PDA

View Full Version : Esteban Loaiza To Dodgers.. For Nothing



RedLegSuperStar
08-29-2007, 03:18 PM
MLBTradeRumors.com -


Given the $8MM+ owed to 35 year-old starter Esteban Loaiza, Billy Beane chose to hand him over to the Dodgers solely for salary relief. The Dodgers basically inherit Loaiza on a one-year, $7MM deal for 2008, which is less than he'd cost on the open market. If healthy he's a more than credible fourth starter. He had great success for the Nationals in the NL back in '05.

Loaiza slots into the fourth slot for the rest of the season, behind Chad Billingsley but ahead of David Wells. Ned Colletti did a fine job adding two respectable starters for nothing. One consequence of the acquisition is that the Dodgers are likely to turn Randy Wolf loose rather than exercise his $9MM option, according to Ken Rosenthal.

You can read a history of Loaiza's ailments and misdeeds since the A's signed him here.

RedLegSuperStar
08-29-2007, 03:20 PM
I have to give it up to LA.. they got Wells and Loaiza for nothing.

Wish the Reds could of done the same..

Always Red
08-29-2007, 03:24 PM
I have to give it up to LA.. they got Wells and Loaiza for nothing.

Wish the Reds could of done the same..

I think the Reds probably passed on Loaiza, if I understand the waiver claim process. They would get a shot at him before the Dodgers.

It wasn't for nothing; they're on the hook for over $8 million through next year now. I don;t want to pay that kind of scratch to Esteban Loaiza (though he does have a very cool name!).

Rojo
08-29-2007, 03:41 PM
Wouldn't you rather have Wolfe at $9M than Loiaza at $8M next year?

PuffyPig
08-29-2007, 04:29 PM
Wouldn't you rather have Wolfe at $9M than Loiaza at $8M next year?

I'd choose door number 3.

Tom Servo
08-29-2007, 04:45 PM
Personally I wouldn't have been opposed to picking up Loazia for nothing. I can't think of any free agent starters this year who are any better and would be any cheaper than what Loaiza's being paid.

flyer85
08-29-2007, 04:48 PM
Personally I wouldn't have been opposed to picking up Loazia for nothing. I can't think of any free agent starters this year who are any better and would be any cheaper than what Loaiza's being paid.Loaiza has had a tough time staying healthy ... pass.

15fan
08-29-2007, 04:50 PM
That Billy Beane is a smart guy.

Rojo
08-29-2007, 05:02 PM
Personally I wouldn't have been opposed to picking up Loazia for nothing. I can't think of any free agent starters this year who are any better and would be any cheaper than what Loaiza's being paid.


Imagine Krivsky signing Loaiza for $8 million. Now imagine your reaction.

oneupper
08-29-2007, 05:28 PM
Whatever happened to Odalis Perez? Are the Dodgers still paying him too?

jojo
08-29-2007, 05:37 PM
If Loaiza stays healthy, the greatest likelihood is that he'd be a great value at $8M.

Cyclone792
08-29-2007, 05:42 PM
Whatever happened to Odalis Perez? Are the Dodgers still paying him too?

Perez has been getting rocked in Kansas City for the duration of this season and parts of last season. He's pitched 263.2 innings since the beginning of last season, and he's posted Miltonesque numbers in that time span.

I have no idea who's paying him - the Dodgers could be paying a chunk of Perez's salary to let him get lit up for Kansas City - but the only time I ever want to see Odalis Perez in GABP is if he's in a visitor's uniform.

pedro
08-29-2007, 05:47 PM
He's only pitched 14 innings this year and was bad last year. Pretty risky IMO.

Spitball
08-29-2007, 06:00 PM
That Billy Beane is a smart guy.

Or lucky...Remember when he signed Loaiza to that contract? That was a head scratcher.

jojo
08-29-2007, 06:00 PM
He's only pitched 14 innings this year and was bad last year. Pretty risky IMO.

