Thursday, July 31, 2008

Dodgers, Unlikely To Land Professor, Shift Trade Focus to Gilligan, Maryann

Buster Olney blogged this morning that the Dodgers are unlikely to get Greg Maddux through a trade (which may not be such a bad thing):

The conversations between the Dodgers and Padres about future Hall of Famer Greg Maddux have hit a roadblock, and it's unclear whether the two sides will continue talks on Thursday. The Dodgers have mild interest in Maddux, who essentially has boxed in San Diego with his insistence that he can be dealt only to a West Coast team; the rival Dodgers are the only team on the coast with a need for a starter. The two sides are far apart in agreeing on what compensation is appropriate for the pitcher.

If Maddux is not dealt before the deadline, the Dodgers could try to place a waiver claim on the pitcher in August, and once again, the Padres would be left with little leverage.

Olney correctly points out that we have ALL the leverage here and can just wait this out. Maddux doesn't want to stay in San Diego, and as Orel and Karina and others have pointed out on this blog, would be a good fit as a Dodger starter as well as mentor to Clayton Kershaw, Chad Billingsley, and any other player that wants to listen and learn.

I have a feeling Maddux ends up coming back here, but hopefully we get him for nothing.

UPDATE 11:50a: Five minutes ago, Jayson Stark reiterated that no deal for Maddux will be made:

Maybe Greg Maddux isn't going to wind up back with the Dodgers after all. The Dodgers and Padres have always been uncomfortable making deals with each other. And with 90 minutes left until the deadline, they've been unable to reach agreement on a trade that would send Maddux back to L.A., the only team he has told the Padres to which he would approve a deal.

One source familiar with the two clubs' discussions say the $3.3 million remaining on Maddux's salary this year is not a major issue. But the Dodgers have been unwilling to make anything beyond a modest offer as they're aware they're the only taker.

0 comments: