You know what, even with the taste of that Uruguay loss starting to fade, I'm still pretty down about this hire (who am I kidding, the taste hasn't even remotely started to fade, I haven't looked at a Uruguayan newspaper since Wednesday and have yet to go back to any soccer sites, in fact, I still couldn't spoil Bob for the results of the T&T and Bahrain game since I have no idea what has happened in world cup qualifying since early Wednesday morning).
Regardless, I think I'm with Jay Jaffe in this discussion, I just haven't seen anything to really recommend him at all.

Thanks for the squaretable. Nice discussion.

So, we meet the new boss. Same as the old boss? I'm not convinced there are likely to be as many significant differences between Colletti and Paul DePodesta as people think

Maybe it's true. I'm certainly trying to keep an open mind until actual moves are made. But you know what's depressing to me? The feel I get is that the whole thrust of the Dodger organization now is to be as much like everybody else as they can possibly be. Hire good old "baseball men" who know how to be "baseball men" like all the other "baseball men" who've also known about baseball. (So, you hire Fergosi because he's been places, not because of the place he could take you.) It's as if the idea isn't to aim higher than other organizations, to blaze trails and leave them behind, but simply to be as unremarkable as possible. I'm not saying that the GOAL is actually to be mediocre or not to win, but it's as if you're supposed to win by being more of an amalgam of "every other baseball team" than are any of your rivals. (Not sure that's clear. I guess it's hard to express.)

I realize that at this point, this feeling is mostly the result of the thrust of the PR spin. After all, supposedly we could end up with Collins as the manager, just as was the case when DePo was in charge (though I highly doubt it), and he's another guy whose been around before. And who knows what players we'll actually end up with? But if the spin is supposed to calm me down, make me somehow think that baseball adults are in charge now and everything will be OK, it doesn't work. It just makes me think that there's no reason to get my hopes up too high. I do worry that the road to respectability too often heads straight through mediocrity.

I think there is a certain squeamishness in embracing a GM who comes with the Bill Plaschke/Mike Downey Seal of Approval. If the Dodgers play well, there will be plaudits for Colletti and the maneger, that may rival the accolades Mike Scioscia and Bill Stoneman get for waking up in the morning.

I agree with the comments in 2. The Dodgers plan du jour is to now be like all the other teams. Not to think differently. Not to be innovative. Even though the Dodgers past is full of innovative ideas: integration, statistical analysis, training methods.

There has to be some sort of sociological reason why baseball teams don't want to innovate. Why they want to operate like they did in the past. I wonder if much of it is a reaction to the increase in salaries and the greater power that players have. This makes baseball management and the media that covers them want to find something, anything, that might seem familiar to them.

I don't believe the McCourts are savvy enough to know why they are behaving the way they do. They are just grasping at branches as the swirling vortex of winds that is major league baseball buffet them about.

3 - There has to be some sort of sociological reason why baseball teams don't want to innovate.

Winning teams don't need to. What they confuse is correlation (winners don't change their methods) with causation (if you keep doing the same things that cause you to lose, you will continue to lose). Stability isn't necessarily a good thing; ask the Devil Rays, whose front office has had, until this year, the same guy running the ship since inception.

But how in the world did Jim Fregosi become a leading candidate?

How did this progress from seemingly innocent quotes in the Times last week conveying his interest (which we dismissed as the usual statements from an underemployed baseball guy) into front runner?

As a fan, I respect him as very, very, good player 40 years ago, and for the "Yes We Can" Angels of '79, but this is really a stretch.

The Dodgers have contacted the agents for free-agent shortstops Rafael Furcal and Royce Clayton, both before Colletti was hired.

Good God almighty in heaven above, this pain will never end.

the royce clayton thing i think is for backup ss.

i mean i asked this the other day but with izzy out and only oscar as a decent defensive SS on the roster, who would back him up if he decided to get hurt in the first half of the year?

The money he wants aside, I'd like Furcal over Izzy for his 28-32 year old seasons.

Did all the roundtable guys watch the Colletti introduction? He discounted TEAM chemistry and focused on individual character, two totally different things. We don't know how he defines character as it could mean many different things to many different people.

There has to be some sort of sociological reason why baseball teams don't want to innovate.

I don't know about baseball teams in general, but for the Dodgers, I think the answer comes out of psychology (the armchair variety, of course!)

McCourt has deep feelings of inadequacy. He's like a guy who sold his life insurance policy to buy a membership in an exclusive country club. He's in the door but he doesn't really feel like he belongs, and fears that any minute someone's going to take a look at his bank account and toss him on his rear. That's a load of anxiety.

