Trying to Solve The Alex Guerrero Problem
We’ve all seen it in various TV shows or movies; the main character is sitting on the floor of some room, surrounded by various pieces of hardware after being challenged to assemble some piece of furniture from vague and unhelpful instructions. And then, usually after a cutaway or some kind of time-lapse, we see the proud main character standing next to the completed product, showing off the fruit of his labor to some secondary character, who then rains on his parade by pointing out that while the product looks nice, there are a few leftover pieces that he somehow managed to exclude from the build.
That’s kind of what this Dodgers team feels like at the moment. On paper, this team could be very good, especially if Joc Pederson takes over as the regular center fielder and hits as well as the projections think he might. At that point, you have Carl Crawford and Yasiel Puig in the corners, with an infield of Yasmani Grandal, Adrian Gonzalez, Howie Kendrick, Jimmy Rollins, and Juan Uribe. That group gives them above average projections at every position, the kind of strong supporting cast that can help one of baseball’s best rotations go after the NL West title. So that group looks pretty good.
But then, you look around, and there’s Andre Ethier hanging around, talking about wanting to play everyday and getting paid like a guy who should be a regular. But Ethier isn’t even the team’s best fourth outfielder, as Scott Van Slyke fills that role and complements the two left-handed hitting starters, plus Chris Heisey is hanging around as center field depth, providing a quality defensive option who could split time with Pederson if he proved to need a soft landing against good left-handers.
There are similar issues on the infield. The starters are basically locked in, and Justin Turner’s tremendous 2014 performance lines him up as the first guy off the bench in case Uribe, Rollins, or Kendrick need a day off. Darwin Barney is around for defensive acumen, giving the team a glove-first option to complement Turner’s bat-first profile off the bench. Those two make for a nice set of reserve infielders, but keeping both means that there isn’t really a spot for Alex Guerrero, who just publicly said he has no interest in being optioned back to the minors again this year.
And because of a provision in his contract, Guerrero has the right to refuse such an assignment this year, meaning that the Dodgers have to carry him on their 25 man roster, trade him to another team that will do so, or release him, which would mean they’d still have to pay the remaining $14 million — $4 million this year, then $5 million each of the next two years — on his contract without getting anything in return. In most cases, when you have a player in a situation like this, a trade is the most likely option, which is why Ethier’s name is going to pop up in rumors all spring long.
But there’s another provision in Guerrero’s contract that makes this even more difficult. According to Cot’s Contracts, if Guerrero is traded, he also has the right to opt-out of his deal following the season, making himself a free agent in the process. In other words, the Dodgers own Guerrero’s rights for three more years, but any team trading for him would only be guaranteed one year of team control, with the final two years essentially being a player option that would only be picked up if Guerrero flopped.
That’s not exactly an attractive trade chip. If you acquire him and he’s good, he hits the open market next winter and gets a big raise. If he’s terrible, it costs you $14 million to find out that he’s worthless. Trading for Guerrero is a big ball of downside with very few positive outcomes, and from a production standpoint, he projects similarly to Rickie Weeks, who signed a one year deal for just $2 million in guaranteed money as a free agent. Like Weeks, Guerrero is theoretically a second baseman whose glove might make him a better fit for a corner spot, though he doesn’t have any experience in the outfield. And while Guerrero’s projections suggest he’s something like a league average hitter, Weeks has the major league track record to back those projections up, so there was less risk involved in signing him than there would be in trading for Guerrero.
The market just valued a similar player at $2 million on a one year deal, so it’s extremely unlikely that any team would be interested in acquiring a significant chunk of Guerrero’s contract. If the Dodgers decide that he’s not better than Turner or Barney, then they really have no leverage, as their only option would be to release him and pay the full $14 million anyway. The longer this drags out, the less likely it is that the Dodgers find a suitor for Guerrero, and the more likely that they’ll just have to cut him.
