Baseball Toaster was unplugged on February 4, 2009.
Jon's other site:
Screen Jam
TV and more ...
1) using profanity or any euphemisms for profanity
2) personally attacking other commenters
3) baiting other commenters
4) arguing for the sake of arguing
5) discussing politics
6) using hyperbole when something less will suffice
7) using sarcasm in a way that can be misinterpreted negatively
8) making the same point over and over again
9) typing "no-hitter" or "perfect game" to describe either in progress
10) being annoyed by the existence of this list
11) commenting under the obvious influence
12) claiming your opinion isn't allowed when it's just being disagreed with
Forget for a moment whether it's sensible for Dodger general manager Ned Colletti to be interested in signing free agent shortstop Rafael Furcal - forget for a moment whether it will even happen - and just think about what the interest itself means.
It would have been easy for Colletti to enter the season with Oscar Robles as the starting shortstop while Cesar Izturis recovers from his surgery. Robles can field, comes up with a clutch hit every couple of weeks, and has a good personality, a nice backstory and Vin Scully's fond support. Robles, like Izturis, generally matches what has been the idea of what a shortstop should be for most of baseball history.
Instead, Colletti has decided that however adequate the Dodgers might be at shortstop, the team should explore being better. Of course, this may mean that Colletti realizes that the Dodgers are far from adequate at shortstop at all - offensively, neither Robles nor Izturis were in the top 25 in EQA last season at the 6-hole, according to Baseball Prospectus. Furcal, on the other hand, was 10th. The fact that Robles and Izturis often batted leadoff adds to the importance of the distinction. In any case, Colletti is showing he isn't satisfied with mere acceptability - that even an incremental improvement is worth considering.
Colletti's interest is also a signal that the 2006 Dodger payroll might prove higher than some have predicted. Considering Furcal will make at least $10 million next season, his signing alone would boost the Dodgers above $80 million. Now, that doesn't mean the Dodgers wouldn't stop there - or even reverse course and trade some salary away. But the idea of eight figures for a shortstop is forcing payroll pessimists to raise an eyebrow.
(Remember, for the time being we're not discussing the sensibility of the offer. Just bear with me.)
Another noteworthy aspect of the speculation is that Mark Bowman of MLB.com reported, without attribution, that the Dodgers offered Furcal $13 million over three years. I'm passing this along despite my distaste for unsourced reports, because it is worth talking about even as a hypothetical.
First, it might be more savvy of Colletti to offer a player $39 million over three years than, say, $55 million over five years. While your annual cost is higher, your overall committment is lower. Three years from now, when the current Dodger crop of prospects has matured, the Dodgers might not need Furcal as much - and they could make up the extra 2006-2008 expenditures then, rather than being burdened by what ultimately would be an extra $16 million.
Second, this offseason, we've seen middle relievers, like B.J. Ryan, get five-year contracts. We've seen 38-year-old relievers, like Tom Gordon, get three-year contracts. All for big money. Baseball's salary structure, which had shown some signs of being tamed following the 2003 season, is gorging on donuts again and exploding in the middle. Last year, barely there starting pitchers like Russ Ortiz got huge deals. Now, in December 2005, we've only just begun to spend. Greenbacks and promises. A kiss for luck and we're on our way.
As a result, the extra money that the Dodgers might spend in the offseason might not yield any more talent than you might have expected to get. It just might mean a recogntion that inflation has hit again, and that while the Dodgers are still going to do the minimum to keep up with the Joneses, they realize that the minimum is higher.
Finally, and in some ways most importantly, there is the character issue. Furcal has two, count 'em, two convictions for drunk driving. Colletti's willingness to even meet with Furcal - regardless of whether he signs him or has even offered him a contract - surrenders any claim to populating the Dodgers with squeaky clean ballplayers. And you know the ramifications of that. We're back to talking to Milton Bradley.
So there is news this week, even if Furcal signs with the Cubs or Braves the second after I publish this piece.
Now, should the Dodgers be talking to Furcal?
Well, at 28, Furcal is a great age. His EQAs of .279, .267 and .274 are higher than the career-high of Izturis (.253 in 2004). Izturis tumbled at the plate last year, although I'm fairly certain some of that was due to physical ailments. Furcal might also be one of the few guys out there who matches or tops Izturis as a fielder, at least statistically - Furcal had a Rate 2 of 113 last year, while Izturis' best is 108.
So Furcal is a worthy ballplayer. If you're just adding him on like another children's drawing on your refrigerator, without regard to the other artwork and grocery lists already there, he's not going to hurt you at all.
He also might grant the Dodgers the luxury - or the necessity, depending on your point of view - of entering the season by giving Hee Seop Choi three months (the amount of time before Izturis is expected to play) to prove himself once and for all at first base.
However, if the offer to Furcal isn't a sign of organizational largesse, if it is instead a large commitment of scant resources to a specific area, then you have to be a little concerned. Because by summertime, if you're careless, you could end up with an infield of Jeff Kent at first, Izturis at second, Furcal at shortstop and Robles at third base. Not to mention continued questions about outfield depth.
Which brings us back to Bradley.
Let me reiterate - by showing any interest in Furcal, the Dodgers have already crossed the character line. Convictions for DUI are as serious as allegations of domestic abuse. At any moment, while operating a vehicle while under the influence, you put multiple lives in jeopardy. It is incredibly dangerous.
Perhaps Furcal has since been treated for his alcoholism - if so, that's wonderful. Regardless, Colletti, and by extension, Frank McCourt, can no longer talk about past character crimes (short of something even more serious, like murder or having been a fan of Home Improvement) as a reason not to allow someone in a Dodger uniform.
If the Dodgers had wanted to draw a line on Bradley based on his having gone anywhere near domestic violence, I would have understood, even though it ultimately might hurt their win-loss record. But now instead of drawing a line, they've erased it.
They can still bring up the chemistry issue if they want, but that is a much, much weaker position. So far, Bradley has not been reported to have had clubhouse friction with anyone besides Jeff Kent. So far, Bradley's passion for winning has been a net asset for the Dodgers. Public relations can take care of paving the way for Bradley's next chance.
They can still bring up the health issue if they want, although Bradley figures to heal, if not by April, probably by June. His salary could be adjusted accordingly.
But to sum up, the news of the week has already happened. By opening the door to Rafael Furcal, the Dodgers have re-opened the door to Milton Bradley. In my opinion, the Dodgers this week just improved their outfield depth.
Update: On a related note, Lost scored the rare double DUI, according to People.com (via Defamer), with the arrest of Michelle Rodriguez (Ana Lucia) and Cynthia Watros (Libby).
This wouldn't be the first driving-related mishap for Rodriguez, who last year pleaded no contest to three misdemeanors (a hit and run, driving with a suspended license, and driving under the influence) stemming from two 2003 incidents in L.A. She was sentenced to 48 hours in jail, community service and treatment in a 30-day alcohol program.
We've got parallel situations going. ABC fired a supporting cast member from "Desperate Housewives" amid gossip reports of indecent exposure. That's the juicier crime, but not more serious than this.
In anticipation of the ensuing tangential discussion, let me say that, apparently unlike many others, I like Ana Lucia's character.
Mccourt and crew are still schmucks, Depodesta was treated horribly, but Ned isn't looking too bad at all. The fact that he's even thinking about signing Furcal shows that he's willing to take some heat from the press over the percieved upgrade of a scrappy warrior like Izturis. I wouldn't doubt that he might entertain trading Gagne if Broxton, Kuo, and Brazoban are lights out.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2245065
(BTW, Vishal, Ron Zeigler used to play for the Chisox back in the 70s.)
I agree with you Jon, except what we don't know is whether Kent is being a diva about Bradley. If forced to choose, obviously I'd want Kent. But hopefully, Colletti can smooth that piece over.
11 - Notice I used the word "depth in my post" I don't count on Bradley for 150 games. But he could be a piece of the puzzle.
come on, man. i may not know my 70s baseball but i do know some history.
So, what happens first?
- Dodgers sign a name free agent
- Dodgers get a manager
Now if Drew is hurt again this year...
Vishal, we're laughing toward you, not at you.
There's a difference.
Our problem stems from those of us who are feeling old with all the young whippersnappers around here for whom Kirk Gibson is just a guy in scratchy video limping around the bases or Steve Garvey is just a guy who does commercials for Bosley Hair Replacement.
Woo hoo, something to read on the plane on the way to Michigan!
I would give it to the library to add, but it's best not to know what happens to gift books.
Thanks for your continued good work. I continue to enjoy this site very much.
This site has consistently focused on domestic abuse as Bradley's key sin. While certainly serious, I'm not sure if that was the key problem he has with the Dodgers. When he continually ran back to the press in his mess with Kent last year, he was acting in direct defiance of Tracy, DePodesta and McCourt. His insubordination (of a level that most of us would be fired) was the key cause of his problem. Meetings took place immediately after this. The domestic violence allegations surfaced a week later.
Am I remembering all of this incorrectly?
Why Michigan? Why now?
My oldest brother lives in Michigan. I won't be going until Christmastime.
Actually I'll be in 21C from LAX to ORD.
In any case, at this point, I don't see the insubordination as a firing offense from the Dodger perspective - not one that an apology couldn't cure. After all, even if Gagne wasn't specifically given a gag order, his remarks after the season were just as damaging to the Dodgers. Assuming he has been told to cool it now, would the Dodgers cut him if he spoke again?
It's just that most people don't have a lot of tolerance for insubordination. I refer you to the case of Owens v. Reid.
This sentence is inherently contradictory.
Werth and perhaps Bradley will start the season on the D.L. Drew, Ledee and Cruz all have health concerns. Depth will be an issue - not an insurmountable one, but an issue nonetheless - for the 2006 season.
But hasn't Izturis said that he might be back earlier? If he does come back earlier, that could mean more problems for Choi. A Jim Tracy-like manager would want to move Izturis to 2nd base and Kent to 1st. I guess it depends on when Izzy comes back and how well Choi does when he gets the chance (assuming he gets the chance). If Choi can finally keep the 1st base job for good, that leaves Izzy out of the loop (unless he makes an A-Rod like move to 3rd), but I suppose he could good trade bait, given the crazy contracts in the league.
An infield of Aybar-Furcal-Kent-Choi is pretty solid, assuming Aybar doesn't regress too much and still gets on base 35% of the time.
I have a question that Jon or Bob can probably help me with. It seems like in your analysis of players that strikeouts are not a key factor in analyzing batters ("just another out") but they are a key factor in analyzing pitchers (concerns of dropping k/9 rates seem to come up often). Why aren't strikeouts consistent in their importance?
Kent would just turn up the volume on his headphones.
If Kent could put up with Barry Bonds for several years, I can't imagine that Milton Bradley is that much harder to deal with.
They each have their own peculiarities.
---from WebMD
If the quadriceps or patellar tendon is completely ruptured, a surgeon will reattach the ends. After surgery, the patient will wear a cast for 3 to 6 weeks and use crutches. If the tear is only partial, the doctor might apply a cast without performing surgery.
A partial or complete tear of a tendon requires an exercise program as part of rehabilitation that is similar to but less vigorous than that prescribed for ligament injuries. The goals of exercise are to restore the ability to bend and straighten the knee and to strengthen the leg to prevent a repeat knee injury. A rehabilitation program may last 6 months, although the patient can return to many activities before then.
---
so Milton should be ready.
How can you like her? She killed Shannon!
(I hated her from her first appearance on the show. I hope something really bad happens to her.)
What about the "creep" factor? I guess if I had my druthers, I'd rather suit up next to someone who's had a couple of DUI's than I would someone who is prone to flying off the handle.
I've known people like Milton Bradley all my life--decent enough from day-to-day, but you're always keeping an eye on the dude and making sure you don't say or do something that makes him twist off.
What? Why did that make me laugh?
I'll take a stab at it.
For a hitter, the goal is to get on base. If you don't and you're out, you're out. It's like dying of a heart attack or cancer. You're still dead. I think the "productive out" is on a par with the "productive death". (OK, that metaphor may be stretched a bit.)
With a pitcher, you want to keep the batter off base. What's the best way to keep the batter off base? The best way is to strike the batter out. Why? Because if the batter hits the ball, there are things that can happen. Bloops fall in, fielders make errors, wind blows balls over the fence. But a strikeout (unless Doug Eddings is behind the plate) means the batter is going back to the dugout.
This is analysis can be generously described as crude.
I would point out that I believe it is strictly against LAPD policy (and the entire city of LA) to have your parent as your supervisor as Ana Lucia does. There are strict nepotism rules. They don't even let husbands and wives in the library supervise each other.
With batters, strikeouts just don't correlate with batter effectiveness. The top ten list of high strikeout batters tends to include many of the game's best sluggers. Strikeouts often come with power hitters and patient hitters. If you put the ball in play a little less often but hit more home runs, missing the ball a little more and striking out isn't such a big deal. Patient hitters often strike out because by working the count, they're more likely to be working with 2 strikes, so hence the strikeout rate goes up. While other outs are more "productive" than strikeouts, the effect is minimal compared to the power/patience benefit many "strikeout" hitters have.
http://tinyurl.com/74gdd
45 I have a little experience with patellar tendon repair (long story--see http://tinyurl.com/azzzl if you're interested). I wore a cast for 12 weeks (ankle to hip) and had 2 sessions of PT per week for about 2 months, mostly on an exercise bike getting range of motion back.
The tendon was reattached with a wire and has since broken into four bits. My knee works fine but has had an odd feeling to it ever since. I've described it as a piston within a sleeve, which makes no sense to anyone but me.
As Jon points out, singing a shortstop is an area that can't rank that high on our list of needs. Albeit, we'd be getting a good one. In a vacuum, Furcal is analagous to the Angels' Cabrera signing last year. Lots of money, long term commitment, and no matter how you look at it, not the best way to improve the team. On the face of it, the Dodgers' interest is that he's a good player, and he's available. That's the dumb part.
The fascinating part is how it might set other things in motion. Exhibit A is that Guzman's future as a shortstop would be pretty much over. Exhibit B is, Izzy iz expendable. C is that with at least a credible offensive player on the infield, we can entertain the trade Jeff Kent discussion again. And if C is true, then, notwithstanding whether Furcal's personal shortcomings give Bradley a pass, we can keep Milton.
To me the key is, can you sign Furcal, trade Kent, and still put a decent offense out there. A bonus would be if a Kent trade can improve the offense and pitching at the same time.
As a side note, I doubt that the local media is going to harp on character issues any more. That red herring was pretty much used to beat up Depo. Depo's gone. Ned, on the other hand, hangs out at batting cages. He knows the cut of a man's gib. After all, they've already ignored the influence of Bonds on the Giants' (and by extension, Ned's) success.
Hitter K's correlate with many good things like doubles and HR's. Hitters with low K rates (Pierre, Eckstein) tend to have poor power and create fewer runs in total. Also striking out provides the side benefit of cutting down GIDP's. Also hitter K's are often confused with poor plate discipline. Swinging and missing at strikes is a good thing so long as you're productive overall (see Dunn, Adam). Swinging at bad pitches is bad period.
Colletti doesn't strike me as a guy who knows what a gib is.
Then again, I don't either, but I have a dictionary around.
[scurries to dictionary]
I think the word we are looking for is "jib". "Gib" has many meaning. Many of them dealing with castrated felines.
For pitchers, you want high K, low BB, and low HR/IP. Those are the measureables that a pitcher controls on his own. A pitcher's periferal stats may not reflect a good performance, due to poor defense or other factors. It isn't that K's are not bad for hitters, it's just that you can go straight ot OPS and ignore the K rate. High K's with low power and poor batting eye is just plain bad, and it shows up in all the periferal stats (except SB).
Take Jose Hernandez and his infamous 2002 season. 188 strikeouts overshadowed the fact that he had a brilliant offensive season for a SS. Though, not good, they shouldn't have overshadowed, which I think is more the point.
On the other hand, the more batters a pitcher gets out without putting the ball in play, the better. An out, is an out, is an out... sort of.
2. A cat, esp. a male cat (cf. Gib a male ferret in Chester Gloss.); in later dialectal use, one that has been castrated. to play the gib: (of a woman) to act the cat
1/2 season of robles = 1.8 warp
that comes to a total of 4.0 warp for next season, assuming izturis comes back to his 2004 self, for a combined cost of $3.4 million. Furcal is generally a 5 warp player. So for the additional 1 win the Dodgers would pay $6.6-$9.6 million. That doesnt seem like a good idea, even if izturis plays like he did in 2005 and furcal plays up to his highest potential, it wouldnt be worth it.
Army people get upset about that I've learned.
http://www.homeofheroes.com/moh/citations_1940_wwii/munemori_sadao.html
If I have children who play baseball, I'm going to coach them based on OPS. I'm also going to force them to throw left-handed.
That was my last jibe (not jib or gib) on the matter :)
My eyes! AAAAGGGHHHHH!! THE BURNING!!!
Aside from the "singing"/signing issue, it was an even dumber mistake for the Angels because it blocked not one but two quality shortstop prospects (and though they couldn't have known it at the time, one of them a potential superstar in Brandon Wood), and ejected David Eckstein, one of the few Angels who knew how to take a walk, from the team. I'm pretty sure that in this case, Furcal
a) is not blocking a quality offensive shortstop in the minors
b) gives as good or better defense than the player currently occupying that position as a starter
c) is consistent offensively.
The years will probably kill the Dodgers, but I don't see a potential Furcal signing as necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. Certainly, it makes more sense than the Cabrera signing did at the time for the Angels, and as Jon mentioned, it indirectly helps to stabilize the outfield.
That is the problem. Given the extent of the surgeries for JD/MB/Werth we could start the year with all 3 on the DL. Maybe we start the year with Guzman in right, Cruz in center and Ledee in LF. Are you okay with that? It is a huge gamble. I'd be more willing to roll the dice if the 3 players on the DL didn't already have a huge history of missing time. But your right, we may not have any choice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor#Congressional_Medal_of_Honor
If he can actually produce at .260+ EQA levels, then the Furcal signing makes less sense... Unless Izzy is willing to play 2B and we trade Kent at the deadline. I get the feeling that unless Choi goes crazy in the at-bats he does get, he'll be the oddman out between Furcal, Izzy, Kent, and himself.
Yesterday you seemed to think it was a good idea or did I misread your statements?
Keep Bradley but weigh not only his fragility but the brittleness of the team's others OFs.
Which LAD outfielder is a good bet to make 135 starts? Drew? Bradley? Ledee? Werth? Cruz?
Not a one and it seems pretty likely that as many as three won't be 100 percent when the season opens. And it's easy to envision all of them breaking down later.
How many LAD outfielders in the minors are close to being major league starters?
Not a one.
Guzman is two years away with the bat and hasn't played OF. Matt Kemp is 2-3 years away. D. Young projects as a super-utility guy or an offensive 2B. Repko has come a long way in the last 18 months, but as an everyday guy he's got a ways to go.
All the more reason to see if the Indians will give up LF/CF Coco Crisp and a decent arm for Gagne/Ledee.
Crisp would seem a good bet for 140-50 starts. He has pretty good pop (15-17 HRs), decent on-base skills, good speed, covers a lot of ground in LF and is decent in CF.
Cleveland is unlikely to deal him, but LAD should go after him very hard. When Hoffman shoots down Cleveland, Gagne could be a nice option for the Tribe.
Coco is the way to go.
If I knew that all these rehabs would end and the players in question would then jump right in and play and be productive then any ole Repko would do. I don't have that faith. I'll be surprised if we get 120 games from any of the trio.
Are you a Tribe fan who wants Gagne or are you thinking in the best interest of the Dodgers?
The Tribe could just fallback to Wickman, they have Cabrerra and the best setup man no one knows about in Betantcourt. Do they really need Gagne?
If were going to trade Gagne to Cleveland then give me Coco/Betancourt or Cabrerra/Garko
or Sizemore straight up:)
It's not out of the question that a few very good prospects (a couple untouchables) could land Abreu... and if we would've got Giles we could've been talking about an outfield that could easily draw 450 walks plus... I don't even know why I'm posting this, but I think, until Giles signed, I actually thought we could do something like this.
It's not out of the question that a few very good prospects (a couple untouchables) could land Abreu... and if we would've got Giles we could've been talking about an outfield that could easily draw 450 walks plus... I don't even know why I'm posting this, but I think, until Giles signed, I actually thought we could do something like this.
He had a bad back which he attributed to his dismal showing in Arizona. When he was picked up by the RedSox he said it was the 1st time all year that his back was pain free. Depo's last move was one of his best totally making up for the Dave Robert giveaway.
My new policy is to claim all typos are intentional. Of COURSE, the Dodgers should SING a shortstop. Who doesn't like that tune?
In re 68, I wasn't really saying that Cabrera and Furcal were analagous players, just that the signings were/would be huge dollar and year commitments done without much heed to the organizations' assets and needs.
In re 85, yeah, the Angels problem is more obvious and compounded by the fact that Cabrera's simply not worth what they're paying him, but if you allow any of Izturis, Robles, and Guzman as at least options for the Dodgers, then its still hard to see the Dodgers valuing Furcal as much as they seem to. (Submitted for long-sentence award)
If, however, the point is that Furcal is that good of a player that merely having him allows you to do other things with the roster, things that do address the more obvious needs, then that's at least not crazy.
I'm surprised some dont consider SS the weakest position on the team, and in the organization. Because the numbers and personell would suggest it is.
We've got nothing in the minors.
We've got a Cora/Castro clone playing everyday at SS.
If thats not beggin for an improvement, I'm not sure what is.
Of course there's always the cost to consider. But find me an OF'er available that will OPS 150+ over Cruz/Werth/Bradley...Cant think of any.
Nakamura got very few at bats but for the rest of my life I'll never understand why Scott Erickson was allowed to pitch for the Los Angeles Dodgers in 2005.
Did I just imagine his free agency?
LOS ANGELES Dodgers
Organizational Grades: Hitting (A)…..Pitching (A)…..Top-end talent (A)…..Overall (A)
1. Chad Billingsley RHP…..21…..2003 (1) high school (OH)
Strengths: 90-97 MPH two-seam fastball, 85-89 MPH slider, and 77-81 MPH curveball. Command. Solid build. Setting up hitters
Weaknesses: Repeating arm speed on change-up. Efficiency
Comments: Maturely-built hurler with three above average pitches and the means to use them. Blows fastball by hitters and can get outs with both breaking pitches. Struggled with efficiency in a mid-season slump, but finished strong. Could end-up in Dodgers' rotation if he can improve change-up.
2006 MLB Role: Fifth starter
Potential: Number two starter
2. Joel Guzman SS…..R/R…..21…..2001 FA (DR)
Strengths: Athleticism/speed. Bat speed/plus power. Arm strength. Projectable body
Weaknesses: Long swing. Strike zone judgment. Speed (4.4). Average range
Comments: Solid, but unspectacular follow-up to breakout season, as upper-level pitchers were able to exploit long swing and plate discipline. Plus power from bat speed and strong body, and has been able to maintain BA despite over-aggressiveness. Defense at SS remains solid, but will likely change positions.
2006 MLB Role: Starting 3B
Potential: Starting 3B
3. Andy LaRoche 3BR…..R/R…..22…..2003 (39) Grayson County CC
Strengths: Athleticism. Bat speed/power. First-step quickness. Arm strength. Quick/soft hands. Instincts
Weaknesses: BA ability. Pull-conscious. Strike zone judgment. Speed
Comments: Makes hard contact with bat staying in strike zone, flirting with minor league HR lead in early season. Hits for both BA and power and improved plate discipline with promotion to Double-A. Adapting to 3B where he shows arm strength and soft hands, projecting to an average defender.
2006 MLB Role: Platoon 3B
Potential: Starting 3B
4. Russ Martin C…..R/R…..22…..2002 (17) Chipola JC
Strengths: Athleticism/agility. Contact ability/line-drive power. Plate discipline. Arm strength. Quick release (1.85)
Weaknesses: Pull-conscious. Blocking pitches
Comments: One of top catchers in the minor leagues. Contact hitter with moderate power and strike zone judgment, giving him a solid OPS. Runs well for a catcher and will steal base when given. Releases ball quickly with good arm strength, halting running game (31% CS%), but footwork could be cleaner.
MLB Debut: 2007
Potential: Starting catcher
5. Jonathon Broxton RHP…..21…..2002 (2) high school (GA)
Strengths: 89-98 MPH two and four-seam fastballs and 81-84 MPH slider. Command. Strong body. Aggressiveness
Weaknesses: Repeating arm speed on change-up. Repeating high ¾ slot. Tendency to overthrow
Comments: Large-framed reliever with aggressive approach and fastball that explodes on hitters. Slider became put-away pitch when moved to relief and may fare better in that role. High ¾ slot shows baseball too much and may want strikeout too much, but can be dominating when he's on.
2006 MLB Role: Short reliever
Potential: Setup reliever
6. Scott Elbert LHP…..19…..2004 (1) high school (MO)
Strengths: 89-93 MPH two-seam fastball and curveball. Command. Arm action/¾ slot
Weaknesses: Repeating arm speed on change-up. Efficiency
Comments: Solid arm action allows ball to flow freely from hand, giving him excellent movement and velocity. Can get strikeout with both fastball and curveball, and improved command and ability to keep ball down. Change-up needs work in its deception, but has makings of a top-flight pitcher.
MLB Debut: 2009
Potential: Number two starter
7. James Loney 1B…..L/L…..21…..2002 (1) high school (TX)
Strengths: Bat speed/power/contact ability. Plate discipline. Arm strength. Soft hands
Weaknesses: Pull-conscious. Speed
Comments: Marginal power is baffling considering bat speed and contact ability, but ball comes off bat with a lot of topspin and transfers weight early. Healthy for first time, he did hit much better in the second half, as he began using whole field. Defense at 1B is Gold Glove-caliber and may get look in RF.