DePodesta only increased that level of anxiety because, for better or worse, he was "controversial." Plaschke and Keisser hated him, and the national media found him indecipherable. His innovations started to seem, to poor Frank, like yet another guy casting around for a plan, rather than a real plan. DePodesta was Frank's doppelganger, and out of self-loathing and fear of exposure, he had to kill his (good) twin. That explains why McCourt seemed so uncomfortable at the news conference. Like a character in a horror movie, he'd just shot his own image in the mirror.

Hiring Colletti is a "comfort" move. Yeah, it makes the Dodgers like every other team--which is exactly the protective coloration McCourt needs. Sure, he'd like to win, too. Winning in '04 made him feel like he "belonged." But now, even if the Dodgers don't win, McCourt's done something so utterly conventional, in accord with the rules of the club, that it won't raise the same fears of being tossed out.

A "comfort" manager like Fregosi (though Piniella would be better--I'm not sure Plaschke does cartwheels over Fregosi), combined with a "comfort" shortstop like Clayton and a "comfort" outfielder like Giles, further cements McCourt's feelings of safety and security. Now he can relax, tell jokes with the other members, take a few swings at the driving range, and feeling like his fraudulent heart will not be discovered--not yet anyway. Not til the bankers come knocking.

clayton looks a lot like a more expensive robles. Clayton has less power, better base stealer, small comparison sample size.

7 - I'd rather it be Guzman than Clayton.

9 - I didn't buy into his discussion of individual character, since the individual characters that have been on the Giants are no better than anyone else's.

Isn't Perez a decent SS? It's the hot corner he had problems with, right?

I think Depo would've really enjoyed a "comfort" outfielder like Giles. An outifeld of Giles and (healthy) Drew would be a sabermetric wet dream. You could easily get 215 walks out of the two of them. Giles could fill an outfield gap without having to sacrifice the farm.

Probably wouldn't cost much to pry Alex Cora, and his inflated contract off the Red Sox bench.

Think of the McCourts' PR possibilities with that move.

re: 13

Perez can hit, but, to the naked eye, there are reservations on his fielding ability. I think as a full time player his offensive comp could maybe be that of a Furcal (.285/ .350/.420. I don't see him getting a good look though.

15 Actually, Clayton seems like a decent option to me, given Izturis' injury. I'd rather see ol' Royce out there every day for the first half than have to rely on Robles full-time. But Clayton's old enough where he's not going to demand a huge or lengthy contract.

That's why the Mike Lowell talk--which at first seemed absurd--has started to make sense. He's a one-year answer; how many of those are out there who has played at his level? He's Jose Valentin, except with more upside potential. He might or might not bounce back. He's in no position to make Boras-like demands for money or length of deal. He could work in tandem with Aybar, giving the manager options.

Colletti's going to be judged by how he addresses starting pitching, left field and right field--and oh yeah the manager. But how he solves the short-term problems at third and short are important micro-moves.

And maybe if he puts Clayton and Lowell on the roster, Choi's inexpensive contract and solid upside might get a pass for another year. Choi is so low-risk. If he's lousy, you can move Kent (or Lowell) to first, and play Aybar or Perez at second. He costs nothing. But if he comes around, he's a great tradeable asset when Loney arrives.

16 http://dodgerthoughts.baseballtoaster.com/archives/229581.html

Per Jon's analysis here, Perez was the best defensive 3b we fielded last year. Even if we sign Nomar I'd like to see Perez filling out the left side over Robles.

17 This is the same Royce Clayton who in the last three years he wasn't on Colorado, but up OPSes of .661,.634, and .670. Combine this with a career defense ranging from average to bad, I don't see how he's any kind of option.

Royce Clayton is a good bunter....

12
But would it be productive to put Guzman in a backup SS role rather than allow him to continue developing at Vegas? I'm not sure I want our up-and-coming kids to up-and-sit. If it means Guzman gets a year of work in on his swing, I'll stomach the likes of Clayton backing up short for a year.

21 Wouldn't you just call up Guzman and have him start if someone gets hurt?

The Furcal mention makes no sense. He's going to get the Renteria contract or more. Would he play over Izturis after the AS Break? At least Nomar can play SS and 3rd.

Re: LF Giles seems to want to play for a sure-winner so I'm pessimistic we can sway him with the Dodger mystique. Jacque Jones and Preston Wilson are the nightmare alternatives- a sure sign Colletti doesn't get it.

Philly needs a long-term solution at catcher and CF. Seems like a Navarro/Bradley/prospect package could net us Abreu. That's the kind of deal DePo would do if it could be done. Let's email this rumor to Rosenthal and see if he runs with it.

