The incentives include $125,000 for his first day on the active roster, $500,000 if he is on the active roster on the last day of the season, and $35,000 for each day after June 1 that he's not on the disabled list -- up to $4.375 million.

So he gets $35,000 every day for just not being hurt....? Baseball players have the best job.

Why not give a younger player who posseses equal or greater talent the opportunity to perform?

Well, those younger players of equal or greater talent WILL get their opportunities, both in Spring Training and during the course of the long, long season. I believe that part of the nature of the bullpen beast is that if those guys have the talent, we will not be able to keep them out of the majors.

What's the upside of giving money to an old used up gut like Mota?

The upside is that you need to gather as many people as possible. The season is long, and the bet on Mota is small enough that even if there's only a 10% chance that he's got one last swan song in him, it's worth the shot. Bullpens are risky, and more bodies mitigates the risk.

I suppose that the counter argument could be that Mota's paycheck will keep him in the majors, but I don't know if I'm buying that.

I'm not a huge DeWitt fan by any means, but Young just doesn't do anything particularly well, and there's some things he's very bad at. Offensively there wasn't a huge difference between the two (91 OPS+ to 96) and Young's defense is so bad he probably shouldn't be a middle infielder. Young is 10 years older, and is making something like 70 million more than DeWitt.

I will savor the Vin experience this season.

Tempus Fugit indeed {misty eyes}

Yeah, but Young won an All-Star game or two. What did DeWitt ever win?

In the past I've mocked the complaining over spending a few million on a used up PVL but as D4P pointed out in the last thread that few million could end up costing us dearly.

Someone else said that Ned has done a good job of managing the bullpen since he arrived but I beg to differ. One of the first deals he made was to bring in Baez and Carter. Other then Saito falling in his lap the only other notetworthy relief pitcher was Beimel that was not handed to him by Logan White.

And yes I used Google to confirm the speeling of "noogies."

You should have just asked me. That's my beagle's name (Noogie).

Oh, and you should have checked the spelling of "spelling" while you were at it. :)

The performance history of players who were dependent on Peds and are now forced off is consistently an ugly one.

This is another Gary Bennett - Andruw Jones - waiting to happen - did it happen in the latter third of last season?

$1,600,000.00 is alot of money.
Why not "give it" to Russell Martin?

About the second point, right, he got Baez and Carter. Not so good. But before the season was out, he had jettisoned both. And "Saito falling into his lap" makes it sound like some sort of accident -- and while I don't think anybody expected him to be as good as he was, the design of the plan was to gather as many people as possible and hope that some pan out, and that has worked. In the case of Saito, it worked quite splendidly.

Again, especially in the beginning, Ned was conscious of trying to have backups (and in fact was right to bring in another closer since Gagne was not healthy.)

As of right now, the pecking order is Broxton in the ninth, Kuo and sometimes Wade in the eighth and Mota in the seventh. But that's just a rough template that could change on a nightly basis depending on the situation

But for the bullpen specifically, and for a contract the size of this one, I just can't get upset about it.

I'll drop this now.

As for why not giving it to Russell Martin: well, yes, of course. And Kemp, and Broxton, and Billingsley, and Kershaw. Dodgers haven't made any deals with their talent yet. This is bothersome. But you're implying that Guillermo Mota is getting that money, and I just don't see that connection.

Ha! Oops.

Mota isn't taking anything away from anyone other than McCourt - and us the paying fans.

Hey maybe I'm wrong - I'm always prepared for that :)

Baseball, and in most cases, works this way where business profits by paying lower salaries to the least experienced.

And for a lot of players, the first 3 years is where the teams get the chance to lower overall team costs.

The more and more I see deals like Bill Hall got in Milwaukee, the more I wonder if the Dodgers are not better off going year to year. I mean year to year only hurts if the player explodes like a Fielder, Howard, Utley, Wright, Hanley Ramirez or Ryan Braun.

And right now, you can't say that any of the young Dodgers will ever be that good in the near future.

50+ years later and the LA baseball fan experience is exactly the same. ;)

Thanks for linking the Daily Mirror Jon, that is a gold mine.

The counterexample during the Ned era being, who?