MLB Debut: 2007
Potential: Starting 1B
8. Matt Kemp OF…..R/R…..21…..2003 (6) high school (OK)
Strengths: Athleticism/strength. Bat speed/power to all fields. Average arm strength
Weaknesses: Strike zone judgment. Speed (4.3). Range
Comments: Impressive power in a pitcher-friendly league, but lack of plate discipline/pitch recognition will see his BA swoon at upper levels. Drives ball to all fields with good bat speed and runs bases well for strong build. Average arm and poor range will limit him to corner outfield.
MLB Debut: 2007
Potential: Starting corner outfielder
9. Chuck Tiffany LHP…..21…..2003 (2) high school (CA)
Strengths: Plus curveball, 87-91 MPH two and four-seam fastballs, and circle-change. Command. Arm action. Setting-up pitches. Power-pitcher build
Weaknesses: Stamina (shoulder)
Comments: Projectable pitcher with easy velocity and a plus curveball. Repeats delivery well for experience level, allowing him to disguise change-up and demonstrate command. The Dodgers haven't given him a lot of rope from an IP standpoint and did come down with a tired arm late in the season.
MLB Debut: 2007
Potential: Number three starter
10. Hong-Chih Kuo LHP…..24…..1999 FA (Taiwan)
Strengths: 90-96 MPH fastball, split-fingered fastball, curveball, and change-up. Command. Arm action
Weaknesses: Setting-up pitches. Stamina (elbow)
Comments: Dominating when he pitches, but has succumbed to two elbow surgeries and may make permanent move to bullpen. Fastball is explosive, can change speeds, and gets excellent movement to splitter and curveball. Needs experience, but may move quickly.
MLB Debut: 2007
Potential: Closer/setup reliever
11. Travis Denker 2B…..R/R…..20…..2003 (21) high school (CA)
Strengths: Athleticism. BA ability/moderate power. Strike zone judgment. Arm strength
Weaknesses: Average speed (4.3). Range. Stiff hands. Small stature
Comments: Hard-nosed player whose bat was pleasant surprise, hitting for power and leading FSL in walks. Tends to strike-out too much, but if power is present, no one will matter. Making defensive transition from 3B to 2B, where he lacks range, hands, and double-play turn.
MLB Debut: 2009
Potential: Starting 2B
12. Blake DeWitt 3B…..R/R…..19…..2004 (1-C) high school (MO)
Strengths: Athleticism/strength. Bat speed/BA ability/power to all fields. Soft hands
Weaknesses: Plate discipline. Speed/agility. Average arm strength. Reading groundballs
Comments: Mature hitter for level of experience, generating bat speed with BA ability and power potential. Showed more patience at the plate, but needs to recognize pitches better. Playable arm strength and soft hands should make him a solid-average fielder with more repetition.
MLB Debut: 2008
Potential: Starting 3B
13. Chin-Lung Hu SS…..R/R…..22…..2003 FA (Taiwan)
Strengths: Athleticism/speed. Bat speed/BA ability. Arm strength. Soft/quick hands. Instincts
Weaknesses: Hitting for power. Plate discipline. Need to add strength
Comments: SS of future for Dodgers, combining outstanding defense with offensive contributions. Swings good bat for diminutive size, driving baseball to gaps and maintaining high BA. Running instincts improved, making him a threat on bases.
MLB Debut: 2008
Potential: Starting SS
14. Tony Abreu 2B/SS…..R/R…..21…..2002 FA (DR)
Strengths: Athleticism/speed. Contact/BA ability/moderate power. Plus range. Soft/quick hands
Weaknesses: Strike zone judgment. Baserunning efficiency. Average arm strength
Comments: Continues to hit for BA, leading FSL, despite lack of plate discipline, but did experience a drop in power. Likes to use field from gap-to-gap. Possesses above average speed, but doesn't always read pitchers' moves well. Can be Gold Glove-caliber at 2B and play adequate SS.
MLB Debut: 2008
Potential: Starting 2B
15. Wily Aybar 2B…..B/R…..23…..2000 FA (DR)
Strengths: Bat speed/BA ability/moderate power. Plate discipline. Arm strength. Hands. Instincts
Weaknesses: Hitting for power. Average speed/agility
Comments: Traded some of his OBP for power, but may not have enough for a MLB 3B. Plate discipline remains strong and was more aggressive early in the count. Defensive shift from 3B to 2B fits his offensive profile better and only lacked range at the keystone spot.
2006 MLB Role: Utility infielder (2B/3B)
Potential: Starting 2B
I asked him some questions about having Guzman and LaRoche projected for 3b and why Denker was ahead of DeWitt. Below is his answer:
"My thinking on Guzman and LaRoche being listed as 3rd basemen for 2006 is this. I believe Guzman will be the first to arrive, likely around mid-season if all goes well. I don't see them sticking him at SS unless Izturis would get injured, and even then, I think they'd use someone else. RF and 1B would also be a possibility for Guzman, but I didn't want to go farther south on the defensive spectrum on him. Guzman can handle 3B at the Major League level, and that's the point I wanted to come across. As for LaRoche, I could see him coming-up in September and getting a fair amount of AB's. At that point, I think the Dodgers make a final determination on Guzman. If you were to put a gun to my head and make me say where Guzman will end-up, I'll say RF. I know both can't be starting at 3B.
I debated on DeWitt and Denker for the 11th spot and elected to go with Denker as he showed more secondary skills offensively. The Vero Beach sample is small for both players and I realize DeWitt is almost a year younger. Neither are exceptional defenders, but Denker should be better at 2B and his bat plays better at their respective positions. I've heard the same rumors about DeWitt moving to 2B, and if that were the case, I'd have to put DeWitt ahead of Denker.
I have not given-up on Miller, but you have to seriously worry about his arm. Originally, he was ranked between Elbert and Loney, but with the latest injury experience in the AFL, even though it was reported to be minor, he is just too much of a question mark to rank in the top 15 in an organization as strong as the Dodgers. One player whose bat I really like (Delwyn Young) didn't make the cut either."
It sounds like the answer to that issue is that it depends on the batter. However, we do not even need to look at batter strikeout numbers because we have a better statistic to use...OPS.
Do I understand correctly that Guzman's speed is both a "strength" and a "weakness"?
Age 22 .232/.253/.303
Age 23 .251/.282/.315
Age 24 .288/.330/.381
Already at age 24 you've got Furcal-lite. A healthy Izturis could give you .725 OPS for 1/3 of Furcal $$. Now the idea of Izturis at 2b makes me cringe, but who else is slotted there for 2007?
Can't answer for him. It is curious.
I live 90 miles north of Turner Field so of course I get Braves news/comments constantly. Never once have I read anything about Furcal being a locker room distraction or taking shots at his teammates. Further, I have never read about him disobeying Bobby Cox. The DUIs are clearly a stain on his character and I while I won't defend those I think off the field problems and a seperate issue from clubhouse problems.
If Bradley and his wife were having problems I think that is a personal matter that we should stay out of. But when he's ripping off his Dodgers' jersey, throwing balls, hurling soda bottles, charging teammates of being racists, directly violating an order from his manager (who he called a second father), etc. that is completely different in my opinion.
I'm not sold on Furcal. But I am sold that Bradley should go somewhere else. He had two years to get it together in LA and there is no indication he has done so.
I'm not here to defend Milton, but from what I understand of the Bradley-Kent incident, Kent "started it." Milton had done much better up until that point, and had Kent not confronted him, he may very well have made it through the entire season without a hitch. That's not to say he handled the Kent incident correctly, but he wasn't exactly looking for trouble either.
Bradley doesn't get the benefit of the doubt with me and I'm not a Kent fan so this is as objective as I can be.
If this were it for him I'd give him a pass. But if you exclude the incident with Kent you still have a list of other things to choose from that embarassed the team and caused clubhouse friction.
My push for Crisp/Gagne trade with other part is from a LAD perspective.
You cite Wickman as Clevelan'd fallback at closer and express doubt that Cleveland is hungry for a closer.
Reading the tea leaves, it appears Cleveland sorely wants a better closer than Wickman. The Tribe is courting Trevor Hoffman and went after BJ Ryan pretty hard. Wisely the Tribe appears to doubt Wickman's ability to replicate last year's results.
Cleveland would not move Sizemore. Getting Crisp would be hard, but that's the guy to go after. Gagne could get the ball rolling.
Coco is the way to go.
Actually it's a strength.
Matt Kemp has slightly better than average speed. That was the consensus entering the AFL season and Kemp affirmed it this fall at a time when many players are exhausted.
A 4.3 clocking to first isn't his best, even still, for a RH power hitter, that's not a "weakness" for going home to first.
Kemp's first to third speed and OF speed are slightly faster than average.
Kemp's footspeed is a nice bonus to his exciting hitting potential.
No one is at 2nd for 2007. Thats why the Dodgers should sign Furcal now, move him over to 2b, and play Guzman at SS.