19 Or to put it another way, Oscar Robles' OPS+ last year was 88. Clayton's was 73.

I know OPS+ doesn't tell the whole story. I'm not sure that Robles can repeat what he did last year.

OTOH, I know that Clayton has only had 2 seasons in his career that surpassed the production (based on OPS+) of Robles last year and the last time he did it (98) was in 1999.

I'll take the young guy who may or may not be productive over the old guy who we know isn't productive and will be expensive.

17--Isn't Mike Lowell still owed a ton of money (like $18 mil) on his contract?

Even if Florida picks up a lot of it, that still a lot for someone whose numbers plunged last year, even if he's only 32.

22
Well, given that Izturis is likely to miss half the season, I think the idea as it stands (going back to Nate's post at 7) is to start Robles and have someone on the active roster to backup the SS position. I just don't think that backup should be Guzman. If you want Guzman to start, I'm willing to discuss. But using him as a backup (as Jon seemed to suggest), I'm not sure that's a good idea.

From Rotoworld...

The Rockies are showing interest in catcher Paul Lo Duca, who is owed $12.5 million over the next two seasons. They've also asked about Guillermo Mota.

3 - Baseball is infused with conservatism. The rules rarely change and it's run by an old boys network. In addition, there's a sort of timelessness to the sport. It seems easier to compare Ruth and Bonds. Whereas, when you compare clips of Bob Cousy and Allen Iverson it's like they're playing different sports.

I've also been thinking that the recent hostility to the innovative stathead movement is the pespective of those who see sports as a sort of morality play. They want the winners of sports to have "character", to embody teamwork, integrity, scrappiness, loyalty . They want them to embody the qualities that we deem important in life. That's why guys like Plaschke turn everything into a morality tale. And why he can't stand a perpective that says OPS is one of the major factors in a winning ballclub. It seems to me that he would have difficulty in seeing the players of sports as simply having certain physical skills that have nothing to do with character. For he desperately wants the winners in sports to be good guys. But in sports and life, "winners" are not always people we admire or like.

26 Not to speak for Jon, but I think the idea is that Guzman wouldn't necessarily be a back-up with the big club. He is more of a back up plan within the orginization as Reg points out in post 22.

If Robles and Perez are still on the roster and they both go down before Izturis is healthy, you call up Guzman as your shortstop. If not, he stays in Vegas and continues to play everyday.

I don't want this to turn into a witch hunt, but the significant drop-off in Lowell's production last season makes me wonder about previous substance use. Let's see if he floats!

Has anyone heard anything lately about what position Guzman is going to play going forward? Late last season, there was a lot of talk about moving him to 3B or RF.

Lowell has two (expensive) years left on his contract. No thanks. If we feel the need to get a proven vet for the year at 3B, I'd say go after Randa or Nomar. Nomar is interesting b/c he gives you some flexibility and added depth at SS as well and would probably take a 1 year deal.

28 Your post reminded me of the baseball scene in Woody Allen's "Radio Days." The movie is constructed as a series of parodies of old time radio shows that Allen used to listen to as a kid. One of them is "Great Sports Legends." The announcer talks about a pitcher from the past who had "...heart." (Dramatic pause for emphasis.) First he shoots off one of his arms, but the next season, he's still a champion, because he had "...heart." Then he shoots off all his other limbs, and finally goes blind, but is still out there pitching, because he has "...heart." They intercut with shots of this increasingly disabled pitcher.

That bit encapsulates the "morality play" aspect of baseball you're talking about. "Radio Days" is a funny film for those who haven't seen it.

32 I mentioned Lowell because his name's been coming up lately. Nomar would be fine, but is he so prostrate that Colletti could talk him into a low-dollar, short-term contract? Won't we be outbid if we offer him what he's really worth to us?

A Lowell scenario would basically entail LA taking Lowell off Florida's hands (Florida being in the midst of one of its periodic salary dumps) for little back in terms of player value, and with Florida being forced to pick up a couple-three mil of his salary each year.

33.

I just watched "Radio Days" last week and was going to post something about that scene, but I forgot. Funny stuff.

28

That's a good post.

In some respects, the "character" issue has also been making its way to the NFL. Supposedly, the great success of the New England Patriots recently is because the team has a bunch of good character guys. I guess they aren't very good players. Or the coaches didn't a good job. They are prevailing on sheer force of will.

Plaschke wrote recently that one of Pete Carroll's biggest challenges would be handling the case of Fred Maualuga, but I doubt that problem is nearly as hard as figuring out how to keep his team prepared for each week's game.