Especially because they are also rumored to have significant interest in Hector Olivera, another Cuban infielder who will be declared a free agent in the very near future. According to Ken Rosenthal, Olivera has even taken a physical for the Dodgers, so there is almost certainly legitimate interest in bringing him into the fold. If the Dodgers signed Olivera, the move would almost instantly end any chance the team had of keeping Guerrero, and other teams could simply sit around and wait for the Dodgers to cut him rather than give up any value to trade for him.
So, realistically, the Dodgers should be trying to trade Guerrero as soon as possible, even if it only gets them a few million in savings. They’ve already shown that they are willing to pay players to play for a competitor — Matt Kemp, Dan Haren, and Dee Gordon are all still effectively on LA’s books for 2015 — in exchange for getting some value in return. So it seems like maybe there’s a way to structure a deal that would would give the Dodgers some upside while also allowing Guerrero to land on a roster where he could actually get some playing time.
Let’s say, for instance, that Andrew Friedman agreed to pay all of Guerrero’s 2016 and 2017 commitments, only asking the acquiring team to pick up part of Guerrero’s 2015 salary; say $2 million, to line him up with Weeks’ free agent price. That way, the team getting Guerrero is only paying $2 million plus some lower level prospect to take a shot on his short-term value, plus the right to get first crack at re-signing him if he plays well and opts-out of his deal. At just a couple million in total commitment, he’s potentially intriguing enough to go after.
The best part of this structure for the Dodgers? They don’t even need to get much back to get some upside in a deal like this. Their upside comes from getting Guerrero to opt-out of his deal next winter, which would then remove the $10 million in future payments they’d agreed to be on the hook for in the trade. $10 million isn’t a ton of money, but given their placement relative to the luxury tax, it would actually translate to $15 million in actual savings for the organization. Even without getting any real talent in return, that’s a significant enough savings to move him if given the chance.
So, where should the Dodgers be trying to send Guerrero in order to maximize his chances of opting out? The key is finding a team that has weaknesses at 2B, 3B, and LF, so that he’d get as many chances to play as possible, even if he proved incapable of handling one or two of those spots defensively. And luckily for the Dodgers, there’s a team with just that set of weaknesses in their own back yard.
The Angels are currently counting on some combination of Josh Rutledge, Grant Green, and Johnny Giavotella to man second base, making it one of the weakest 2B groups in all of baseball. They have the perpetually injured David Freese manning third base with no real backup behind him, and now that Josh Hamilton is both injured and maybe suspended, Matt Joyce is being pushed to left field, which means that there’s an obvious need for the right-handed half of a platoon there.
The Blue Jays could also theoretically be a fit due to their black hole at second base and lack of outfield depth, though third base is obviously closed off with Josh Donaldson around. The Rockies could use a second baseman and would give Guerrero a great chance to put up some big raw numbers, but they wouldn’t have room for him at third or in the outfield. The Rangers could potentially use him in left field and as depth behind Rougned Odor at second base, and also would provide a nice hitting environment for him to thrive in.
But to me, the Angels seem like the team with the most obvious need at the three spots Guerrero could theoretically play. Maybe call Jerry DiPoto first, and then use the Rangers, Blue Jays, and Rockies as leverage to try and get as strong a return as possible. But really, the best plan for the Dodgers is to try and ship Guerrero somewhere he’s most likely to play, increasing the odds that he opts out. Getting more savings off this year’s payroll or getting a slightly better prospect in return would be nice, but primarily, the Dodgers should be looking to give Guerrero his best chance to play and play well.
In this case, Guerrero’s most valuable to the Dodgers while playing for some other team besides the Dodgers. The longer he stays in their camp, the more likely it is that they’ll just have to cut him in a month. The sooner they can ship him to a team that would give him regular playing time, the best it is for everyone involved.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
solution, trade him to the red sox. it might not be quite enough, but a package headlined by blake swihart should get close
the red sox have a rapidly declining 2b who projects to be no better than average in a few years and an anchor by the end of his contract. theyre a big market team so they could swallow just cutting bait and replacing pedroia with guerrero for 2016 and onwards
I know it’s early, but this may be the worst comment on Fangraphs in 2015.