OR, they could move Guzman to 3b, LaRoche to 2b, and play LaRoche at 2b in 2007. (I'd like this idea) Maybe Nate can discuss whether he thinks Andy LaRoche can move to 2nd base and Guzman to 3b.
Age Izturis Furcal
======================
21 -12.5 -
22 -2.2 -
23 29.7 38.0
24 0.7 24.4
25 - 57.6
26 - 38.0
27 - 49.4
I just don't see a 50+ VORP season in Izturis's future.
Considering Izturis is making Neifi Perez money (interpret that as you will) he was severly injured last year, and Antonio Perez is capable of playing shortstop (if anyone will let him), I don't see how Furcal is a worthwhile signing.
Tracy batted him too high in the lineup, but that's not Izzy's fault and not wholly Tracy's fault given the roster construction.
Izzy's improvement in 2004 appeared to carry over to April 2005. Lots of quality at-bats, pretty good results as I recall.
Then he just cratered. It's logical to say the true measure of Izzy's talents were thus revealed when you look at his dreadful OBPs year after year in the minors.
But I do place some stock in his improvement in 2004 and early 2005 at a young age and after Wallach got him to improve the strength in his left hand.
Izzy's repeated hamstring injuries last year should be considered as well. He appeared to be playing hurt as early as May. The LAD were hasty in returning him to the lineup last summer after Izzy's hamstring injuries were made known, but Izzy's competitiveness got the best of him as well.
Maybe he ends up being an nifty utility man. Still, with the dearth of bona fide SSs, I could also see him returning decent value as a starting SS again if he's able to recover physically.
ITALIAN COMBO: Sabean chuckled when asked if he had fielded any trade calls from Ned Colletti, his old assistant turned archrival in Los Angeles. Yes, Colletti called the other day, though he was having lunch at a Chinese restaurant with Tommy Lasorda.
"Ned didn't do too much talking," Sabean said. "I hope he spends a lot of time with Tommy. He won't have any time to talk trades."
That's unfair to Aybar and Abreu.
114Interesting scouting report... I had thought Loney's fielding skills were supposed to be above average, but recall someone posting here that he's a terrible fielder. Steve, was it? I really like Loney and think he's a year away.
I'm not sure Kemp is 2-3 years away, i think 1.5 might be more like it.
Man, I hope Kuo works out (and his arm holds out). It's nice the Dodgers have quite a few great LHP prospects.
Why does this discussion often seem like a Star Trek script, with all the WARPs and VORPs.
131 - fair enough if you've got it; I don't. Defensively, though, using BPro's Rate2, Izturis has had three seasons in significant innings as a below average fielder, while Furcal has been an above average fielder all years of his career but two. The numbers say Furcal is a noticeable but not huge improvement in the field.
I'm pretty sure Steve's tongue was in its usual location (his cheek).
Did the Yankees just overpay for Farnsworth or what? Does Steinbrenner care? No, he probably paid that money out of his loose pocket change.
Not in 2003-04 according to field personnel and scouts who saw him every day or close to it. They rated him among the majors best and a major factor in LAD's first NL West title since 1995.
AP - .297/.360/.398 114 rate2
Eckstein - .282/.351/.362 101 rate2 5.6 WARP
Is it expecting too much for AP to put up similar numbers to Eckstein (maybe a little worse defensively, a little better offensively.)
Assuming AP can put up the 5.6 WARP1, you are then paying someone 30-40 times as much for three wins. Is that worth it?
He made 3.7 million in 2005.
Steve will shoot you and I will join in.
It will be a bloodier version of "Murder on the Orient Express"
And there will probably be many more than 12 co-murderers.
Do they weigh consequence of error, which runs the spectrum?
The human eyes of field personnel can certainly measure the consequences of errors or other miscues.
Do the stats weight consequence of success, which also runs the spectrum?
The human eyes of field personnel certainly do.
Do you truly believe Izzy was a below average SS in 2004?
Depo, who has accesss to better stats, appeared to believe Izzy was pretty significant in the team's first NL West title since 2004.
Didn't he give him an extension thereafter?
Are you wholly dismissive of the field personnel and scouts who saw Izzy regularly and said his defense was above average at a premimum position in 2004 (and 2003)?
Perhaps you are privy to the defensive stats the teams like the A's have.
Are these AVM-like reports?
One other thing Reg: I cited Choi's post June 14 slugging percentage as .365 based on a Baseball Musings database. You said that number was way low. Did you verify?
Or better, Pierre himself?
Yankees fans wish you had. Pierre and the Marlins would have one fewer WS ring if you'd taken him out.
Or better, Pierre himself?
Yankees fans wish you had. Pierre and the Marlins would have one fewer WS ring if you'd taken him out.
Didn't he give him an extension thereafter?*
Depo also signed Jose Valentin. Are we to read into that signing all sorts virtues as well?
Depo also signed Derek Lowe and Odalis Perez. Your point?
At a position where you expect players to post a minimum of an .800 OPS? Pierre is a below average defender and hitter. He'd be a downgrade from Cruz.
Great post Jon. I'm still not optimistic about Bradley returning. Another thing I found interesting:
"If Furcal is on this team, we'd still have a place for Izturis," Colletti said. "He's a good player."
"At this point in time, I'm open-minded," Colletti said of keeping Bradley. "We'll see how it goes. He's a very good player."
At least he doesn't see Izturis and Bradley as equals.
I think Ned is saying all the right things (about Izturis and Bradley) because he plans on trading them (in Izturis' case, only if he lands Furcal).
Unique paragraph structure...Distrust for statistical defensive measures...Bearish on Choi...
Could it be...Plaschke?!?! :)
According to what I saw, no I don't believe that Izturis was below average.
However, I can't measure every ball hit to him, taking into account where he started from, where he finished and the final result. No one can. Because stats are a measure of what happened, and can pay far more attention than I can, I'll believe them.
Sure, every team could gain great value by trading their biggest star, best player and biggest gate attraction. Teams would give up a lot to get Albert Pujols or Johan Santana. But it doesn't happen very often, because it doesn't make any sense. You can't replace a player who makes that kind of impact, no matter who you get back. There are a few players in the MLB who exist on another plane of talent and production. Getting two or three very good players back for one of these supermen-types might pencil out if you're playing with a pencil, but on the field, it's a whole other thing.
Add to the fact that Gagne is coming off an injury, which means you wouldn't even accomplish goal #1. Trading him now would require accepting some level of discount as the risk of his recovery shifts to the other team.
You voluntarily trade your biggest star only when it's a situation like the D-backs had with Randy Johnson--the team finished last, by a lot, and Unit wasn't going to help them. Even then, that trade was a net loser for Arizona. They were forced to take a player who'd made it clear he was a one-year stopgap.
It was one thing to trade LoDuca. He was never as good as he was popular, and he was in decline. But anyone who wants to trade Gagne just hasn't seen him pitch.
We just have to hope his injury and recovery hasn't negatively affected the special gift he has. But it should be the Dodgers who get to find that out.
Out of curiosity, Who was the last dodger to score 100 runs from the leadoff spot? This guy has essentailly done it for 5 straight years. Isn't that a worthy stat?
Last 10 WS Series champs:
2005: Posednick-80 runs in 127 games at leadoff.
2004: Damon-123 runs from leadoff spot.
2003: Pierre-100 runs from leadoff spot
2002: Eckstein or Erstad 103/99 runs from leadoff (can't recall who batted 1 or 2)
2001: Arizona didn't have a 100 run guy.
2000: Jeter or Knoblach. Jeter had 113 runs, Chucky 75 in 102 games with the yankees.
1999: Chucky or Jeter- chucky 120 runs. Jeter 134
1998: Chucky or Jeter-chucky 117/Jeter 127
1997: Marlins-no one.
1996: I belive Jeter was leadoff, I may be wrong 103 runs.
1995 Braves-no one.
I realize you gotta have guys to knock them in. But I can see why Ned is targeting a leadoff guy. I feel that if Furcal was not a leadoff guy, he wouldn't be a potential dodger.
Better comparison: Nomar in decline when Theo dealt him.
I'm advocating finding his worth.
If you get a very good deal...maybe you do it.
I'd move him for Coco Crisp in a package.
The LAD have precious little leverage in player acquisition. Gagne could be the exception.
Ariz. saved $19 million, a huge sum for a franchise that has loads of debt.
Pitching in a hitters home park, Javier Vazquez was decent last year and LHP Halsey was OK given his youth and small salary. Navarro gave them pretty good value, too.
Even with the big contract, Vazquez should have pretty good trade value. Minaya's so goofy, he might give Az. Milledge and another arm for Vazquez.
