I was just coming over to post about the Manny Mota piece and here it is already! Those are really impressive numbers.

Jon, great article in response to Kevin Modesti. In this day and age, there is no such thing as stability.

I can't name a stable WINNING franchise. The Braves have won one WS in recent memory. Who else that has consistently won the WS? Yankees won a bunch a few years back, but that is as unstable as it gets in the front office.

Everyone needs to come to grips that the O'Malleys would not be competitive in this day and age. The game has changed on the field and in its business model. Look at the offseason changes the White Sox have made. The Dodgers and McCourt are tinkering until they figure what works. And I'll be on their side until that happens.

I often wonder if the Plaschke-ites had preached patience during DePo's tenure if he might not still be with the team implementing his plan/vision.

It is a sad state-of-affairs when the Mass Media potentially has so much leverage.

2 - The Dodgers and McCourt are tinkering until they figure what works.

That is the understatement of the year.

I guess Nebraska is on the brain today . . . (see The Griddle Bettman post and comments).

Yeah, I'm pretty sure what the McCourts have done goes beyond tinkering. They tinker like my 18-month-old tinkers with his train set. I'm rebuilding those tracks five, six times a day.

That being said, the McCourts' problem isn't so much whom they bring in as whom and how often they let go.

5 - Many roads lead to Springsteen, even when I don't set out for there.

I'm for patience plus. When your outfield is Edwards/Repko/Grabowski, it might just as well be Chen/Webber/Meadows. Instead of known (bad) quantities (which Repko was, well before his 276th AB, and Edwards was well before his 239th), give the nobodies and the not-likely-to-ever-be-anybodies a shot. None of them are going to be Lo Duca, but at least there's something worth watching. I have no patience for the, "well, maybe if we can just plug in Jose Cruz. . .," approach. If you're not winning anyway, don't just waste the games. Use them to learn something.

6 - Exactly... you can't expect a turnover rate that rivals even the most sweatshop of telemarketing call-centers to produce a winning team/organization. So, if the Dodgers fail to make the playoffs it's bye-bye Colletti and Little, hello completely different front-office? Just a hunch, but I think that is a business model destined to failure.

My only hope is that McCourt realizes he can't keep making wholesale changes if the Dodgers have another poor season... he's gonna have to give Colletti/Little at least 2 years to prove that the ship has been righted or is sinking faster than the Titanic. If the latter occurs expect another wholesale change at the ownership level.

I don't want to sound overly fawning but it appears somebody ate their writing Wheaties this morning.

9 brings up something that I think will actually happen. No matter how the team performs, I believe Colletti will be seen as a stabilizer. If the Dodgers repeat their 2005 performance, I believe the word "injuries" will be mentioned often. If they play .500 ball inj 2006, I think the CW will be that the team is stabilizing. If they play better than .500 ball, he'll get a parade.

Shorter version: I think Colletti is in a no-lose situation because the guy previously was in a lose-lose situation; he was hated no matter what he did.

And why do I write "I think" so much? Because I cannot dismiss the possibility that the McCourts might be crazier than sewer rats. I hope they're not but some of the things they do are scary.

I used to pray to God for patience. I am still waiting for an answer.

10 - What happens if '07 is a failure?
A) McCourts let Colletti fire Little.
B) McCourts let Colletti fire Little and then they fire Colletti.
C) Plaschke writes a soliloquy on why he knew Colletti was bad for the Dodgers from the moment he was hired.
D) Plaschke fires the McCourts.

12 - That should have read: "What happens if '07 is a failure as well as '06?

Jon -- it's pieces like this that put Dodger Thoughts in the elite of sportswriting.

10 - I thought DePo was in a no-lose situation. I may still be right: even if he gets fired (which he did), everyone and his brother knows Frank is insane and possessed of an itchy trigger finger; how many GMs can say they produced a division winner in their first season?

From the Springsteen Lyrics site that Jon linked for Reason to Believe:

Fans who visit this lyrics also like:

Christina Aguilera - Infatuation Lyrics
98 Degrees - I Do Cherish You Lyrics
Various - Its Raining Men Lyrics
Ciara - Goodies Lyrics
Weezer - Buddy Holly Lyrics
112 - Peaches 'N Cream Lyrics
P.O.D. - Boom Lyrics
Extreme - More Then Words Lyrics
Sarah McLachlan - Answer Lyrics
Backstreet Boys - I Need You Tonight Lyrics
Bryan Adams - Everything I Do (I Do It For You) Lyrics
Sarah McLachlan - Perfect Girl Lyrics
Sean Paul - Baby Boy, feat. Beyonce Lyrics
Pink - Trouble Lyrics
Frank Sinatra - You'll Never Walk Alone Lyrics
Matchbox 20 - I'm Not Crazy Lyrics
Seether - Fine Again Lyrics
Mago De Oz - Molinos De Viento Lyrics
Good Charlotte - Day That I Die Lyrics
Craig David - Seven Days Lyrics
Boyz II Men - One Sweet Day Lyrics
The All-American Rejects - Paper Heart Lyrics
Mya - Fallen Lyrics
Immortal Technique - The 4th Branch Lyrics
Simple Plan - So Happy Together Lyrics
Destiny's Child - Independent Women Pt. II Lyrics
The Calling - Our Lives Lyrics
Ginuwine - In Those Jeans Lyrics
Blondie - Call Me Lyrics
Stevie Wonder - Because I Love you Lyrics

Um, eclectic, I guess.

I was stymied in my attempts to find the lyrics to "Five months, three weeks, two days" by Louis Prima however.

Clearly what's called for here is a return to the good old days of stable World Champions like the Marlins and Diamondbacks.

When the Dodgers returned from oblivion in 1941, Larry McPhail ran the team. Then they were overrun by the 1942 Cardinals who ran a blitzkreig through the NL and the Yankees in the World Series to finish the season. And then McPhail left to join the Army (and eventually the Yankees). Then came Rickey in 19443 and after missing out in 1946, the Dodgers got to the World Series in 1947 and 1949. And then O'Malley forced out Rickey.

And only after that did the Dodgers win a World Series.

Speaking of stability

According to the Rumors section of ESPN

The Dodgers are interested in acquiring Barry Zito. Beane is asking for Broxton,Either Navaroo or Martin, JtD and Ledee. The Dodgers would recieve Zito, Kotsay and PTBNL.

Does winning bring stability or does stability bring winning?

And I view the Dodgers World Series wins this way (note use of simplistic terms):

1955 - Last gap of "Boys of Summer"
1959 - Fluke
1963 - Koufax
1965 - Koufax
1981 - Last gap of The Infield
1988 - Hershiser/Gibson

10, 14 - thanks muchly

15 - Isn't the conventional wisdom more like the McCourts have itchy trigger-fingers, but they finally got one right in firing DePodesta?

Marion Barry is wearing a Nationals cap while speaking against the stadium deal in the DC city council right now.

Hmmmmmm . . .

(you too can watch at http://www.octt.dc.gov/services/video/DC_Ch-13.asx)

21 Brilliant summary, by the way.

To paraphrase Clue, "Stability is just a red herring."

20, 25 - Steve's right. Winning brings chemistry. Stability is a Rorschach test.

26-So if a team fails to have good chemistry is it unstable or a wingless butterfly?

26
Winning brings chemistry.

Do you mean

1. If there is winning, chemistry will be an inevitable result

or

2. If there is chemistry, winning must have preceded it

Losing teams can have chemistry. But nobody cares about losing teams.

But nobody cares about losing teams.

A lot of folks seem to care about the Dodgers...

So Winning>Chemistry>Stability>Rorschach Test?

or

Rorschach Test+ Diet Pepsi= Stability x Chemistry= Winning x stabibility =Legendary?

28 - Hmm.

Not 1.

Not 2.

But it's true that what I wrote is imprecise. All I really mean is, chemistry does not cause winning. Chemistry can precede or follow winning, but it does not cause winning.

32
chemistry does not cause winning

Do you mean

1. Chemistry makes a positive contribution to winning, but the presence of chemistry does not guarantee winning

or

2. The presence of chemistry makes no positive contribution to winning

Chemistry might make a positive contribution to winning, but the presence of chemistry does not guarantee winning.

34
Sorry, not trying to be annoying (but might be succeeding anyway...)

By "might make" do you mean

1. Sometimes makes, sometimes doesn't make

or

2. It is not possible to measure whether chemistry makes or doesn't make

Rorschach Test+ Diet Pepsi= Stability x Chemistry= Winning x stabibility =Legendary?

Plaschkean Geometry

So how tortured will this chemistry conundrum get before we all rise up and smite D4P?

Did anyone else who watched the superbowl ads think that Diet Pepsi's new slogan "brown and bubbly" didn't have positive effect they thought it would?

35 - I'm not annoyed.

Yes on 1, Yes on 2.

Just because we can't measure the impact of chemistry doesn't mean that it has none. However, I don't believe that it is necessary to have chemistry in place for a team to start to win. I don't believe that chemistry is as important as talent or smart decisions.

37- Careful, he's one of them UFC fans. He knows methods of killing men that normal people can't even spell.

Just because we can't measure the impact of chemistry doesn't mean that it has none. However, I don't believe that it is necessary to have chemistry in place for a team to start to win. I don't believe that chemistry is as important as talent or smart decisions.

Agreed on all counts.

At the risk of being smited, the other issue with chemistry (and the more intersting one, IMO) has to do with whether "bad" chemistry can have a negative impact on team performance. Is it always worth signing "jerks" with good stats, or might their jerkiness outweigh their stats?

40
Careful, he's one of them UFC fans. He knows methods of killing men that normal people can't even spell.

I'm a lover, not a fighter.

I think the Ender Anology will help you understand the impact of "chemistry". Just because you dig her doesn't mean you have Chemistry. Chemistry "might make" a positive contribution towards "the world series", while the lack of chemistry can only be overcome (in certain instances) by spending overbudget. Stability is usually highly rated by "her" but some see it as adverse factor towards "the world series" (and never let it be known as a means towards an "end"). Finally, "pepsi" (also known as jewelry) can be used at various times in various quantities, to enhance stability or to distract away from the lack of stability or chemistry. Beer can work, too.

Somehow I think this whole discussion will come down to someone mentioning the Colletti Uncertainty Principle or DePodesta's Cat.

Going back to Jon's intro, Dave Hansen didn't qualify as a pinch-hitting specialist in the Steve Treder piece.

Hansen appeared in 70 games as a PH, out of 102 games total. Treder defined a PH-specialist as one who had at least 80% of their appearances as a PH. Hansen played 1B and 3B too much.

45 - Oh, thanks for clearing that up. My mistake.

Try to be clever and I leave an 's' of Enders! Enders ANALOGY.

In the last game of the Caribbean Series for Puerto Rico, Jose Valentin is starting at second base.

Alex Cora, baseball's smartest man, isn't playing.

"Old friend" Trenidad Hubbard homered for the Mexican team.

48 - I'm getting the feeling that Alex Cora is on On Notice notice.

whether "bad" chemistry can have a negative impact on team performance. Is it always worth signing "jerks" with good stats, or might their jerkiness outweigh their stats?

I dunno know. Let's ask the Eagles.

Jon, excellent lead post.

I am far less ardent about the Dodgers than are many others who post on this forum. For many of them, I can see why it's been a brutal stretch, why patience has dwindled. They've invested emotional energy in an underachieving, bumbling franchise that has squandered many of its advantages.

Still, I've been a bit surprised that so many here delight in ridiculing even the Dodgers personnel that helped the franchise finally win the NL West two years ago.

I wrongly figured there'd be a little gratitude shown the likes of Cesar Izturis, Alex Cora, Adrian Beltre and Jim Tracy. OK, if not gratitude, at least benign indifference.

Instead I've seen an eagerness to annihilate them whenever any conceivable chance arises.

It has surprised me how unpopular they are here on a Dodgers board, almost like people gain energy and esteem out of demeaning them. At times, it's like even the 2004 title brought no enjoyment to even Dodgers fans.

20-
I would be surprised if that is all the A's would want for Zito and it is probably wrong as there is no reason whatsoever the A's would need Ledee even if they trade Kotsay. They have enough left handeders in the outfield. I would rather just try to sign Zito next year instead of giving up players for him.

Lee/Zito for 07 LZ in 07

I do believe that chemistry is overrated when it comes to winning. What makes a team win is teamwork. Players who are in it for the team and not in it for themselves.

I believe you can have chemistry in a clubhouose, which consists of a few "individuals," and not have teamwork on the field.

I am not an NBA fan, but look at Kobe and the Lakers. The "individual" is putting up huge numbers, but the team is losing.

The Dodgers need a visit from coach Wooden in Spring Training to teach/remind them of this.

The Dodgers also need an owner that will give them time to become a team. For some teams, it may take more than one year.

First post related to the topic in awhile, so be easy..lol.

BC

53
I do believe that chemistry is overrated when it comes to winning. What makes a team win is teamwork. Players who are in it for the team and not in it for themselves.

I think some folks would consider "teamwork" and being "in it for the team" to be part of "chemistry."

52 Which Lee exactly?

On the Mota post:

Longtime Dodger announcer Vin Scully once said that Mota could wake up on Christmas morning and hit a line drive to center.

Jim Murray, Los Angeles sportswriter, once wrote that you could wake Manny up at 2 AM, hand him a toothpick, throw an asprin tablet toward him, and he would hit it for a line drive single to right.

51 - Thanks. I think what you're seeing is a reaction to the overwhelming worship that the players you mention received in the mainstream.

I think many are grateful for the 2004 performances of the people you mention - and have expressed that gratitude - but resent that so many others made them unassailable.

I can't speak for everyone, of course.

51- If you start from the perspective of, "Even good players have some specific, non-magical, value which can be replaced, for a price," what you interpret as hatred will become, more clearly, just an argument over what that value is, and what the replacement price is. As always, Steve is exempted.

It's bad to look at your wife and wonder if you might be able to trade up. But if you look at your thirdbaseman with that sort of loyalty, you just might be a sucker. Especially since he definitely doesn't look at you, that way.

That said, my hatred of Beltre is boundless. When the revolution comes, I'll smite him first.

I've never heard of Beltre provoking such a reaction.

Alex Cora is not "On Notice" since he's an object of ridicule.

39--Jon, this is an excellent conclusion to the chemistry debate. I agree with your statement completely.

58--I think your second paragraph is wonderful, not only for baseball teams but also for marriage relationships.

60--I agree with Jon. I have never heard of this much anger toward Beltre either.

56. There will never be another like Jim Murray.

Jon,

Thanks for the explanation.

I must say, I've seen little evidence here of any gratitude toward Cora, Izturis, Tracy or even Beltre on this forum, but I wasn't reading this site in 2004 or most of 2005.

I wasn't expecting a lot of gratitude at this date, either, but as I wrote, nor did I expect so much disdain. Your explanation makes sense -- it's not just those men who inspire these reactions but those who overstated their merits and brooked no objections.

Good chemistry may or may not add value to a winning club. Obvioulsy it can't hurt. But bad chemistry can do far greater harm than good chemistry can ever do. Even if it isn't reflected on the field it shows up other places. The bad chemistry between MB and Kent didn't matter much on the field cause MB was hurt most of the time anyway. But it forced us to find a new center fielder who would be more expensive or not as good and it forced us to take less than he was worth. If you go with the more expensive option that takes away from your being able to spend that money elsewhere (read: pitching). Bad chemistry has a broad range ripple effect. So the conclusion is this: The value of good chemistry is not that it translates into wins but it supplants bad chemistry which is kryptonite.

(On the other hand this may be the jibberish ramblings of someone who is looking for any excuse not to work).

65-

you bring up a good point but I think using Bradley/Kent as an example is the most extreme form of bad chemistry.

The way I look at it, some sports need chemistry more than others. For example, in basketball you're working with the whole team the ENTIRE time..chemistry is needed. Just look at the Pistons. In baseball though, your teammates can't help you get a base hit. That's what I love about baseball, it's a team sport that is also extremely individualistic. Fielding a grounder or a fly ball takes one guy, hitting takes one guy etc etc. This is why I think in baseball chemistry is less important...but I agree, while good chemistry might not ADD wins, it's a heck of a lot better than bad chemistry for the reasons you mentioned.

As for the hatred towards Beltre, lemme chime in on that. I think most people are so mad that he left over a relatively insignificant contract difference. The guy said he wanted to be a Dodger and I believe the reports were that we offered VERY close to the same money Seattle offered yet he took the extra and bolted. That's pure greed. There are those who will say "you would do the same thing" but I honestly wouldn't. If you put a contract in front of me right now from the Dodgers at say 2 yrs 10 mill and another from a different team of 3 years 15 mill I'd sign the Dodger deal. Why? Because I'm not greedy, I love the Dodgers, LA is my home, and playing for the team I love in my hometown is worth more than the extra 5 million bucks that I'd never spend anyways.