Is it satire? It must be satire, but I don’t know what it’s satirizing.
It’s so obvious.
clearly just trolling
My favorite comment ever was when blake swihart was called a poor mans jp arencibia.
Oh heck, I can top that easy – trade Guerrero to the Giants for Bumgarner, Cain and Posey! Oh, and Bochey too.
Why on earth would the Sox unload the consensus best offensive catching prospect in MiLB for Guerrero when they have Pedroia and Betts? Guerrero’s clearly going to opt out after next year if he’s actually good, and they have Brock Holt projected to provide average production at the league minimum next season. Beyond 2015, the Sox will have Betts, Devin Marrero, and Sean Coyle all in the mix to step up.
Ok, maybe I took this one a little too seriously.
betts is being groomed to play the OF
pedroia’s war dropped from 5.4 to 4.4 last year and he’s already struggling with injuries again this year at age 31. he’s a good bet to drop to around 2 this year and down from there
with the jays and orioles young and looking to be in prime shape to contend and control the al east for the next 5 years or so, the red sox need to make some sort of bold move to get younger if they want to have a chance
And trading a top prospect who’s 22 for a 28 year old is the bold move the Sox need to make in order to get younger?
You didn’t really put much thought into this at all, did you?
True, the Red Sox clearly have no in-house replacement for Pedroia should he continue to decline. If only one of their glut of outfielders might be adequate at second base.
the rest of the industry doesn’t value swihart like the red sox hypers on fangraphs and other sites do
an average bat, average glove, catcher prospect who struggled at aaa like swihart just isn’t worth all that much
An average glove, average bat catcher is incredibly valuable and struggling at a 22 year old catcher in AAA for all of 71 plate appearances is hardly cause for concern.
“incredibly valuable” is probably an overstatement. I think Dioner Navarro and Kurt Suzuki came pretty close to the “average bat, average glove” description last year and they were worth 2 WAR each. A catcher like that is definitely a nice piece to have in place but not exactly earth-shattering.
why would they do that when they could just plug Betts into 2nd?
Guerrero needs consent to be sent to the minors; he’s publicly said he won’t do that. The Red Sox currently have a roster crunch of their own; they have 14 MLB position players. Your scenario also does not work because Guerrero will only be on the acquiring team in 2015; if all goes well, he’ll opt out at the end of the season.
What I’m confused about is why we’re so sure Guerrero is no better than Rickie Weeks. He signed for $28M just last offseason. Since that time, he’s only got 321 professional plate appearances, of which a meaningless 13 of them were in the majors. He hit .333/.373 /.621/.994 in the minors.
I know the Dodgers don’t mind throwing away money, but doesn’t it make a hell of a lot more sense to trade someone else and keep Guerrero?
I agree, since he has so little trade value due to the contract provisions, why not roster him and trade Turner or someone else? Uribe is not a lock for 600 PA’s, it is not hard to envision playing time for Guerrero if they moved one of the other bench options. Guerrero clearly has more value to the Dodgers than anyone else so I don’t understand why he’s the one who would be traded. I would take him over Weeks any day of the week.
The fake everdiso troll bit is getting really old.
I’m ready for fangraphs to require an account with a unique username in order to post comments. Don’t know about anyone else.
What that would mean is we’d have to hold tryouts to determine who gets certain beloved parody accounts. We don’t want Ruben Amaro Jr to just go to the first rando who signs up with it.
It would be a bad idea.
You would not lose the trolls by changing the best feature of the comments and ‘everdiso’ was actually making a joke but whiffing instead.
Plus we could get Free_AEC banned.
I’m confident I can win the tryout to be Ruben Amaro Jr., whatever that tryout might be.
I thought this was a joke….. but then you oddly tried to defend your point….