Billingsley.

Kemp
Kershaw

http://tinyurl.com/8zl7zw

Carreer OPS+ 116.

As I said, Baez. Carter too. Ned got both to anchor his bullpen, and when it was clear that neither was helping, he got rid of both of them.

Even Andruw Jones is a good example. I was in favor of giving the guy every shot to perform, every chance to show it was just a slump. When it became clear that it was not just a slump, Colletti traded for Ramirez. He benched the highest-paid player in franchise history four months into that player's tenure with the team.

Lowe and Javy Vazquez should be great additions to the rotation, and you have to really like that IF/C group they have.

I guess you can make the argument that the Dodgers want as many veteran bullpen arms that they can get, but its already a crowded bullpen with Wade, Broxton, Kuo, Troncoso, and Stults, and now Mota. What if Vargas or Estes pitches well enough to make the club, are the Dodgers going to cut Greg Miller(as somebody pointed above.), are they going to cut Stults out? Are they going to put Troncoso at AAA so they can make room? It just seems unneeded.

Heck, they even gave rehab bats to Andruw Jones on the major league level! If anything, Ned was way too soft on Jones.

As for Miller, he's such a longshot anyway. If he pitches well enough to make the club, great. Otherwise, he'd be gone no matter who we signed.

This year it is Estes. Vargas and Mota are not insurance, they are going to be on the 25 man roster. Estes will take innings away from Stults, he is not damage free. Juan Castro is not damage free, there is a price to be paid when crappy players get roster spots. I didn't use to care about the 25th players but I've changed my tune.

Wow, that's some crazy incentives in that deal.

Saito will earn $500,000 if he appears in 50 games, an additional $500,000 for every five games he pitches thereafter, up to his 70th game. He'll also earn $500,000 for every 30 days he spends on the active roster.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2009/01/details-of-taka.html

I have a hard time believing that Management completely ignores this kinda stuff when making in-game decisions.

Plus, its easier to care when the entire team is across the board mediocre. If the Dodgers were loaded with superstars, I doubt many would care who the 25th guy was.

Just in case you didn't know.

This IS the finest site on the planet!

Technically, this is true. On August 1, Manny and Jones both started.

Jones's next start was August 8. And then September 9. Three games started once Manny arrived. He had a few other appearances in there, but off the bench.

I'm sure you're wondering about Pierre. He started on August 2 and 3, August 7, August 12, August 15, and August 20. Six games started after Manny arrived.

While I haven't checked, I believe that the starting outfield in all games other than those nine was Ramirez-Kemp-Ethier.

I don't think I'm out of line to say that they got Ramirez to bench Jones.

"The club option will be guaranteed for Saito's total 2009 earnings and will retain any incentive clauses he didn't meet in his first year of the deal."

I think it's just the value of the option that fluctuates, but I could be wrong.

Meanwhile, as someone who attends some Braves games every year, 37 is hilarious and yet so true. When they were good, they couldn't sell out playoff games.

http://blogs.pe.com/prosports/2009/01/hu-and-kuo-say-no.html

73 I wouldn't care if he wins the MVP next year, its obvious now that he would never be a productive player for the Dodgers.

1. Pedro Alvarez, 3b, Pirates
2. Madison Bumgarner, lhp, Giants
3. Colby Rasmus, of, Cardinals
4. Buster Posey, c, Giants
5. Tommy Hanson, rhp, Braves
6. Logan Morrison, 1b, Marlins
7. Jason Heyward, of, Braves
8. Dexter Fowler, of, Rockies
9. Cameron Maybin, of, Marlins
10. Mike Stanton, of, Marlins

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/ask-ba/2009/267429.html

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1497459/

Chad Billingsley
Clayton Kershaw
James McDonald
Cory Wade
Jon Broxton

James McDonald...let's see how the kid does in his first major league start first.

This is a running joke at my office, since I was directly involved with this misquote by Plaschke.

Just because we are burning $2 million on Mota doesn't mean we should do so with everyone.

I'm not sure how seriously to take this statement. It seems obvious to me that IF Andruw Jones were to win MVP next year (or, heck, even be a productive player), then he likely would have been a productive player for the Dodgers as well. Because it would mean that he figured something out that eluded him last year - a hitch in his swing or something.