65. The point you raise about playing in LA, IMO, applies more to Jeff Weaver than anyone else. When Beltre left he didn't know if he could play elsewhere (softball here for Steve). Weaver has already tried and failed in another league and city. It is a fact there are certian places he can't handle the pressure. He was comfortable here and pitched reasonabbly well when not left in too long. He should be putting himself in a position to succeed here instead of gambling elsewhere for the extra money. I'll laugh my ass off when he gets spanked in the AL, relegated to the bullpen and his little brother takes his spot in the rotation.

65-

Interesting take on Beltre. I was unaware that it was such a close call. If that's a realistic account, I could see why there'd be resentment.

There's no way of knowing, of course, but I believe it's also possible that Boras nudged Beltre toward Seattle so that he could then place Drew in Los Angeles for $55 million guaranteed (which sane clubs were not willing to do).

Of course, Beltre could've told Boras no. After all, Boras works for Beltre.

Which brings up another point about Boras: It seems wise to have as few of his clients as possible, without getting overly rigid about it. A small bonus to how Colletti handled the Weaver machinations -- beyond big savings in dollars and the addition of two draft pick -- Ned rid the club of a frontline Boras client. Not that it should be a guiding rule, but it's worth considering. Boras has made a lot of money off rookie GMs of the Dodger, often to the franchise's regret.

64 Gratitude took a backseat to ideology.

You cannot overstate the impact the Lo Duca/Mota trade had on the discourse surrounding this team. It was the Dodger equivalent to the Dreyfus Affair. After the trade, you were either busy defending DePodesta or criticizing him. Both camps had serious beliefs that they just knew were true and they couldnt' believe the other side was so blind.

It's not that we're ungrateful for '04; the discussion at the time, IIRC, was who to be grateful to. That discussion turned into a fiery debate.

I do know this: after his horrific performance in 2005, I know I find it difficult to be grateful to Jim Tracy for anything.

20. That'd be a mega-deal.

Dodgers get:
P- Barry Zito
CF- Mark Kotsay

Athletics get:
P- Jonothan Broxton
OF- Ricky Ledee
OF- Joel Guzman
OF- Andre Ethier
C- Dionner Navarro

That would push the Dodgers payroll to like 112 mils....

If the Blue could long-term Zito, I'd probably pull the trigger. Ethier/Ledee arent really losses. Guzman wont play SS here anyways, so he's not of that much value anymore. Broxton/Navarro I'd hate to give up, but you gotta give something to get something.

52. I agree. I dont think adding Zito/Kotsay would put us over the top, so keeping the prospects and signing Zito in the off-season might be a better plan. If Zito/Kotsay for sure put the team in position to win it all in 06, I'd do it. But on second thought, it does seem like a lot to give up, especially since Zito can be had in the off-season.

Btw Jon, "Airplane!" is without question the funniest movie of all time.

70 Isn't that "either" not "Ethier"? Not that this trade would happen anyway.

70 -

I believe that was either Navarro or Martin, not Ethier, Navarro or Martin.

Since we just got Ethier from the A's, it's unlikely we would send him right back.

73 -

Beat me by 11 seconds reg. Poor Ethier must suffer a lot because of his name.

Ned had better be careful in trade talks. He might offer someone "either.....or" and they might take Ethier.

69

Interesting context. As someone outside of the anti- and pro-Depo camps, I've always thought too much was made of the LoDuca/Penny deal. I gave Depo good marks on that trade and still do, but still wonder if he failed to do his homework on Penny's health and also believe the trade's pillover caused him to needlessly give away Roberts, who, as Theo Epstein would show, had double value on the field and the trade market.

My big point is that it's too bad that trade become synonymous with Depo's tenure and legacy, when in reality, it was just one of his several major moves and not the most impactful on the team. Also too bad that the "fiery debate" overshadowed some remarkable work that season.

For what it's worth, I rated Tracy's work highly in 2004 but also found him lacking in 2005. I guess I'm more appreciative of his overall tenure with a club that lacked leadership and coherence from above on many occasions. Weak that his ego got the best of him in 2005, an awful year on many counts -- but it should never get so bad that you're making moves to spite your boss. It's obvious that he and Depo were not only on different pages, they weren't in the same book or library for that matter.

My orders came through. My squadron ships out tomorrow. We're bombing the storage depots at Daiquiri at 1800 hours. We're coming in from the north, below their radar.

When will you be back?

I can't tell you that. It's classified.