If you're talking about Loaiza, he was very solid last season once healthy. Really solid.

The risk centers on his health and really he's had some frustrating injuries as an A that aren't the type that would make you question his stuff (unlike a Milton whose knee injury basically made him a different pitcher).

pedro
08-29-2007, 06:08 PM
If you're talking about Loaiza, he was very solid last season once healthy. Really solid.

The risk centers on his health and really he's had some frustrating ones as an A that aren't the type that would make you question his stuff (unlike a Milton whose knee injury basically made him a different pitcher).

Not really. He had a good august and in every other month pretty much stunk.


DATE OPP RESULT IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF GSc DEC REL ERA*
Oct. 11 DET L 8-5 6.0 9 7 7 1 1 5 8 9 84 27 30 L(0-1) - 7.36
Oct. 4 @MIN W 5-2 5.0 8 2 2 2 0 2 14 4 98 23 45 - - 3.60
IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF AGS W-L S-BS-H ERA
Totals 11.0 17 9 9 3 1 7 1 13 182 50 38 0-1 0-0-0 7.36
Regular Season games through October 1, 2006
DATE OPP RESULT IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF GSc DEC REL ERA*
Sep. 29 @LAA L 6-0 4.0 6 4 3 0 1 2 5 7 67 19 37 L(11-9) - 4.89
Sep. 25 @SEA L 10-9 5.0 9 5 5 2 0 4 8 8 93 23 33 - - 4.84
Sep. 20 CLE W 4-3 7.2 5 3 2 0 1 4 12 10 97 29 62 W(11-8) - 4.70
Sep. 15 CWS W 4-2 7.0 3 2 2 1 1 5 5 12 100 25 67 W(10-8) - 4.83
Sep. 9 @TB L 9-6 5.1 12 8 8 1 1 7 12 5 89 30 18 L(9-8) - 4.95
Sep. 3 BAL W 10-1 8.0 8 1 1 0 1 4 11 8 98 30 65 W(9-7) - 4.58
Monthly Totals 37.0 43 23 21 4 5 26 53 50 544 156 -- 3-2 0 sv 5.11
DATE OPP RESULT IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF GSc DEC REL ERA*
Aug. 28 BOS W 9-0 7.0 5 0 0 0 1 4 8 9 111 28 70 W(8-7) - 4.82
Aug. 23 @TOR W 6-0 9.0 4 0 0 0 0 7 8 11 103 30 86 W(7-7) - 5.12
Aug. 18 @KC L 5-3 6.2 5 1 0 0 0 7 9 4 110 25 69 - - 5.58
Aug. 13 TB W 3-1 8.0 3 1 1 0 2 5 10 10 92 29 75 W(6-7) - 5.97
Aug. 7 TEX W 7-4 6.2 10 4 4 1 1 4 12 4 99 29 41 W(5-7) - 6.41
Aug. 2 @LAA W 3-2 5.1 8 2 2 0 0 4 7 5 93 24 48 - - 6.50
Monthly Totals 42.2 35 8 7 1 4 31 54 43 608 165 -- 4-0 0 sv 1.48
DATE OPP RESULT IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF GSc DEC REL ERA*
Jul. 28 TOR L 4-3 5.2 8 4 4 0 2 3 11 5 92 27 38 L(4-7) - 6.72
Jul. 23 @DET L 8-4 3.0 8 8 5 0 0 2 6 5 70 20 19 L(4-6) - 6.75
Jul. 18 @BAL W 5-4 5.1 7 4 4 1 2 6 9 4 100 26 42 W(4-5) - 6.38
Jul. 13 @BOS W 5-4 5.0 6 3 3 1 6 4 8 6 107 27 41 - - 6.34
Jul. 6 LAA W 7-5 5.1 8 4 4 4 3 4 7 9 90 26 37 - - 6.43
Jul. 1 ARI L 7-2 6.2 9 5 5 0 1 3 8 16 102 31 38 L(3-5) - 6.40
Monthly Totals 31.0 46 28 25 6 14 22 49 45 561 157 -- 1-3 0 sv 7.26
DATE OPP RESULT IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF GSc DEC REL ERA*
Jun. 25 @SF W 10-4 9.0 6 4 4 1 1 2 16 10 97 34 60 W(3-4) - 6.34
Jun. 20 @COL L 6-0 3.2 9 6 6 1 4 3 7 5 78 24 18 L(2-4) - 6.94
Jun. 15 SEA W 9-6 6.0 6 5 3 0 2 2 10 8 91 28 44 W(2-3) - 6.03
Jun. 8 @CLE W 4-1 7.0 4 1 1 1 1 5 11 5 77 26 69 W(1-3) - 6.40
Monthly Totals 25.2 25 16 14 3 8 12 44 28 343 112 -- 3-1 0 sv 4.91
DATE OPP RESULT IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF GSc DEC REL ERA*
Apr. 23 LAA L 4-3 3.2 7 3 3 0 1 2 7 4 64 18 36 L(0-3) - 8.35
Apr. 18 DET W 4-3 6.0 6 3 3 0 1 3 5 11 86 23 50 - - 8.59
Apr. 12 @MIN L 6-5 4.0 8 6 6 2 4 0 2 8 81 23 18 L(0-2) - 11.42
Apr. 6 @SEA L 6-2 4.2 9 5 5 1 3 1 7 7 99 25 24 L(0-1) - 9.64
Monthly Totals 18.1 30 17 17 3 9 6 21 30 329 89 -- 0-3 0 sv 8.35
IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF AGS W-L S-BS-H ERA
Totals 154.2 179 92 84 17 40 97 221 196 2385 679 46 11-9 0-0-0 4.89