Either you think Jones is done or you think he can bounce back. It seems nonsensical to suggest that one fate is obvious in LA but another is possible in Atlanta. At least not at the extremes of "MVP" vs. "unproductive."

Perhaps you were just using hyperbole, but I'm not sure of the point. I believe in park effects and even a little in attitude changes that result from a "comfort zone," but not to the point that it makes the difference between a terrific year and a horrible one.

76 - Man, I know I'm biased against the Giants, but the bits I've seen of Madison Bumgarner on the web make me wonder what I'm missing about him. I don't see him as the next Lincecum or even Cain. Hopefully I...won't be proven wrong.

94 Well, its not as if the Dodgers were going to give Jones many more chances. It got to the point where they explored the possibility of voiding the contract. At least with the Braves, he's going to get a chance, however small to prove he can still play.

The Dodgers aren't going to give him that chance.

UCLA needs offensive linemen badly and looks like we are not going to get any elite ones.

98
Eric Davis age 30 on the Dodgers 85OPS+
Eric Davis age 34 back with the Reds 139OPS+

Wow, the team has some gumption.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=Apf.y5RvZ_yWypiIIAWKKNG8vLYF?slug=aw-milesupdate011209&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

The scouts rated him at 80 on gumption.

John Tudor, 1989 with Dodgers: 0-0, 3.14 ERA, 14 IP
John Tudor, 1990 back with the Cardinals: 12-4, 2.80 ERA, 146 IP

He's being released so he can return to SF and win the Cy Young.

Looks like quite a battle shaping up for Comeback Player of the Year between Mr. Ortiz and Mr. A. Jones.

Tripon qualified his claim. Now it appears that what he means is that EVEN IF Jones were to "figure it out," he'd never be allowed to prove it in Dodger Blue because the team wouldn't give him a chance. I don't believe that. If he were on the roster, and started to hit, even in limited time, like the Jones the team thought it was getting (let alone, at MVP levels, as imagined in 75 ), his PT would increase accordingly.

So my claim wasn't that players can't bounce back, and that there isn't evidence of that for players who have switched teams. It's that our expectations should not be conditional on the change of team, except on the margin (and the difference between MVP and unproductive is not the margin.

Davis and Tudor bounced back. My contention is that, had they stayed in LA, the same thing would have happened.

Similar to when people would argue that had he stayed in LA, Beltre would not have regressed in 2005.

You are the cruelest man in the world.

125. Certainly a weird case. For a reliever, I wonder if park effects explain a lot of it though. Do we know if Carrara was the sort of pitcher that would benefit from the ways in which DS suppresses offense? I don't remember.

Carrara might be the exception that proves the rule (which expression I never understood until I discovered that the original meaning of "prove" is "test," as in "proving ground"). IOW, either Carrara's "Dodgers only" abilities are just random fluctuation or else they can be explained.

Actually, no you can't. I get what you're saying, but all you can cite are instances where a change of scenery was correlated with a change in performance. You can't prove causality. Other than instances in which a player got a chance to play after riding pine (Brian Giles, for example), there's just no way to infer causation. Not without a lot more evidence than the performance itself.

For example, if a player says that a new coach taught him a new pitch, or fixed a delivery or a swing, then sure. And while I said I do believe that psychological factors matter, my initial reaction to Tripon's 75 was over his claim that even if Jones were to win the MVP next year, he would continue to believe that Jones in LA in 2009 would have been more of the same from 2008. My reaction was that that's logically inconsistent without invoking magic.

Guess Rice is 55, Rickey 49, so six years difference?

Would Joe Morgan have become Joe Morgan if he never got out from under the Astrodome? He was very mediocre the last three years with the Astro's before he exploded into stardom with the Reds.

I tend to believe that circumstance is very important, not as important as skill but some players may only thrive in a certain type of environment. Maybe it takes a winning environment, or maybe it it something else but I certainly wouldn't agree that a player would hit 330 no matter what team he was playing for. Maybe for most of them, but not for enough that you cannot make a blanket statement that skill will win out no matter what the environment is.