him in a deal, slide Olivera to 2B, and still go get a hitter for 3B.

Also, with his elbow concerns, having the option to put him at 2B and reduce the strain on his arm if necessary is good for us. If his only two legitimate options are 3B and LF, it both reduces some of our options and also increases the chances he could blow out his arm and miss time.
 
Dalyn said:
If that's true, it's sad we traded what we did for him.
Click to expand...

Kendrick is one of the most consistent 2B in baseball, Turner has been great this year, and hes not a SS.

So where is he playing?

But i'll play the game with yall and just say Hart is dumb for trading for Olivera, it would be a fine deal if they didnt include Peraza.
 
smootness said:
This is some seriously bizarre reasoning. Olivera got more when he came over than Cespedes did...so people like Olivera more now than they did Cespedes at the time. And now that Cespedes has 4 years of major league time under his belt, proving what kind of player he is, and is about to get X amount, then Olivera is worth that, despite the fact that he has the same track record that he had when he got his initial deal.

First, the signing bonus on the front end is not as big of a deal to teams, especially a team like the Dodgers, as the actual AAV of a contract is. So while technically the cost of Olivera was 6 years, $62 million, and I'm fine with using that as a dollar valuation, the true value was a little shy of the $62 million because they could front-load it with money and pay him less toward future payrolls. It's also why you see teams able to spend money on the international market, for instance, that they would never give the same player out of the yearly payroll. While it is the same cost, the value is different.

Second, the market has changed. That deal Cespedes got was obviously 4 years ago. Aramis Ramirez got a 3 years/$36 million deal that year after putting up an OPS of .871. Markakis just got a 4 year/$44 million deal after putting up an OPS of .729. Also, Cuban successes, like Cespedes and Abreu and Puig, etc., have bumped up the contracts for those guys. Olivera would almost certainly not have gotten even the 4/$36 that Cespedes got in that market.

And yes, of course we haven't seen him. I'm fine with someone saying, 'My opinion is that I'd rather spend on Olivera and use the savings in cost elsewhere.' I am not fine with someone saying, 'Olivera is like Cespedes, so in addition to the player, we also got an extra $68 million in value.'

Personally, I'd rather spend $100 million on a guy like Cespedes than $32 million on a similar player while also giving up two good future assets. Because we have the money and could use the assets elsewhere. And that's if they're similar. There's little to suggest they actually are.

Regardless, we already know what Olivera's value is on the open market. Using a different player to artificially bump up that value is insane.
Click to expand...

This is where we disagree. You think those two future assets are worth 68 million and I do not. So we'll end it with this that you're fine with....... 'My opinion is that I'd rather spend on Olivera and use the savings in cost elsewhere.
 
sturg33 said:
Neither would I. Yet we traded for someone who is older, unproven, not healthy, and likely worse than Turner
Click to expand...

Turner's closer to FA and as others said, Olivera is on a pretty good contract but still dont think we had to include Jose.
 
Heyward said:
Kendrick is one of the most consistent 2B in baseball, Turner has been great this year, and hes not a SS.

So where is he playing?

But i'll play the game with yall and just say Hart is dumb for trading for Olivera, it would be a fine deal if they didnt include Peraza.
Click to expand...

Yes. I would agree in regards to Peraza.
 
smootness said:
He has been, yes. This year he has merely been decent, so I would hope he wasn't blocking Olivera.

If Olivera can't play 2B, though, that brings his value down a little more for a couple of reasons. First, part of the value for a team like us in Olivera is that he can play in multiple spots. So if we can get another 3B, we can move him to LF. Or if a team really likes Peterson, we can use him in a deal, slide Olivera to 2B, and still go get a hitter for 3B.

Also, with his elbow concerns, having the option to put him at 2B and reduce the strain on his arm if necessary is good for us. If his only two legitimate options are 3B and LF, it both reduces some of our options and also increases the chances he could blow out his arm and miss time.
Click to expand...

A .296 AVG, 124 hits, 20 doubles, 9 HR's, 49 RBI's, .341 OBP with great defense is merely decent, LOL.

He's on pace for a 290ish AVG, 35-40 doubles, 17-20 HR's, 70 RBI's with great defense, thats merely decent, trying to say the trade sucks, at least get your facts straight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top