Rojo
08-29-2007, 06:14 PM
he was very solid last season once healthy. Really solid.

But not quite "good". He'll also be 36 heading into next season. I'd rather double down my $8million on two question marks with higher upsides.

BoydsOfSummer
08-29-2007, 06:24 PM
But not quite "good". He'll also be 36 heading into next season. I'd rather double down my $8million on two question marks with higher upsides.


That shouldn't be a problem in Redsland. Without the upside of course.:rolleyes:

jojo
08-29-2007, 06:38 PM
Not really. He had a good august and in every other month pretty much stunk.

I guess that's true if you evaluate pitchers via their ERA.

Loaiza would be an upgrade over anyone in the Reds rotation not named Harang or Arroyo.

pedro
08-29-2007, 06:50 PM
I guess that's true if you evaluate pitchers via their ERA.

Loaiza would be an upgrade over anyone in the Reds rotation not named Harang or Arroyo.

you can hang on his peripherals all you want. I still think it's a pretty big risk.

apparently so did Billy Beane

jojo
08-29-2007, 07:04 PM
you can hang on his peripherals all you want. I still think it's a pretty big risk.

apparently so did Billy Beane

Since a pitcher's peripherals are indicative of his true skillset, I think everyone should hang on them. The question is does he still have the skills to be a good major league starter? His peripherals suggest yes. Moving to the NL will probably give him a boost too.

Beane letting him go doesn't automatically mean that he thinks Loaiza is done. Rather, this probably means he's figured out a way to make his roster better for that $8M.

BTW, the Dodgers thought Loaiza was a pretty good risk in the heat of a pennant race.

pedro
08-29-2007, 07:15 PM
Since a pitcher's peripherals are indicative of his true skillset, I think everyone should hang on them. The question is does he still have the skills to be a good major league starter? His peripherals suggest yes. Moving to the NL will probably give him a boost too.

Beane letting him go doesn't automatically mean that he thinks Loaiza is done. Rather, this probably means he's figured out a way to make his roster better for that $8M.