Pedroia has played through injuries the past two season and yet has remained one of the top 2B in he game. He is not at all having injury problems to begin this season, he is actually healthier than he’s been in years. There is ZERO need for a 2B on the Red Sox, even if Pedroia were not there. How about Betts, and Coyle,and Marrero, and Monada? And don’t say “Betts is an OFer,” because his natural position is 2B and the currently logjam in the OF would make him a better 2B candidate than Alex Guerrero. And regardless, Pedroia, at the age of 31, is not going to see a drop of 2 WAR this season. In fact, I am 100% positive that Pedroia’s WAR this season will go up from last season. You can quote me on that, hold me to it, whatever.
If Swihart won’t be moved in a Hamels trade (and btw the rest of the league DOES value Swihart as much as the Red Sox, just ask Ruben Amaro Jr) then why on earth would they trade him for Guerrero? And to say that Swihart would only be the “headline” of a package? PLEASE! The dodgers would die if the Red Sox were willing to send even a piece of Swihart to them or Guerrero.
So I have no idea where you are coming from, but don’t waste everyone elses time with your completely unrealistic comments.
Oh and FYI, I am a Yankee fan and this is still my opinion….. So I have to imagine Red Sox fans are in further disagreement with you than I am.
I miss when everdiso would argue with his/her-self in the comments section.
I don’t see how they could get ANYTHING for him. Them choosing to have Darwin Barney over him says a lot about his trade value. Why would a team trade them anything, regardless of how much money LA picks up, knowing that they could acquire him once he is released. They’re going to have to release him.
Barney’s fit them better than Guerrero. It’s more about roster construction, not putting the most talented, uneven roster you can field.
I can’t believe you wrote an article looking for a team with weakness at 2B, 3B, and LF and didn’t mention the Braves. We’re currently planning to start Alberto Callaspo, Chris Johnson, and Jonny Gomes in those 3 positions. Obviously the Braves aren’t playing for 2015 but they could use him as a trade chip if he played well or hope to re-sign him when he opted out of his deal (again, if he did well). And the downside for the Braves of such a deal is practically 0.
Heck, while they’re at it, maybe the Braves can take Ethier and a good prospect for a spare part (say Ethier and Lee for Chris Johnson). I mean, the Braves should have enough money to overpay an aging outfielder while they rebuild.
Oh yeah, I forgot.
Right, but why would the Braves give up a long-term asset, even a low-value one, for someone on a (likely) one-year deal? Pushing the needle from 76 wins to 78 doesn’t do much for Atlanta, so he didn’t mention them for the same reason nobody mentioned the Astros when talking about potential trade destinations for Jon Lester at the deadline last season.
Guerrero would be useful as a potential trade chip. Think about it: if he does well in the first half, a contending team would be trading for a guy that was making (basically) $1M a year from the Braves(based on the terms of Cameron’s proposed trade.) And it would practically be a 1 year deal if Guerrero proves to be worth playing at an MLB level (because he’ll opt out for a bigger contract).
And if the Braves really like him, they could try to find a way to keep him around: he’s young enough that he could be a long-term fit when the Braves are trying to compete if he can show that he can handle MLB pitching this year.
Even if Guerrero stinks, the Braves may be happy to keep him for free and hope he develops. The Dodgers would be footing the bill in 2016 and 2017 in full and Guerrero wouldn’t have the leverage to turn down a demotion to AAA.
Yes, he does have the leverage to turn down a demotion. That’s what this whole article is about. If he’s good, he’ll leave before the Braves care, and if he’s bad, he’s bad.
My point is that if he’s bad, the Braves keep him in the minors (because he won’t opt out and lose his payday) for free (because the Dodgers are picking up the tab).
Alex Guerrero to the Blue Jays for Maicer Izturis?
In the short term, the Dodgers are responsible for Izturis’ 3M salary in 2015 plus his 1M buyout for 2016 while the Blue Jays pay Guerrero’s full 4M salary in 2015. I assume the Dodgers would rid themselves of Izturis immediately for roster space.
