Dodgers & Indians

Trades

Players

Back

Dodgers & Indians

February 11, 2020

Dodgers

Name Age Level P1 P2 Availablility Years AFV Salary Surplus Low Median High
Clevinger 28 Majors SP Medium 3.0 105.0 20.5 84.5 74 84.5 95
Santana 33 Majors 1B DH Medium 2.0 13.8 17.3 -3.5 -4.9 -3.2 -1.5

Indians

Name Age Level P1 P2 Availablility Years AFV Salary Surplus Low Median High
Busch Minors 2B 10.1 8.1 10.1 12.1
Gonsolin 25 Majors SP Low 6.0 25.0 8.0 17 13.6 17 20.4
Pederson 27 Majors OF Medium 1.0 19.6 7.7 11.9 9.9 11.9 13.9
Ruiz Minors C 23.4 18.7 23.4 28.1
Stripling 29 Majors SP RHRP Medium 3.0 37.1 18.5 18.6 15.2 18.6 22.4
7 Comments
  1. Clevinger is controllable for three years and his contract is easily affordable. Cleveland has no reason to trading him.

  2. Larry Krueger

    Hi Hockeyjohn. We haven’t communicated recently but in the past I enjoyed are conversations and like talking baseball with you. In this trade, I don’t think the Dodgers would offer this much but if they did, please consider want Cleveland would be getting. A starting pitcher in Gonsolin that will be 26 in May that was 4 – 2 last year in 6 starts with an ERA of 2.93 and controllable for 6 years. Ross Stripling is a valuable pitcher that can start or relieve and has 3 years of control. Cleveland would also obtain Ruiz who is a solid prospect (#3) that could take Perez’s spot in 2022 and be a qualified back-up learning from one of the best. Then you add Pederson and his 36 home runs to one of Cleveland’s outfield positions and you have him for your pennant run this year. If he does well, the Indians try to extend him and if he goes free agent you can put a QO on him and get a high draft pick. And on top of all that the Indians also receive a lottery chance on the Dodgers number 8 (according to the Dodger web site) prospect. I think Clevinger is a great pitcher and I wish the Brewers had him but I think this package has enough reasons for Cleveland to trade him. But, like I said at the beginning, I don’t think the Dodgers would offer this much, even for Clevinger and Santana. I’m also not sure why the Dodgers would want Santana. He’s really a good player but they already have Muncy, Beaty, Turner, and even Bellinger who can all play first base. I’m giving this trade a thumbs down because I don’t think the Dodgers would do this trade but IMHO, I think Cleveland should take it if offered.

  3. Hi Spikes! Yes, I too, have enjoyed talking baseball with you. The problem that I have with this proposal and many of the others is that the Indians would be getting six much lesser players than the star pitcher that we would be giving up. I would rather get a smaller amount of more talented players than I would a list like this, A trade of a star pitcher like Mike Clevinger with three years of control that is easily affordable, ought to get a team’s top prospect in a package. If I were the Indians, I would demand Gavin Lux or Dustin May in a package. If they refuse to include one of them in a package, I would walk away. If I am trading three years of a star, I want a potential star in the return package. I don’t see a future star in the package above. I see this trade as a quantity for quality trade and I never want the team that I cheer for to be on the quantity side of this type of trade. Adding Santana to this trade makes it worse. This trade would weaken not only our starting pitching going from a star starter in Clevinger to the unproven starter in Gonsolin. It would also weaken first base as the Indians do not have a proven back-up at that position and Pederson is not a first baseman that I want to play every day or even a few days. I think that the Indians can contend in 2020. Doing this trade would be giving up on 2020 and I am not willing to do that. As you know well, when a small market team has a chance to contend, they need to responsibly go for it.

    I hope this expresses where I am at. I understand what you are saying about the package above, but again, I would rather get three better players such as May, Pederson, Stripling or Lux, Gonsolin, plus a prospect. I would not do anything now. If at the deadline the Indians are not looking good, then I would talk with Dodgers.

  4. Spikes, the more I look at it, I would want May, Urias, and Pederson to start a discussion.

    • Larry Krueger

      I looked at your trade proposal and gave it a thumbs up. You drive a hard bargain my friend. Thanks for your comments. Wouldn’t it be fun to hear what the real GM’s discuss on a monthly basis.

      • Thank you for your comments. I think a hard bargain is what would need to happen. Trading Clevinger would definitely hurt the Indians. The trade return should also really hurt the Dodgers. Cleveland’s front office is known for setting a high price and sticking to their guns in trade negotiations. I tried to take what I know about the Indians and add my personal opinion that quality should get quality.

        With that said, I don’t see the Dodgers making this deal as they refuse to include Lux and May. I also do not see the Indians making a trade involving Lindor, Clevinger, or both without getting Lux, May, or both back in return. Besides. Cleveland has no reason to trade Clevinger at this time

        Spikes, what I would like to see is MLB work on fixing the imbalance between the large and small market clubs. Then teams like the Indians and Brewers could have a better chance. As it is now, they have to be perfect with few mistakes. An Ellsbury contract would kill the Brewers and Indians, yet the Yankees can easily throw more money to fix their mistakes. But that is another discussion for another forum.

        Thanks for the good conversation. This is what I think Baseball Trade Values was hoping for when they created this site. Have a great day.

        • John Bitzer

          Totally agree on your last point. Congrats to both of you for setting a good example!

Submit a Comment