Gagne "in decline"? What's the evidence for this? Gagne got hurt. Was he declining at the end of 2004? That's the last time any of us saw him healthy. The comparison to Nomar is instructive. Who did the Sox get for him? Basically, two rentals: Orlando Cabrera and Doug Mantciewicz, neither of whom particularly essential to their WS win that year. That trade was addition by subtraction--a Nomar dump.
To me, the only thing I'd consider for Gagne is whether he should be a starter, so the Dodgers can get more value out of his incredible talent.
I'll give you this: IF at midyear the Dodgers have already lost 50 games, and IF it's completely clear Gagne will leave as a FA, THEN you might trade him--without expecting a whole lot in return. Otherwise, the idea is a non-starter.
Wilson Alvarez made his first appearance in a winter league yesterday (pitched 3 scoreless innings). What happens if he decides he can pitch next year?
Ponson has reportedly stopped drinking, lost weight and grown his hair out. The last being by far the most important. He also says he wants to be a starter, unless a team will allow him to close. I think he's crazy
Says you. Says ESPN, the Marlins asked for Eric Duncan from the Yankees.
He is under contract. A healthy Wilson would be a nice surprise.
The Fukuoka Softbank Hawks released Tony Batista despite a year left on the 2 years, $15 mil contract he got. I'm not recommending him, but he's out there now
Well, sometimes there is a prize at the bottom of the box, right?
DzzrtRatt is right on Gagne. And it's one thing to muse about whether trading him would be a good idea. But I hope you don't actually believe that Colletti might be doing the same, especially before the season starts. It's simply not going to happen.
Crisp would help the offense and the defense and you get $8 million or so extra to spend.
Crisp would be the only OF on the LAD who projects as as a good bet to start 140 games or more. Above average defense in LF, OK in CF, some pop 15-17 HR, good speed, decent OBP skills that could be on the rise.
Coco's worth pursuing as the main piece in a package with a young Clev. arm such as Sowers or a Miller.
It isn't easy to replace a closer but the A's did it a few times and maybe Brazo or Sanchez has it in him, though I'd gulp and sign a stop-gap such as Todd Jones.
Shawn Green wouldn't have been a great choice. Certainly they committed real dollars to him.
Hey, he is one of my favorite players that hasn't worked out. Saw him pitch for the DevilRays when they brought him up to early. He looked nasty for someone so young. I think the Devilrays ruined him but I would love for us to give him a chance.
Coco Crisp is just as good as Milton without the baggage. He just turned 26, he's a switch hitter, he's not a good CF, but he's an above average LF.
Coco
2004/297/344/446
2005/300/345/465
MB
2004/267/362/424
2005/290/350/484
But using BP translated numbers from the DT card and you get
Coco
2004/307/356/470
2005/316/370/505
MB
2004/275/367/436
2005/295/355/505
No he's not worth Gagne but he's a solid ballplayer who at 26 has some upside.
The marketplace can produce some pretty interesting results. Two months ago, would you have believed that BJ Ryan would get $47 million, that Tom Gordon would get $18 million or that the Indians would be throwing big money at Trevor Hoffman?
Thorough medical contingencies to finish a Gagne deal would be attached and lessen some risk.
He also lists Byung-Hyun Kim:
"But while Kim is fantastic (.204 batting average allowed) against right-handed batters (just like Bradford), he's also plenty effective against the lefties, allowing a .249 batting average. Still only 26, Kim has been successful in his career as both a starter and a reliever, and he might spend another decade or more in the majors. But because Kim was hurt in 2004 and pitching for the Rockies in 2005, right now he's exactly the sort of pitcher who might be signed for pennies on the dollar."
Kim's been mentioned very little here. Any thoughts?
Thanks for your research on Crisp.
Indeed he's offensively comparable to Milton B. without the baggage. Less capable in CF but certainly a good defender in LF.
And again, one of the key points (though not my primary one) to my advocacy for Crisp is that he's a pretty good bet to play 140-plus games.
Can that be said of any other LAD outfielder, including the 26-year-old Bradley?
Crisp is a tad more than a "nice little player." He's an everday player with assets on both sides of the ball and a low salary. As for his upside, there's the rub. Very, very tough call.
I kind of doubt Cleveland will move him. They've turned down many clubs.
I agree that SS is a position of weakness, but defensively there he and Cora were pretty darn good. I think the crappy outfield, accentuated the fact that Izturis wasn't really a lead off hitter, even though he had some speed. He was always a number 8 hitter.
I'm not advocating moving Bradley should the LAD get Crisp.
I'd keep Bradley in CF.
A Crisp/Bradley/Drew OF works just fine with Cruz a very good fourth OF and Werth the fifth guy.
Playing time shouldn't be an issue given the injury histories of Bradley, Drew, Cruz (terrible back problems last year) and Werth.
I'd toss Ledee to Cleveland.
Repko's in Triple-A.
Just saw your earlier post. Cool of you, and much props on the Choi stat.
Again, I believe LAD could do worse than Choi at 1B for those dollars but am less enamored of him than many of his backers.
It also said loney would be ready for 2007.
So with that and colletti pursuing furcal, could laroche move to 2b permanently and we will see an infield of loney or choi at 1b, laroche at 2b, furcal at ss, guzman at 3b in 2007. It also said that kemp should be ready for 2007, so drew, kemp, ? outfield in 2007.
But in 2006, could we have choi 1b, kent 2b, furcal ss, aybar/robles/perez 3b till mid season then kent 1b, izturis 2b, furcal ss, guzman 3b or kent traded at trade deadline if we are out of it and choi still at 1b.
I was surprised to see that the report said tiffany would be ready for 2007.
It also said billingsley would be our fifth starter this season.
Gagne, who arrived in 1999, has been golden, yes. But how much production have LAD received from ther homegrown pitchers the last 3-5 years?
In particular, what LAD homegrown starting pitchers have given major league value with any consistency the last 3-5 years?
Every other team in the NL Worst, even Colorado, has done a better job of it, which is pretty incredible when you consider the resources at LAD's disposal and a fringe benefit of having a pitchers park to nurture tender young arms.
Such a dismal record should be considered when people get giddy over the present farm system and "all that pitching."
Depo gave us a clue last winter when he spend $50 million on two starting pitchers. This pipeline is far from a sure thing.
Can't stand her.
(I think I'm a little late on this)
Winter meetings checklist from dodgers.com
It says dealing strengths are of couse the prospects and it said either navarro or martin, and it also said both perez's odalis and antonio along with sanchez,brazoban.
Interesting.
She strikes me as a high maintenance type.
"Honey, I told you to buy Charmin, not Scott!" BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!
That's a good point, but you could also read it as giving the kids some breathing room so they don't have to be the solution.
I also don't care for how her characters all seem exactly the same. I'll pass on the overcompensating badass girl.
189 - Really going out on a limb agreeing with yourself there dsfan... :p
If your argument was "yeah, the system has been hyped for 10 years, there's no results, so why's this hype any different?" then I could see where you were coming from.
I'm not necessarily saying that the past is no indicator of the future, but like 190 says, if the past was a perfect indicator of the future then we would've had a Pedro every two years coming from the farm.
"Past peformance does not guarantee future results."
But right now, Baseball America and John Sickels are sort of the S&P and Moody's of the minor leagues.
When does Steinbrenner regret the Farnsworth deal - August? June?
How much should a player get to pitch one inning? Because we pay Eric Gagne a ton to do just that.
"OK, it's true Bradley isn't a threat to appear on the cover of Model Citizen Monthly. But he is A) still only 27 years old, B) not half as volatile as he's made out to be and C) a heck of a talent. So he will be traded -- and probably sooner than later. The Dodgers have had nibbles from the Yankees, Astros and Cubs. But the team most interested is (surprise) Oakland, which has never met a talented bargain it didn't like. "
Good to see this non-tendering talk is going away.
http://tinyurl.com/8xmym
GRABOWSKI
Oh. For. Crying. Out. Loud!
Next, Congress calls out the NBA for not enforcing the traveling rule. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
He has a lifetime OBP of .340, is that not good enough?
Thanks
i personally dont think laroche can move to 2b and be effective there. laroche has a third basemen's build, thick lower body. His feet are also not quick enough to move to 2b.
i would just leave laorche at 3b.
but a certain 3b that i do advocate a serious inquiry in switching positions is blake dewitt to 2b; which is something the dodgers are seriously thinking about as well.
hey molokai, those scouting reports were awesome man. i appreciate those. its grea to get more opinions from respected scouts (not dayn perry). can you give me a link to where i can buy his book or just peep around the website some more?
i was stupid there for a second.
But the Dodgers' subsequent needs for fourth and fifth outfielders to play a lot of games caused DePo to have regrets.
For a guy who brings nothing to the table (performance-wise) besides speed (no power, lousy OF arm, adequate range), and who is supposed to lead your team in plate appearances if only he can stay healthy, NO, a .340 OBP is not nearly good enough.