Toronto can run with Guerrero at 2B and start Devon Travis in Triple-A. If Guerrero does well, he opts out and the Blue Jays run with the theoretically ready Travis in 2016.
I think there would have to be some kind of provision where if Guerrero doesn’t opt out the Dodgers help with a portion of the 2016 and 2017 salaries (maybe half?), but if the goal is to send Guerrero somewhere with the greatest chance of him succeeding and leaving, the Blue Jays seem like a decent bet.
Basically:
If Guerrero does well, the Dodgers are only spending 4M, and the Blue Jays are spending 4M on a useful player.
If Guerrero does poorly, the Dodgers are spending 9M (4M for Izturis + 5M for half of 16/17), and the Blue Jays are spending 9M on a meh player.
Just an idea!
Dodgers don’t need to pay a dollar for an infielder they would cut. Nobody wants the worse player in baseball in 2013. Izituris is more of a turd than Guerrero and I don’t think the dodgers would pay a cent.
Not a bad one, assuming you could live with Guerrero’s glove at 2B.
If not, maybe the Jays can offer something of value for Van Slyke and Barney or Turner, giving the Dodgers a chance to keep Guerrero as a super-sub. With the Dodger’s current situation, it might not take a whole lot.
I doubt the Dodgers would give up Van Slyke easily.
The Blue Jays also have a core of Hispanic leadership that would offer a great chance for Alex to excel, meaning Dodgers could get off the hook for 2016 & beyond.
And the BJs are in win-now mode, too. Willing to take a bit of risk for what could be a 2 WAR difference in a tight AL East.
Chris Johnson is such strange player; slightly above average in 2013 and hardly above replacement last year. He has an amazing batted ball profile, but bad k and walk rates. Teach him how to take a pitch and you could be looking at a homeless
As for Guerrero, while he’s on a better contract than Nick Markakis, Braves should try to lose as many games as possible.
Best fit is LAA, if he has the tools to stick at second. But might just be Grant Green pt.2
+1 only because your name links to poop.com. (Which I’m deathly afraid to click on.)
I don’t think 3B is as solid as this article makes it out to be. Uribe is 36, and although he hit well the past 2 years, he had back to back sub-60 wRC+ seasons in 2011 and 2012. The wheels could easily come off again any day. I’m not sure I would be comfortable relying on Justin Turner to repeat his 2014 numbers in that case, since he hadn’t really done anything close prior to that. Barney is probably not a real option at 3B (more 2B/SS) and is even less likely to hit. I’m not saying Guerrero is the answer, but it might be prudent to find out what they have in him before shipping him out for free.
EXACTLY.
Keep Guerrero. Deal Turner. Then, if you sign Oliviera, deal Uribe. Simple.
Guerrero might not be AS good as a bench player as Turner or Uribe would be… but it’s a bench player, for one thing, and for another, if he does succeed, he’s still under contract.
Forgot to mention, but obvious: you could also get MORE for Turner or Uribe than you could for Guerrero, since he is worth so little post-trade.
How does the permission requirement work? If the Dodgers attempt to option him does he have the right to elect free agency instead? Is the suggestion that such a move would have a null effect? Would it be tantamount to releasing him such that they would still own him the balance of the contract?
They can’t even attempt to option him if he says no; they would have to release him. In effect, he becomes a free agent, but he doens’t elect free agency per se, and the Dodgers are on the hook for the contract.
I think what Evan is asking is, if the Dodgers declare their intent to option Guerrero, and Guerrero refuses, can the Dodgers renounce that intent and keep him on the roster? Or are they then committed to releasing him?
Ethier for ARod. Who hangs up?
Dodgers don’t even answer the phone.