BTW, the Dodgers thought Loaiza was a pretty good risk in the heat of a pennant race.

yeah, I get that. Nevertheless, I think people on RZ often get way too caught up on peripherals.

As for the Dodgers, I think it's an acceptable risk for them with their payroll and the fact that they're still in it this year.

Now, if the Reds were going to have a 90 million payroll next year then by all means, risk away!

jojo
08-29-2007, 07:21 PM
yeah, I get that, thanks for the lesson. Nevertheless, I think people on RZ often get way too caught up on peripherals.

As for the Dodgers, I think it's an acceptable risk for them with their payroll and the fact that they're still in it this year.

Now, if the Reds were going to have a 90 million payroll next year then by all means, risk away!

I'm not preaching at you. I'm arguing that players should be evaluated based upon their true abilities when arguing about their risk.....

If the Reds sign a free agent starter this off season who is a reasonable bet to be at least league average , they'll likely spend more than $8M per and it'll require a multi-year commitment (and historically free agent starters are poor risks). Loaiza is a safe bet to be at least league average and he only required a one year commitment by the Dodgers. That to me seems like minimizing risk...

pedro
08-29-2007, 07:25 PM
I'm not preaching at you. I'm arguing that players should be evaluated based upon their true abilities when arguing about their risk.....

If the Reds sign a free agent starter this off season who is a reasonable bet to be at least league average , they'll likely spend more than $8M per and it'll require a multi-year commitment (and historically free agent starters are poor risks). Loaiza is a safe bet to be at least league average and he only required a one year commitment by the Dodgers. That to me seems like minimizing risk...

I guess that really depends on how healthy he is.

I agree about the one year deal thing. I just don't think the Reds are in a position to guarantee that kind of money to a guy who has only pitched 14 innings this year.

Rojo
08-29-2007, 07:34 PM
Loaiza is a safe bet to be at least league average and he only required a one year commitment by the Dodgers.

I want to underpay for league average not overpay for it.

IslandRed
08-29-2007, 07:50 PM
I want to underpay for league average not overpay for it.

I would, too. But stuff costs what it costs. Anyone who is a free agent, has proven himself capable of league average, and has a reasonable expectation of doing it again is going to cost significant money to sign. If you want a bargain, you have to gamble -- on health, on youth, on potential not yet realized. Some gambles are worth taking but there'd better be a fallback plan.

Rojo
08-29-2007, 08:20 PM
I would, too. But stuff costs what it costs. Anyone who is a free agent, has proven himself capable of league average, and has a reasonable expectation of doing it again is going to cost significant money to sign. If you want a bargain, you have to gamble -- on health, on youth, on potential not yet realized. Some gambles are worth taking but there'd better be a fallback plan.

Isn't this thinking behind the Stanton and Cormier contract? Pay for reliable.

I'd spread the risk. Find two or three younger, higher-upside options and hope that one of them works out.

jojo
08-29-2007, 08:36 PM
Isn't this thinking behind the Stanton and Cormier contract? Pay for reliable.

I'd spread the risk. Find two or three younger, higher-upside options and hope that one of them works out.

The thinking behind Stanton and Cormier was flawed... it had everything to do with the back of their baseball cards and nothing to do with actually evaluating their true ability.

Rojo
08-29-2007, 09:12 PM
The thinking behind Stanton and Cormier was flawed... it had everything to do with the back of their baseball cards and nothing to do with actually evaluating their true ability.

If you see something in the tea leaves, share. But I see a $8 million gamble on league average. Pass.

jojo
08-29-2007, 09:33 PM
If you see something in the tea leaves, share. But I see a $8 million gamble on league average. Pass.

I'd reverse the question and ask, what are the Reds options for a league average starter capable of 175 IP that require only throwing $8M at them for a year?

IslandRed
08-29-2007, 10:19 PM
Isn't this thinking behind the Stanton and Cormier contract? Pay for reliable.

I'd spread the risk. Find two or three younger, higher-upside options and hope that one of them works out.