He seems like a great guy, but he's a 4th OFer at best.
Byrd supposedly already has at least one 3-year offer. No way he would take 1 + 1 and have to call Frank McCourt his boss on top of it.
I doubt Rogers will settle for a 1 yr deal either. Someone out there will give him 2 or 3.
I think most of us would love to get a hold of Wilkerson but according to reports the Nationals are asking alot.
OT: Just finished seeing "walk the line". The signature guitar continues to pulsate within my brain. That is a good thing. If anyone is a Johnny Cash fan they should check out the last Rosanne Cash disk. He sang one small part on one song and his voice just carried all of humanity on it as he knew his time was up. A deeply stirring song for anyone whose watched their family get old.
Rogers gets no respect. He is like the Reggie Sanders of pitching without the pennants. Six different teams in 9 years. I've always wondered how he would do in a pitchers ballpark. Most of his career he's pitched in hitters ballparks. I thought he'd make a great fit here because he starts out great and runs out of gas in July just when Billingsly would be ready.
Epstein rightly perceived that for a contending club, Roberts was a valuable reserve.
While Roberts gave Boston good value in several roles in the Sox drive to the playoffs and the World Series, Jason Grabowski, the man Depo retained over Roberts, was an obstacle to the LAD winning a tight race for the NL West title. Grabo and newcomer Choi were terrible LH pinch-hitting options for Tracy, who could've used Roberts versatility in those September chess matches.
But the bigger story here relating to Robert is that Depo made a critical mistake the likes of which Theo would not:
He failed to get a decent marketplace valuation of Dave Roberts before trading him.
That's a big no-no for a GM.
And it's probably why Depo, to his credit, lists this seemingly two-bit transaction as his lone regret while Depo backers fail to see the big picture.
Even a dubious leadodff hitter/CF such as Roberts had a LOT more value in the marketplace than Depo perceived. And it's the marketplace that matters more, of course.
While many GMs were unaware that DR was available, Theo got Roberts for a six-pack of Pabst -- the redoubtable Henri Stanley, whose sexy OBP numbers have beguiled many sabermaticians but mask other flaws that make Henry 4A Lite.
After Roberts gave Theo excellent value in the 2004 season/ALCS, Epstein then plugged him into the marketplace with far greater aplomb than Depo did.
Of course, Theo is a more dynamic personality, one who has many contacts in the industry and is plugged into the information network in a vital way that gets overlooked in these forums, where trades and transactions are made in a virtual vacuum.
In return for little Davey Roberts, Epstein got:
* 2.65 million in cash.
* Jay Payton, who while overpaid at the time is legit major leaguer who last summer gave stellar returns to the A's after Theo dealt him for Chad Bradford.
* Ramon Vazquez, a utility man who alone has more value than Stanley.
* David Pauley, a pretty good Double-A pitcher. Pauley alone certainly now has more value than Stanley, who will turn 28 next week.
Hopefully Depo also realizes that if he had wished to keep Roberts and the mighty Grabo -- who plagued Tracy again this year -- that indeed was possible. Just 30 days later the 25-man roster could be expanded. A ribcage strain for the indispensable Grabo would've bought the needed time to keep both he and DR on the roster. Tracy could've had Roberts for his chess matches.
http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/
How ironical.
From a franchise who just fired their GM, this has to be one of the most messed up situations and it isnt getting better. If you have Yankee money, fine, sign him, but if you have Dodger money, you take the 10 mil and buy an OF with some power and stick him in LF. That is just for starters.
Dodger fans have to be going crazy. This sure isnt the 70s anymore.
And the Padres are a shining example of how to run a franchise? Hope you enjoy Mr. Castillo.
we will get the royals 2nd round pick. woohoo!
Colletti is done with the first set of managerial interviews. Hopefully we can get a manager soon
hey, in this crazy relief pitchers market, it could happen!
I can see the merits of a traditional approach and a "moneyball" approach. The traditional approach with a speedy leadoff guy stealing bases, playing good defense, and hitting the cutoff man is exciting baseball that would make me want to go to the ballpark. But it seems that an approach based on OBP plus other factors could help determine how to put a winning team on the field. However, whenever I have had the chance to watch the A's, I have been bored out of my mind. The seem to either walk, hit a home run, but in any scenario it is pitch after pitch after pitch.
Thus, as a fan I think Dave Roberts was a great player who just got hurt too much. As a stat cruncher, I see Dave Roberts as a good backup who is useful when needing only one run, like the BoSox.
As a fan, I would prefer to watch the traditional style. But as a stat person I would want to take a more "moneyball" approach.
However, the fan and stathead in me converge on the issue of Hee Seop Choi! Give the man a chance!
I'm so confused . . .
Dodgers Offer Furcal 3-Year, $40-Million Deal
The Dodgers are so intent on signing free-agent shortstop Rafael Furcal that they have offered him a three-year contract worth close to $40 million, a source with knowledge of the negotiations said Friday night."
LA Times
George Steinbrenner would have offered $39.96 million because he hates even numbers.
Clearyly you did not watch the A's this season. While they are not stealing bases left and right they are not just hitting home runs to score runs.
some crazy formula the Elias Sports Bureau use that talks into account the players previous two season and compares his production with other players of the same position in the same league, free agent or not.
if you watch the A's these days, you'll find that they're a very good defensive ballclub. perhaps they've figured out a good way to measure defense. they also tend to have a lot of good pitching, which i think is always great to watch. i also like watching a patient at-bat too, though.
-dodgers offseason battle cry
(According to AJC articles I read when I lived in Atlanta, Andruw Jones has problems with strippers and alcohol, Bobby Cox has had issues with Alcohol, and I thought Chipper had some legal issues too but I am not certain)
The Braves have covered up/helped him in the past. Why would he leave that for an organization in disaray that will probably turn on him like they have Milton Bradley.
Just my opinion . . .
I read that Andruw went to a Hawks game recently with Furcal to pursuade (OK I am tired, I can't spell anymore) him to stay in Atlanta.
I have even taught the Republic using parts of Moneyball as examples! Of course the Dodgers are the Gold philosopher ruler type baseball players with the Giants as the bronze hedonistic people.
So, I do understand the book. And I take more from it than simply OBP and 3 run Hrs.
I don't know how to credit what's said above about Furcal's potential legal issues. I remember hearing stuff from an insider about Paul LoDuca, claiming the real reason he was traded was something other than "to get Brad Penny." I expected, based on this tip, that it would come out imminently. It never has, and now I think it's BS. Baseball's like politics and movies--a rumor stew.
And in an unrelated manner, anyone interested in Marquis? I'm guessing he could be had for one of our major league ready 2Bs, and maybe a reliever or lesser prospect, assuming we pick up his contract. Being his contract year, and looking at his away splits, he could be a very good 4th guy/Weaver-clone for the rotation
We've been talking about Milton Bradley for a week now, and talks are heating up with L.A. Another name the Cubs are seriously considering is Derek Lowe. Lowe had a resurgent year in Los Angeles, and Hendry would feel much safer being able to pencil in 32 starts from him for '06. You can never have too much pitching.
Here and there, you may have heard that Carlos Zambrano could be had in a trade. That's absurd, of course.*
All I have mentioned was what I read with my own eyes out of the AJC from 1998-2002. So what I posted was legit to the best of my knowledge.
I did have a friend at Emory who did an internship with the Braves. He told me some crazy stories about the players. But I couldn't tell you if all players acted like that or if it was specific to the Braves so I have kept my mouth shut on it.
Wasn't it David Justice who openly complained about the good ol' boys in Atlanta by saying if you weren't a favorite of management or Cox you were treated as second class citizens? But the favorites could do no wrong.
It would be interesting to have Furcal on the Dodgers but my guess is that he stays with the good ol' boys network.
Why would the Dodgers offer so much more per year for Furcal than other teams? Perhaps because of insurance. Teams can insure most players' contracts for only three years; the Dodgers might prefer paying more while insured.
Flanders is an evil genius.
"I had no idea who Drew Olson was until today and now I have to ask how come he is not the leading Heisman candidate."
30tds to 3 interceptions people need to start paying attention.
Assistant GM, Jed Hoyer, has stated that the Red Sox have received interest from 12-13 teams regarding Ramirez, with 5 believed to have serious interest, meaning they match up well with Boston in possible trade scenarios.
http://tinyurl.com/db7ac
And that there are two halves to a basketball court.
speculation there is that furcal took a physical with LA this morning and will be announced tomorrow....
Who will be next year's "high-priced free agent from the Braves to be signed by the Dodgers"?
Second, LoDuca to Az has been roumered for awhile at Az Snakepit I'm wondering why there is no news regarding Glaus? Wish we had enough cash to get him. Furcal leading off, then Choi, Kent, Drew and Glaus. Some one would drive Furcal home. (No pun intended re: "someone should have driven him home before he got those DUIs).