“Let’s say, for instance, that Andrew Friedman agreed to pay all of Guerrero’s 2016 and 2017 commitments, only asking the acquiring team to pick up part of Guerrero’s 2015 salary; say $2 million . . . . That way, the team getting Guerrero is only paying $2 million plus some lower level prospect to take a shot on his short-term value, plus the right to get first crack at re-signing him if he plays well and opts-out of his deal . . . . The best part of this structure for the Dodgers? They don’t even need to get much back to get some upside in a deal like this. Their upside comes from getting Guerrero to opt-out of his deal next winter, which would then remove the $10 million in future payments they’d agreed to be on the hook for in the trade.”
This won’t work in practice. If the Dodgers take on a contingent obligation to pay AG’s 2016+2017 salary that is only in play if he doesn’t opt out, the acquiring team and AG both have aligned incentives not to opt out.
Here are the scenarios that play out if AG has a great year after a trade:
1. If AG opts out, the Dodgers obligations evaporate, AG can get a raise over what he is contractually due, and the acquirer is now on the hook for that.
2. If AG does not opt out, he and the acquirer can sign an extension that kicks in after the 2016-2017 deal, leaving that in place to keep the Dodgers money in play.
Imagine if after 2015, AG has a market value of 4/28. He is not going to continue under his existing deal here, but there are 2 choices. He can opt out and get his 4/28, which the acquirer will have to pay, or they can recognize that $10 million in costs can be externalized onto a third party (the Dodgers) and structure an extension for 2/23. The acquirer and AG essentially split the $10 million of the Dodgers and AG gets $33 over 4 years instead of $28, and the team pays $23 instead of $28. Whatever the split would be is irrelevant, all that matters is that there is an amount there which can be negotiated between the team and AG and the incentives are aligned to push the cost onto the party not at the table.
A-rod was in the same situation back in 2007, and he did opt-out.
Nothing about that 2007 circus was rational. Normal rules didn’t seem to apply, and I think there were other motivating factors like being able to announce another record number.
You’re right, though, so fair enough.
Actually, are we totally sure that the Rangers’ obligation disappeared when ARod opted out?
I know Cots says that and others have reported it, but ARod was listed as the largest unsecured creditor in the Rangers 2010 bankruptcy.
If the Rangers obligation was not contingent, then the incentives were not the same in that case.
Come to think of it, I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a deal where a team agreed to pay a player’s salary contingent on other factors. I think they usually just give the other team money. So, for example, when the Dodgers traded Haren this year, they agreed to pay his $10 million salary, at least according to how it was reported. So, when he was thinking about retired, people assumed that if he retired, the Dodgers would be off the hook. In fact, they weren’t, because in actuality they just gave the Marlins $10 million. It’s sort of presented as the Dodgers paying Haren, but that’s technically not what happened.
Is that kind of contingent payment structure against MLB rules, given that it leads to the kind of situation you are describing?
I really doubt the Haren trade is typical, since sending a lump sum to cover a player’s future salary is a bad investment because of the time value of money. Plus, there’s an obvious reason (Loria’s pocket) why the Marlins would want direct cash, given Haren’s possible retirement.
It might not always be a lump sum. It could be paid out over multiple years. But the point is that the team is just agreeing to pay the other team. They aren’t explicitly paying the player’s salary.
What about moving him to the Phillies for Papelbon? The savings to the Dodgers from shedding Guerrero’s contract let them pick up Papelbon’s option without much cost to them. And the Phillies are fielding Galvis at short and Ruf/Sizemore in left so it seems like there is potential for an upgrade. Guerrero is young and has upside — which should be what the Phillies are looking for in their rebuild. It seems close to me. Maybe the Dodgers include a low-level minor leaguer along with Guerrero to get it done.
prob the best idea I’ve heard.
Keep Guerrero and send Barney down. He’ll make a nice bench bat and, along with Turner, fill in as needed for the aged infield. Then, when the inevitable injury to a position player strikes, you bring up Barney.
My take is that Guerrero has value, much more than Rickey Weeks at this point. Maybe he makes a great trading chip later in the year. If he proves to be worthless, release him later.