Well, there's the rub... a young major-league-ready guy with higher upside than league average is a pretty dadgum solid prospect, and he isn't easily obtained if he isn't already in the organization. Average isn't exciting, but league-average innings munchers are harder to find than we'd think. I'd have no problem spending $8 million on a league average starter IF the evidence genuinely suggested that's what I'd get. Odds are, a legit league-average starter is going to cost at least $10 million this offseason, if any such creatures are available in the first place.

Rojo
08-30-2007, 02:34 AM
I'd reverse the question and ask, what are the Reds options for a league average starter capable of 175 IP that require only throwing $8M at them for a year?

Lohse is likely to do it for $4M this year.

M2 posted it in another thread, you look for distressed contracts, young guys who've flopped early, down years.

With Loaiza your taking gamble on him being league average. If I'm going to pay for that I'd better be dam sure that I can write "league average" in stone.

mth123
08-30-2007, 05:37 AM
Lohse is likely to do it for $4M this year.

M2 posted it in another thread, you look for distressed contracts, young guys who've flopped early, down years.

With Loaiza your taking gamble on him being league average. If I'm going to pay for that I'd better be dam sure that I can write "league average" in stone.

Loaiza is a distressed contract coming off down years. That very description precludes anyone from ever writing "League Average in stone." I don't think you can search based on down years and write "league average in stone" at the same time. Loaiza has a much better chance to be a valauble starter than Kyle Lohse. In 2008, Lohse will cost more than $8 Million and there will be some additional years and likely a big signing bonus to boot.

I'm not saying I would take on Loaiza for $8 Million without more than a handful of innings to see if he's over his troubles or if there is any lingering effect (because I probably wouldn't). But other than health issues, I do believe that Loaiza has a better chance to be a decent starter than anyone on the Free Agent list. I'd just prefer more innings to go on. If he shows health and a rebound to his normal stuff in September and the Dodgers are willing to try and get out from under the $ for a minor league suspect/middling prospect or a major league spare part (Ryan Freel??) I'd be for it.

pedro
08-30-2007, 12:41 PM
BTW - BP says Loiza is signed for two more years for $14.5 million

that's a little more risky.

edit : scratch that.... the second year is an option...which actually makes it him more attractive.

Rojo
08-30-2007, 01:57 PM
Loaiza is a distressed contract coming off down years.


Lifetime era: 4.60, K/9 less than 6, whip 1.41. That might be worth $8 million (although I betcha you could find just as good for less) but is it worth a gamble?

Rojo
08-30-2007, 02:03 PM
I do believe that Loaiza has a better chance to be a decent starter than anyone on the Free Agent list.


That list is crap, stay away.

M2
08-30-2007, 03:52 PM
Lohse is likely to do it for $4M this year.

M2 posted it in another thread, you look for distressed contracts, young guys who've flopped early, down years.

With Loaiza your taking gamble on him being league average. If I'm going to pay for that I'd better be dam sure that I can write "league average" in stone.

I'd categorize Loaiza as a distressed contract. That doesn't mean he's a distressed contract I'd want. Loaiza's had a mercurial career, makes him hard to rely on.

Tim Hudson was a distressed contract last season (and still might be heading into 2008). Basically, anyone who costs more than his team wants to pay qualifies.

It's always interesting when the A's unload a contract though because you have to figure Beane's got some creative spending plans this offseason (particularly with Kendall off the books too).

IslandRed
08-30-2007, 06:55 PM
It's always interesting when the A's unload a contract though because you have to figure Beane's got some creative spending plans this offseason (particularly with Kendall off the books too).

I'm curious as to whether Oakland is going to go backwards in payroll. They'd been floating along in the $55-60 million range for a few years and then stepped up to nearly $80 million this year and don't have much to show for it. Was that a one-shot deal or is ownership going to stand some losses looking forward to the new ballpark? (Did that ever get final approval?) I don't know.