December 22nd, 2015 at 6:00 am 
by Ron Cervenka If you were running a major league baseball team and had an outfielder who appeared in 142 games, had a batting average of .294, an on-base percentage of .366 and a slugging percentage of .486 for an OPS of .852, would you be looking to trade him? I mean, let’s face it, these are very good numbers, right?
When you consider that left fielder Carl Crawford had a slash-line of .265 / .304 / .403 for a .707 OPS in 69 games; Joc Pederson a slash-line of .210 / .346 / .417 for an OPS of .763 (but also tied a franchise record with 170 strikeouts) in 151 games; Yasiel Puig a slash-line of .255 / .322 / .436 / for a .758 OPS in 79 games, you quickly realize that the first guy was, in fact, you best outfielded.
So who is the mystery man?
It’s Andre Ethier, who will be celebrating his 34th birthday on April 10 – just seven days after the Dodgers kickoff the 2016 season. The question, of course, is: will Ethier still be a Dodger then?
When you get right down to it, who would you rather have at the plate with the game on the line than Andre Ethier. (Photo credit – Jon SooHoo)
With repeated claims by Andrew Friedman and Farhan Zaidi that they want to “get younger,” Ethier does not figure into their plans. However, because he has 10 years of service time of which the last five have been with the same team, Ethier has what is called “10 and 5 rights” and, as such, has the right to veto any trade for the duration of his contract, which expires after the 2017 season. In other words, the Dodgers have until Opening Day if they wish to trade Ethier or possibly be forced to keep him for the next two years.
But would Friedman and Zaidi do that? Would they trade their best outfielder before Opening Day just to get out from under the 10 and 5 rule?
“Our goal to put together the best roster,” Zaidi told reporters at the annual General Managers Meeting in November. “If a guy is part of that roster, in that time he’s going to secure those rights, that’s fine.”
What Zaidi is saying is that he and Friedman aren’t going to let Ethier’s situation dictate what they plan to do with him, but the simple truth is, how can it not? If they do not trade him before Opening Day, he can demand to remain with the Dodgers for all of 2016 and 2017 with the Dodgers on the hook for $35.5 million – plus a $17.5 million option for 2018 or a $2.5 million buyout. Keep in mind that Ethier will be 34 in 2016 and 35 in 2017 – not over the hill by any means but definitely pushing the envelope a bit.
But here again, Ethier was the Dodgers’ best offensive outfielder in 2015 and may be more tradable right now than at any other time in his 10-year MLB career – especially to an American League team.
Meaning absolutely no disrespect whatsoever to the Phoenix, AZ native and longest tenured Dodger, 2015 may have been more of an aberration for Ethier than anything else. Even though he has a very respectable career slash-line of .286 / .359 / .464 and impressive .823 career OPS, his great season in 2015 came on the heels of the worst season of his career in 2014, when he hit only .249. That being said, it’s impossible to believe that that the terrible seasons that Puig and Pederson had in 2015 weren’t aberrations either, but on the other end of the spectrum.
Additionally, utility infielder/outfielder Kiké Hernandez – who played 34 games in the Dodgers outfield in 2015 (usually in place of the struggling Pederson) – was smoking hot offensively in the final two months of the season and might very well play himself into an everyday role with the club in 2016, which puts even more pressure on Friedman and Zaidi regarding Ethier.
What it all boils down to is that if the Dodgers do not find a trade partner for Ethier between now and Opening Day, and should he have his normal red hot spring, this whole “getting younger” thing may have to wait a couple more years when it comes to “Captain Clutch.”
…and that might not be a bad thing.
Posted in 
Let’s hope the FO concentrates on something else and forgets all about Ethier, if that’s possible.
‘Dre has always been a favorite of mine, so I’m somewhat prejudiced, but to trade him and keep Crawford would be the dumbest thing they could do. If they can get equal or greater value for him, fine, but I’m not sure how you would define “equal value”. Personally, I hope they will be patient and give the kids a chance to fill the rotation rather than trade for second rate starters. I really like the fact that they’ve so far held on to their top prospects. In fact, the only player they’ve traded so far that I really miss is Dee Gordon (and I’m not forgetting Matt Kemp who was also a personal favorite).
Andre still cant hit lefties, and that’s a lot of money to spend on a 34 year old platoon outfielder.
Andre only had 48 plate appearances against lefties. Makes a great platoon. .306 against righties.
They can either pay him to play with the Dodgers or pay him to play elsewhere. I hate paying guys to play elsewhere. If you have to do that pay for Carl to play for another team.
However, Andre in my opinion, is much more tradeable than Carl so more likely to be traded.
The Dodgers still have a bit of an outfield glut and it seems Puig is not a candidate to be traded.
I totally agree. I especially hate paying good players to play elsewhere. Yes, Pederson, Puig, and also Van Slyke can come back from meager seasons or less, there is little guarantee that they will. Pederson especially worries me. He looked severely beaten by Major League pitching by the second half with no correction in sight. Puig’s biggest problem is his maturity and I think it severely affects his hitting. Hopefully, another year and an inspiring manager will help. Also, trimming down might give him back some kind of running game. Sadly, I don’t ever see him as a lead off hitter which is what the Dodgers most need. But if he could just become a middle of the order power bat that would be good enough. Van Slyke may have gone as far as he can in a Dodger uniform. With the present cost of a replacement outfielder, Dre just might be a bargain for two years. And paying crawford to play elsewhere just might turn out to be cheap.