It would have been interesting had AG been included in the Kemp deal. The Padres seemed to have plenty of leverage to force the Dodgers to pay his 16-17 contract and they definitely have needs in the infield. Does anyone see the Padres as a potential landing spot for Guerrero?
If they had leverage to get Guerrero and have the Dodgers pay his salary, they would have gotten him or something else. What did the Padres get that they would have rather exchanged for Guerrero? Or, what additionally could they have given up that would be enough for the Dodgers to give them Guerrero?
How about just keeping Guerrero on the 25 man roster. Seems like the best option. Some of the other people you mentioned have minor league options to make room for Guerrero.
That’s what Ned Colletti would do, but this new FO, knowing they can afford it, have been just keeping the best team on the field and not falling victim to the “sunk cost” fallacy of their bad contracts. In other words, if they think their best team has Turner and Barney as backup infielders, that’s who they want on the 25-man.
O the splendor of riches.
DJ Lemahieu is better than Guerrero, especially given his glove and how many ground ball pitchers the Rockies have. You can scratch them off the list. I can see the Angels better than the Blue Jays.
Let’s get everidso and Free_AEC to compete in a trolling match to the death. Most of the world will be destroyed in the process, but at least it will rid us of one of them.
Don’t know if I’d want to put them together. What if they mate?
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-the-playoff-odds-have-changed-in-a-year/#comment-4968179
I’ve hit my limit when it comes to those trolls.
Rollins and Turner are both reaching a point in their respective careers where their skills may begin to erode rapidly, and Turner has dealt with injuries recently. At worst, keeping Guerrero in the majors give Rollins and Turners days off could help for their longevity and groom him for the long-term.
I think Guerrero’s offensive upside may be greater than Zips/Steamer give him credit for.
How bout the Rays? They need help in the MI, unless you are sold on the likes of Nick Franklin, Logan Forsythe, Tim Beckham, and Hak Ju Lee somehow playing second, and backing up Asdrubal, Longo, and Loney.
The Rays trade the Dodgers Grant Balfour and his 7.5 mil salary, get back some cash and take on Guerrero. The Dodgers get a high leverage reliever who has been excellent his entire career, except last year.
I don’t agree, I think the best course of action is to simply keep AG and hope he improves. The opt-out just kills any upside to a team trading for him. The difference between the value the Dodgers get from AG turning it around and any team trading for him is just too large.
If the Dodgers have to pay all but $2 million of his remaining contract just to get someone to take him, and the only upside is that he improves and opts out, then the Dodgers may as well just keep him and hope for the upside with him as a Dodger. Let’s remember that Uribe, Rollins, and Kendrick are all in their last year of their contracts, and that Kendrick is the youngest of the bunch and will be 32 next year.
If this all about keeping a defensive specialist with options on the 25 man, then this hypothetical simply doesn’t seem worth it to me. In the context of signing Olivera it makes more sense, but I think the best course of action would still be sending players with options left down while they figure it out.
Great point about 2016 and beyond. Even if Corey Seager is ready to be the everyday 3B or SS, there are still two other infield spots to fill.
You might not get a lot for trading Turner or some other bench player, but if it clears up a roster spot for Guerrero it should be worth. Guerrero is essentially like a Rule 5 draftee for 2015, although one with a good bat and a much larger price tag for taking him off the roster.
I realize Juan Uribe hit .311, but he is most likely going to decline, (only 9 homers) so it seems like it might make more sense to give 3B to Guerrero and make the upside play. Zips has AG for 15 homers.
Too soon to reevaluate “Trying to Solve the Alex Guerrero Problem”? I’ve got no problem with a mulligan here.
So what is the new answer? Keep as utility, start over uribe, or trade for larger assets than previously thought possible?
One thing to not rule out — I strongly believe Uribe will be out for significant time this year. I wouldn’t trust Uribe to do a whole season. So, such a situation would make the argument much easier.