Skip navigation

Dodgers' offseason
moves don't add up

Essentially switching Beltre for Drew
just start of ridiculous decisions

Image: Beltre
Matt York / AP
Letting go of Adrian Beltre and replacing him with J.D. Drew doesn't make sense, writes TSN's Ken Rosenthal.
Video: Baseball from NBC Sports
Sammy Sosa’s skin lightened?
Nov. 9: Baseball slugger Sammy Sosa shocked the crowd when he showed up at a Las Vegas event with much lighter skin. Is he doing some kind of “skin cleansing,” as some have suggested? Dr. Nancy Snyderman talks with msnbc.com’s Courtney Hazlett and dermatologist Dr. Lynn McKinley Grant.

COMMENTARY
By Ken Rosenthal
updated 8:10 p.m. ET Dec. 23, 2004

No general manager would trade third baseman Adrian Beltre for outfielder J.D. Drew. Yet, that's what the Dodgers will be doing by signing Drew as a free agent after losing Beltre to the Mariners. And, like so much else in the Dodgers' off-season, it makes little sense.

Drew will receive an astonishing $55 million over five years, a mere $9 million less than Beltre got from the Mariners. The Dodgers probably could have signed Beltre for similar money if they had pursued him more aggressively. Beltre likely would have taken less to stay with his original team.

Beltre for Drew. It boggles the mind. Beltre, 25, is four years younger. He plays a position that is more difficult to fill. And he's the type of warrior who never wants out of the lineup, even when hurt. No one holds that opinion of Drew, who only once has played more than 135 games in a season — last season, in his free-agent year. He is not a player to build around, especially in a high-profile market.

Story continues below ↓
advertisement | your ad here

Virtually no one in baseball can figure out what the Dodgers are doing. Owner Frank McCourt gives every indication that he's short on money. Dodgers general manager Paul DePodesta probably would have scoffed at the Drew contract if he were still working for Billy Beane with the low-revenue A's.

From the Dodgers' perspective, one motivation of the three-team Randy Johnson trade was to create payroll flexibility. At midnight ET Monday, the Dodgers demanded a resolution by 5 p.m. Wednesday, according to an official with one of the other clubs. It was unrealistic for the Dodgers to expect that all of the physical examinations and contract extensions could be completed in such a narrow time frame.

Yankees right-hander Javier Vazquez balked at flying to Los Angeles from the Virgin Islands, where he was on vacation with his family, which includes a newborn. Vazquez took a physical for the Yankees last month, complete with an MRI. The Dodgers could have asked for the results. They could have sent a doctor to meet him in Miami for a second physical. But they were looking for a way out, and Vazquez became a convenient scapegoat.

The Dodgers claimed a sense of urgency in the talks because they didn't want to be saddled with the salaries of a free agent they were trying to sign — Drew — and right fielder Shawn Green. Now what? They will be stuck with both unless they move Green, who has a no-trade clause, but by now surely is getting the message that he no longer is wanted.

Overpaying Drew would have been the wrong move even if the Dodgers had first dealt Green, but at least DePodesta wouldn't have been left in this corner. Why, then, didn't the Dodgers just go ahead with the trade? The Yankees say the Dodgers signed off on the agreement, but once word got out, the backlash in Los Angeles was appropriately swift and vehement. And the Dodgers caved.

Their endgame was never clear. But their return — Vazquez, minor-league catcher Dioner Navarro and minor-league third baseman Eric Duncan from the Yankees, plus reliever Mike Koplove from the Diamondbacks — would have been woefully inadequate. Rest assured, the Yankees won't give up as little for Johnson the next time, whether they negotiate with the Diamondbacks directly or expand the trade to three or four teams.

Of course, the Dodgers wouldn't admit to cold feet; they preferred to point the finger at Vazquez, saying privately that they were not comfortable acquiring a player who didn't want to be on the west coast. Their position was disingenuous; the issue never would have arisen if they had succeeded with their plan to trade Vazquez to a fourth team.

Besides, Vazquez lacked a no-trade clause, and had no say in the matter. Players frequently get upset when traded, and just as frequently get over it. By now, Vazquez surely has figured out that he will be dealt for Johnson. He owns a home in Jupiter, Fla., not far from the Dodgers' spring-training facility in Vero Beach. What was he going to do, break his contract?

In theory, Vazquez could exercise his right to demand a trade at the end of the season if he were traded in the middle of a multi-year deal. In reality, such a demand would amount to an empty threat. If Vazquez were not traded by March 15, he would be required to either rescind his demand or opt for free agency. No way he would walk away from a guaranteed $24 million over his final two seasons at that late date.

So, the Dodgers still have Green, still have pitchers Brad Penny, Kaz Ishii and Yhency Brazoban. But what exactly is their plan? They still need a catcher and at least one starting pitcher, and their choices will be limited unless they dump most or all of Green's $16 million salary and go with the questionable Hee Seop Choi at first base. They've also weakened one of the best defensive infields in the majors by replacing second baseman Alex Cora with Jeff Kent and Beltre with a Jose Valentin/Antonio Perez platoon. And lest anyone forget, they barely attempted to keep one of their late-season heroes, free-agent center fielder Steve Finley.

Going strictly by the numbers, the Dodgers might be upgrading by replacing Beltre with Drew and Finley with Kent. Drew's 1.006 on-base slugging percentage last season was nearly as high as Beltre's 1.017, and Kent's .880 OPS was higher than Finley's .823. But the contract figures are just as significant. It speaks volumes that the Braves reportedly offered Drew a mere $25 million over three years — $30 million less than the Dodgers.

Somehow, it's fitting that the Dodgers are giving Drew the same terms that they once gave another Scott Boras client, oft-injured pitcher Darren Dreifort. That deal was made by a different owner and different general manager. But you get the feeling that this one might turn out much the same.

© 2009 Sporting News

Sponsored links