Third, why trade Lowe. Its not a great contract but with Weaver on the way out Lowe is at least respectable and there was a reason he was thought to be well suited to DS.
Finally, becasue none of you know who I am I'll admit it: I like the Carpenters. Leaving on a jet plane. Who's next?
ss furcal
cf bradley
rf drew
2b kent
3b glaus
1b choi
lf cruz
C navarro
Trade Odalis Perez joel hanrahan and Eric Hull to the Dbacks for Troy Glaus and 2mil in 2008
or, when glaus blows out his shoulder, laroche can take over.
for milledge!?!?!
With Vazquez's departure they desperatly need pitching. Give them Odalis.
They also need a SS as Clayton is a FA. Give them Robles.
With Green and Gonzo they need a 4th outfielder, give them Repko.
They need a catcher if they don't get LoDuca. Give them Phillips. And I do mean give, as in put him out on the curb at night and hope he is gone by morning.
These are all win/win deals. Well, um at least for us.
I'm not real excited about the Furcal idea. Unless the budget is bigger than we believe. Because we still at least short-term holes at 3b, LF, and SP. He'll help, but is he worth the cost (and the opportunity costs)?
What a joke. The same thing happened with A-Rod and the player's union wouldn't let him do it. He can say whatever he wants to, the union won't let him or anyone else take guaranteed money off the table, because then it becomes... unguaranteed, and down that path lies an NFL-style weak union.
Stan from Tacoma
http://tinyurl.com/62mk4
isnt that a downgrade.. or more a lateral move?
The Diamondbacks have a smart new GM and won't be making to many goofy deals.
They have a young SS by the name of Drew. In two years he will probably be the best SS in the NL.
They have a 4th outfielder named Quentin. He is already probably the best outfielder on the team.
They don't need our scraps. The Diamondbacks are going to be very tough. When they sign Upton's brother they will quickly have the best prospect in baseball. That is not my opinion because I've never seen him play but the opinion of many scouts.
if there are, i havent seen any.
The D'Backs do need pitching, starters and relievers, in the worst way. OP might be a nice fit. On the other hand, OP and Russ Ortiz in the same rotation--that will cause a Mylanta shortage in Phoenix.
I'm slightly less bullish on the Diamondbacks over the next 2-3 years. They should be decent, but they have many issues to solve. Such as:
Scant pitching and five players whose best spot is 1B: Tracy, Glaus, Jackson, Green and Clark. The pacts to Gonzo and Green are pretty inefficient, too, and their catching stinks.
As for S. Drew, no question, he's an exciting prospect with a premium bat, but in his first professional season last year, injuries sidelined him for stretches of at least five games with three different clubs: Independent club, Single-A and Double-A.
Durability gets undervalued so often. Let's see if S. Drew can weather the meat grinder -- which is what a major league season is, especially for a SS.
As for J. Upton, Az. has yet to sign him. He wants $6 million, hasn't played since last spring and is 18 years old. Even Az. finally signs him -- no sure thing -- he's probably 3-4 years away from helping. That's a ton of dough in one basket for a teenager.
Arizona's pitching is pretty thin from top to bottom. Until it rallied in Sept. the Arizona bullpen was on track to be the majors' worst since 1950.
As for bright young GMs, most of them make mistakes that can be attributed to inexeperience. Take Arizona's bright not
so young rookie CEO last year who gave $33 million to Russ Ortiz.
The Rockies let Josh Byrnes make a trade and took away the keys to the car after he dealt Josh Bard and Jody Gerut to the Tribe for Jacob Cruz. Bryne seems to have a lot going for him, no question, but he'll have to learn a few things.
For me Arizona is more interesting than it is impressive.
Also, did I miss any talk about this?
http://tinyurl.com/aaeb8
He's probably better off in the AL.
Look for Az. to send him to Toronto or Boston or Anaheim.
If the Angels swallowed their pride, Glaus would be a nice fit. And Az. could reap a nice windfall: Maybe 2B Kendrick and a decent arm to go with about $30 million in savings.
Shoot, the Angels offered five years, some $50 million for Konerko. Getting Glaus at about $32 million for two prospects seems reasonable.
Glaus is a decent fit for the LAD but a better fit for the AL.
Roberts was garbage, is garbage. If DePodesta thinks that should be his biggest regret then he is kidding himself (Offering Jim Tracy an extension and Scott Erickson should head the list, with Edwards, Grabowski, not DFAing Phillips in August, and a list as long as my arm in an utterly incompetent 2005). Roberts had to be cleared from the roster lest he kill us. Tracy-proofing is an end in and of itself. And lest we forget, Werth had a great year, if not as s(crappy). This revisionist love for Dave Roberts is nonsense.
You are very right that all the other moves you mentioned in 2005 totally trumped that move. Starting and ending with the extension that cost him his job.
All I hear is Kent moving to first. He could be moving to third. Or he simply could be moving to another team. Wasn't Colletti a part of the group that dealt with his motorcycle incident and let him walk out of SF?
Moving Kent would also explain the rumored interest the Dodgers have in Soriano.
You're right, however, that if this all results in shifting Izturis to 2b, it is ridiculous. Izzy has been an inadequate hitter even by SS standards for 3 of his 4 seasons here. He would be woefully inadequate - perhaps even a worse alternative than returning Cora to 2b.
Werth VORPed 9, and he wasn't even competent enough to walk and chew gum at the same time.
If the Dodgers actually sign Furcal for what's being reported in the neighborhood of 13 million/year, there is no way Drew sticks around. If Drew plays at his 140 games per season average next season, 11 million/year is a paltry sum in comparison to Furcal's contract. JD and Boras have gotta' think they can get more on the open market and they will surely opt out and test it.
We can always re-negotiate Drew's contract. After the Royals offer him 60 mil over 4 yrs to leave the Dodgers, we can counter with an offer of 75 mil for 5 years with an option for an additional 5 or 6 years to lock him up for the rest of his career :)
Glaus at this point in his career is really a 1B/DH type. One of the reasons the Angels let him go was allegedly because of his lackadaisical training regimen, failing to get shoulder surgery in the offseason instead of in-season 2004, when it really hurt the team. I'm not saying he's not a valuable piece, but not at the contract Arizona paid for him.
As for 348, Steve, you said Roberts has no value. That's ridiculous. He had some value, but that's declining every year he ages. His skills are a young player's skills, and he is no longer a young player. Encarnacion is superficially similar to Roberts; he has a much worse eye (a career K/BB rate of about 3:1) and a worse success rate at stealing bases (just under 70%, vs. Roberts' 82%). Roberts can take a walk; Encarnacion's a hacker with little power. Neither of them is a starting player on any championship team. But they are not without value.
Closing summation:
1) There is no on point evidence as to Dave Roberts' market value as of July 31, 2004. Plaintiffs propound a number of theories regarding Dave Roberts' value as of November 2004, and 2005. It was only after the "stolen base" that Dave Roberts reached the Juan Pierre pantheon of "proven winners."
2) As of July 31, 2004, the only relevant time period, the only skill for which Dave Roberts was known to excel was running.
3) As of July 31, 2004, speed merchant Dave Roberts had spent much of 2003, and part of 2004, on the DL with hamstring problems.
4) Much has been made of the fact that Dave Roberts has the "skills" of a fourth or fifth outfielder (faint praise indeed from his counsel). Assuming that he received the playing time appropriate for a fourth or fifth outfielder, Roberts would no doubt VORP somewhere from 8-12 (he VORPed 11 in 270 AB with the Dodgers in 2004). Jayson Werth, as a 25 year old, VORPed 15. Furthermore, Werth had a marginal lineup value of 8, whereas Dave Roberts had a marginal lineup value of -4.5. For those who take a sensual approach to the game this comports with what we can see: Jayson Werth can create his own offense, while Dave Roberts, when not grounding out to second base ad nauseum (though running it out with panache, I must say), must stand around the basepaths waiting for someone to drive him in. Given the make-up of the 2005 Dodgers, one is hard-pressed (generously) to argue that this would have been helpful.
5) Hypothetically, what does one expect to "get back" for an admitted "fourth or fifth outfielder" or had VORPed "over 10" for three of the last four years? At least one who is not bizarrely credited with ending the Curse of Babe Ruth?
6) And finally, of course, any value that Roberts might hypothetically have had was washed out by the situation. Tracy's idiocy became common knowledge in 2005, but was present in 2004, 2003, and every year since he started. He does not care about talent. He cares about playing his poker pals. The value, again, was in removing Roberts from the roster. That was inherently valuable and necessary, regardless of the return.
#357: Thanks dzzrtRatt! That's high praise indeed, though I don't know if it's nice to wish the McCourts upon anyone :).
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.