otherwise, wait til the offseason.

would mean the A's are officially rebuilding.  While the team has a bit of depth in starting pitching, there isn't THAT much depth for next season.  It means hoping for DiNardo, Braden, et cetera.

Loaiza could bring a decent return because he is signed through next year, so he wouldn't simply be a one-month rental.

I'll let everyone else hash out the possibilities in the Dodger farm system.  

As I am not optimistic about 2008 with or without Loaiza, I would support a trade - depending on what the A's get in return.

Do they have to clear waivers too? If so isn't it unlikeley that anything happens by 8/31 deadline?

Having been to the game last night and watching a team send up Wells, Thomas, and Glaus in the 12th inning (wow did I have a bad feeling), my initial feeling is we must get a hitter for E-Lo now.  Right now he has had 2 good outings and therefore maybe has his highest value in the marketplace. But.....

What if he has 4 more good outings this year?  Then his value is higher in the off-season.  Or he could be awful, and his value plummets. But..

He is only making $7 mil next year.  Do we have a cheaper replacement in the wings?  We won't find anything on the open market for less.  Does it make sense to keep him?  Or is our rotation okay without him?  (If we deal him, I think we must keep Blanton).

The biggest need is some offense.  We can't hope to compete if we keep sending out the western version of the Rivercats every night.  Trading is probably our only way to find some power hitters as I don't see the pocketbooks opening for Tori Hunter or Andruw Jones.

It will be interesting to see what Billy does. Stay tuned.

and Richwol and I were talking about how hard he was getting hit in the first few innings, yet runs were not scoring.  Then in the fourth or fifth he settled down and started getting the weak flys and grounders.

If I could get the exact prospect(s) that I wanted now, I'd do it. If not, I'd hold him until after the season and shop him again. Same deal though.

If healthy, and he's due, then he is a solid middle of the rotation guy, and at the deadline next season he could really fetch a good package, perhaps.  

That if BB did deal Loaiza, that there is this thing that exists called a "Free Agent Market".  That's where we found E-Lo, afterall.  I know the A's haven't done much as far as free agents goes, and free agent pitchers are rarely ever a good deal, but there will be starting pitching options out there for BB to consider in order to allow the A's to contend next season.

A few examples:

Shawn Estes - lefty coming off of injury could be cheap

Kenny Rogers - lefty, and pitched well here before, and we wouldn't have to face him!

Tony Armas - sucked this year, so should be cheap

Paul Byrd - could be cheap due to age/not so stellar performance last two seasons in Cleveland

Jason Jennings - imploded in Houston after being effective in Colorado.  Could be rebuilt in Oakland.

Aaron Sele - coming out of bullpen this year, but has pitched okay.  Maybe he could become a starter again.  Very cheap.

Tim Wakefield - I only list him here because as a knuckleballer, he could pitch effectively until he's 50 years old, and I just love watching him pitch.  I'm sick, I know.

LaRoche or Hu would qualify for me, although if dylantravis is correct above and waivers are required for anyone on the 40-man (not just the 25-man) roster, then LaRoche couldn't be the guy.

I'm with Eck and oaklandcrazy above: we shouldn't do this without a very respectable return. Loaiza's not very exciting, but people should not underestimate how valuable a property his contract is. He hasn't provided all that much value to the A's so far because of the injuries, but he's a very solid pitcher when healthy. He's been inconsistent, but he's been pitcher of the month as recently as last August, which is a level you simply can't achieve if you're really a stiff. Health is the concern, of course, but he had been pretty durable before showing up in Oakland (proximity to Larry Davis apparently proved deadly).

Although he hasn't been worth what we've paid him so far, the fact is that his contract going forward is actually a very good one: $7 million is dirt cheap in today's market for a decent starting pitcher. And the option is a heck of a selling point. If he stinks in '08, you cut him loose. If he shines, you pick up the option for what you hope will be another below-market year of solid performance. That kind of flexibility for the team that owns that contract is very valuable--it's essentially a 2-year contract where you can void the second year if things go bad. Actually it's hard for me to believe he cleared waivers (assuming he did, or else the info that the Dodgers are interested must be mistaken)--maybe we were lucky he didn't look good enough early enough in his rehab that teams were willing to venture a claim at the time he was put on waivers.

The 4 weeks plus 1 year plus 1 option year on Loaiza's contract are a real asset. They're a real asset to us (although since we're out of it this year the 4 weeks part is not as useful to us as they could be to a contender, which is one fact that favors a trade), and should only be traded if we can get another very solid asset.

I know this is just speculation, but you are not getting Andy LaRoche for Estaban Loaiza. I know Ned's trading history isn't the greatest, but LaRoche is by far our best hitting prospect, and we have Shea Hillenbrand playing third right now. LaRoche isn't getting moved for a mediocre starter.

There is no way the Dodgers are going to trade either Andy LaRoche or Hu for Loaiza.  While you are at it, why don't you wish for Billingsley, Broxton and Kemp.
vr, Xei

His 2008 dollars can be used to sign Blanton for 3 years . . .
Besides, "reliable unnamed sources" have indicated that his DUI was not an isolated incident -- it's unfortunately indicative of a greater problem (little reading between the lines needed here)
Trade now . . .