Nevertheless, football has always rewarded innovation. Coaches battle with each other to come up with new offenses and new defenses. Everybody wants to stay one step ahead.

Baseball's strategies are less fluid. It's not like there's a Clark Shaugnessey out there who's going to draw up the T-formation for baseball and make everybody change.

If you want to draw a parallel in football, I guess you could think of the 1921 World Series pitting the home run hitting Yankees (the T-formation team) taking on the little ball playing Giants (the single wing team).

21 - the question was, what happens if Robles and Izturis are hurt. So Guzman would be playing every day.

Essentially, the question is, who is the Dodgers' 2006 third-string shortstop. Or fourth-string, if you count Antonio Perez.

22, 29 - understands what I'm saying.

21 - the question was, what happens if Robles and Izturis are hurt. So Guzman would be playing every day.

Essentially, the question is, who is the Dodgers' 2006 third-string shortstop. Or fourth-string, if you count Antonio Perez.

22, 29 - understands what I'm saying.

I just set the world-record for time-elapsed double posting.

36 - I love baseball best but innovative strategies in football and basketball adds interest to their sports. The Pistons like to play defense and the Suns like to run. Completely different stlyes. I'm dying for some on-field innovation in baseball. I wanna see the Rockies try something like pinch hitting every time the pitcher's up since they can never get good starters anyways. Or see Cincinnati play Adam Dunn at shortstop when they have an extreme flyball pitcher like Milton on the mound. I wanna see Gagne come in the seventh in a close game with the bases loaded. I wanna see something that shows me that you're trying and willing to take risks. Especially, if you're a ballclub that's always struggling.

It would be helpful to have
a menu of our up and coming
minor leagers or guys that spent
some time in the bigs last year by
position and then perceived value.

Is there a list/link that I can go to?

28 - for all that we lament Plaschke and Simers absorbing column-inches in the Times, might I ask a meta-question: their presence is a statement by the editor of said pages. Isn't that, then, an editorial choice by the Times? And aren't we therefore blaming the wrong people for the presence of their ravings?

41 - You mean this?

http://dodgerthoughts.baseballtoaster.com/archives/250590.html

Was that free verse you wrote, or just weird paragraph breaks?

42

You are indeed correct, Rob. Someone has to decide to employ Plaschke and Simers. It's not like the two of them come to Bill Dwyre's house every day and blackmail him in to keeping their jobs.

Plaschke is regarded highly by Dwyre. So he stays. Dwyre thinks Simers is very funny, so he stays too. They create interest in the paper so they stay, or so is the operative theory.

For the majority of the newspaper buying public, Plaschke is a wonderful heart-tugging writer. He's the Times celebrity journalist with the outsized personality. No one reads the L.A. Times sports for serious analysis of ideas. They read it for a succession of gleanings of recycled opinions.

23
The Phillies trade idea intrigues me. They are also looking to trade Vincinte Padilla and bolster their rotation. Maybe something like:

Abreu, Lieberthal, and Padilla
for
Bradley, Navarro, and O. Perez

44 When did the sports section of the Times really start going downhill? I remember in my early college years (like 10 years ago), I used to buy the Times on break just to read the sports section.

Maybe I didn't know any better...

43 - Jon, perfect - thanks for the links.

Weird? If you are asking about the condensed look, I don't exactly know why I do that. I do in email too.

40 "I wanna see something that shows me that you're trying and willing to take risks. Especially, if you're a ballclub that's always struggling."

Considering that the sport's gatekeepers demonize such mild innovations as using a computer, who can blame people for not taking true risks? I would love to see a team try the 4-man rotation, just because it would be such a radical change from accepted practice. (And because it just might work.) But in today's environment, it seems more likely that a team would fly to games on a magic carpet than try something like that.

they can keep lieberthal, i'd rather bring up martin or keep navarro.

I was visiting a friend of mine and he said Plaschke was a good columnist. I brushed it off. Then he said the Lo Duca trade was terrible. I started to defend it. Then he said he would have rather had Cora than Kent, and Kent's defense cost Izturis his Gold Glove. I had had a few beers by that point, and I lost it and started swearing. Then I gave up.

44--Bob, did you ever get any response from the Times regarding your cancellation letter?

50 I'm not sure my dad was totally on board with the DePo ideas, but the Kent deal was one that he totally agreed with.

Cora is a decent second baseman or utility type player. Defensive issues aside (and IIRC, Kent really wasn't that big of a step down), it is pretty hard someone can rationally justify Cora being better than Kent.

52 I was just shocked to hear someone actually verbalize it. And really, at that point, you realize that there's no possibility of rational debate.

51

<