22 Jul 2017 07:00:38
I don't see this rumors to be true but if the Dodgers really want to go after Rivero it won't be cheap
Dodgers Receive:
CL Felipe Rivera
Pirates Receive:
SP Julio Urias
SP Walker Buehler #4 Prospect
2B Willie Calhoun #3 Prospect
OF Starling Heredia #11 Prospect
RP Jacob Rhame #29 Prospect

Names could be different but with 4 years of control after this season I don't see how the Pirates would take any less vaule.

1.) 22 Jul 2017
22 Jul 2017 09:20:59
Autocorrect got me these* Rivero*.

2.) 22 Jul 2017
22 Jul 2017 12:05:37
You must be pirates fan cause this trade is ridiculous.

3.) 22 Jul 2017
22 Jul 2017 13:36:50
It is ridiculous but I don't think its that far off from what Pirates would be asking. They aren't going to trade him away unless a team is willing to overpay big time.

4.) 22 Jul 2017
22 Jul 2017 14:07:23
The package is somewhat ridiculous, but given Rivero's age, contract, and high level of performance, I don't think it's off-base. Look at what Andrew Miller and Aroldis Chapman brought the Yankees last year; Rivero is not either, but he is younger, cheaper, and well on his way to becoming one of the top lefties in MLB.

5.) 22 Jul 2017
22 Jul 2017 15:11:47
When creating a trade, please consider why it makes sense for BOTH teams.

Of course this makes sense for the Pirates. But the Dodgers aren't paying that price for a reliever. At all.

The people on this site have lost their bleeping minds.

6.) 22 Jul 2017
22 Jul 2017 15:50:45
For example, LongtimeBaseballFan thinks it's insane that the Red Sox pay Devers and a lesser prospect for a very good 3B and controllable RP. But thinks the Dodgers giving up Urias PLUS two top 100 prospects for one reliever isn't?

Like I said, you folks have officially lost your minds.

7.) 22 Jul 2017
22 Jul 2017 16:32:26
The Dodger Writer who claims their is this as a possibility said himself it will take Urias + two top 100 prospects or 4 top 100 prospects. I don't think its 'crazy' Rhame doesn't hurt nor does Calhoun given what he plays. Heredia is low in the system. Urias Can't help this years team or maybe even next years team. Buehler hurts the most but Pirates drafted him couldn't sign him I'm sure they have a high level of interest in him. Trading for a guy who has a sub 1 ERA that throws 100 consistently and is a lefty with 4 and a half years of control. is not cheap.

8.) 22 Jul 2017
22 Jul 2017 18:40:23
I saw the reports. I don't think many would take them seriously. Of course Pirates fans would want this and would support it.

The Dodgers, who probably value their farm more than any team in baseball, won't gut the farm for a reliever. They weren't willing to do it for Chris Sale, they won't for Rivero. They'll just find upgrades elsewhere.

9.) 23 Jul 2017
23 Jul 2017 09:27:34
Yeah rivero might be on his way to being an elite reliever but he doesn't have enough of a resume to command that and just cause urias can't help this yr or next doesn't change the controlled yrs left and Calhoun can rake stop with your one way trades.

10.) 23 Jul 2017
23 Jul 2017 14:31:32
statbook, Urias has not exactly been the second coming of Kershaw. Now, he's hurt, and there is a possibility he will never pitch in the majors again, much less at a high level. Those other guys have accomplished absolutely nothing in MLB.

The Dodgers are having a nice year, they've got money to burn, prospects out the wazoo, and they haven't won a World Series in almost 30 years, which is a huge drought for one of baseball's cornerstone franchises. Yeah, I think it's too much for a reliever, but it's not as crazy as you think.

statbook, you have exactly as much experience as a MLB GM as every other person on this site. Quit taking yourself too seriously, because you don't know any more than anyone else, and it's obvious you know less than many.

11.) 23 Jul 2017
23 Jul 2017 18:13:26
1. If the Dodgers wouldn't trade him for Sale, they won't trade him for a player not as good as Sale. His surgery is the same as many pitchers have undergone. Nothing I said compares him to Kershaw. Quit over-exaggerating.

2. It's a ludicrous suggestion that the Dodgers would give that package for a reliever. Other GMs, maybe not, but not the Dodgers. They would just as easily hold their prospects. This is a ludicrous, one-sided trade suggestion.

3. I'm not getting into the "who knows more" pissing contests. You think you know more, I think I know more. It's not something I'm wasting my time on. But this was an absolutely ludicrous suggestion that has zero understanding of how the Dodgers front office operates. Every time you defend it, people will, or at least should, lose any faith that you know what you're talking about.

12.) 23 Jul 2017
23 Jul 2017 18:36:40
Also, you insult people's ideas left and right. It's only when it's one you support that you get all whiny about others doing it.

You are a smart baseball guy, but a whiner.

13.) 23 Jul 2017
23 Jul 2017 22:08:08
You are whining about someone disagreeing with you. You bash the guy who posted this, then bash me for defending him.

The whole point of this site is to propagate suggestions for MLB teams to improve their rosters, both present and future. You spend a lot of time denigrating others, but very little time making any actual proposals. Quit leeching off the ideas of others.

14.) 24 Jul 2017
24 Jul 2017 00:13:01
As for the post, I merely pointed out the pure insanity of such an idea. Then you guys doubled down. I'm sorry if it was aggressive, but if you can't see the lunacy in that idea, maybe this isn't your thing.

15.) 24 Jul 2017
24 Jul 2017 13:50:22
If you look back, stat, I literally say the package is "ridiculous, " but after some of the deals made the last few years - Frazier and Sheffield for Andrew Miller comes to mind - I don't say anything is out of the realm of possibility.

My point is, we just don't know. It's fun to speculate though, huh?

16.) 24 Jul 2017
24 Jul 2017 14:12:06
Bill Gates and I don't spend the same on houses. In the same way, the Dodgers and Indians don't spend the same on trades.

Every indication coming out of the Dodgers' FO has been that they want to get younger and cheaper. They don't want to gut the farm unless it's a significant upgrade (i. e. starting pitching or outfield) . Friedman has specifically targeted low-risk players for cheap in trades, especially for bench roles and relievers.

This is the Dodgers' M. O., and until they prove otherwise, the speculation is wild and out of place. So doubling down on it when you clearly know nothing about how the Dodgers trade is silly, and you should stop.