Tuesday, 30 October 2012

Just Throwin' Him Out There...

Ethier may be available, and this is a problem.


When Carl Crawford came over, many Dodgers fans (myself included) began wringing our hands and gleefully grinning over what this meant for the team. First and foremost, we were in the middle of the Shane Victorino Experiment, and bringing on a guy like Crawford meant we would have four outfielders (should Victorino re-sign) going towards 2013. So who was the odd man out? Crawford is on a huge contract, Matt Kemp is Matt Kemp, and Andre Ethier had just been extended five years. And when Victorino had made it clear he wanted to be an everyday player, many Dodgers fans were more than happy to reply with hopes of a door not hitting a certain Hawaiian ass as it flew out the door and into a section of memory reserved for the likes Andruw Jones. The thought of a 2013 with a healthy outfield of Crawford, Kemp and Ethier was down right gorgeous in our minds. Crawford hitting ahead of Kemp could have to potential of greatness. Ethier is just added flair. You couldn't pitch around A-Gone or Hanley with confidence, knowing a former 30 home-run bat was taking warm-up swings. This line-up had the possibility to do amazing things.

And then, Buster Olney broke the news and sent Dodgers fans into panic. Ned Colletti is open to trading Andre Ethier. 

Now, I'm not Colletti's biggest supporter, but I'm also not his biggest critic. He seems to blur the line between total genius and incompetent fool. Hell, bringing in Andre was the very first thing he did when he took the job as general manager, and he did it for dirt cheap. And I know that "open to trading Ethier" isn't the same thing as "actively shopping Ethier", but I don't get why either would be an option right now. He developed into a great talent. He's not a superstar, but not everyone has to be. He's a fan favourite. He's a solid bat for later in the line-up. Sure, he's streaky. Sure, he struggles against lefties. He's not going to be an NL MVP. He's might not break 30 homers again, but that's fine. Solid is the perfect word to describe him, and that's all he needs to be. Why in the hell should we trade him? More importantly, who would replace him?

I'll be the first to admit it...there are some outfielders on the market that I wouldn't mind seeing in Dodger blue. But that's the extent it gets to. I "wouldn't mind" it. Sure, a 1-2-3 of Michael Bourn-Carl Crawford-Matt Kemp is enticing. Yeah, Cody Ross has the power against lefties that Andre lacks. And I've always been a BJ Upton fan, so seeing him on my favourite team would be awesome. But with all these names, there's only one thing that keeps coming back: They aren't Andre Ethier. 

We don't need Bourn's base-stealing skills with Crawford, Kemp and a pray-to-God-he-returns-to-form Dee Gordon. Cody Ross can hit lefties, but Kemp and Gonzalez dominate them as well. Yasiel Puig may very well be to SoCal version of Oakland A's left fielder Yoenis Cespedes, but we can't rely on him being ready with no back up plan should he falter. 

The thing Ethier brings right now is stability. He's solid at the plate. He's solid in the field. He's tried, tested and true. Fans love him. Donnie seems to love him. He seems to love the city and team. He's got his flaws, but most ball players do. I don't see a (realistic) scenario in my head where trading him makes this team better. He's worth more to the Dodgers than he is to other teams. The Dodgers need someone to slot in behind Kershaw in the pitching rotation. Andre Ethier won't net them that in a trade. And trading him for bullpen help just seems like we'd end up feeling ripped off. With the pool of free agent outfielders shallow, and the trade value on a player like Ethier low...it only makes sense to keep him where he belongs: In a Dodgers uniform. Ned can't be that stupid, can he?

Then again...

No comments:

Post a Comment