This is depressing. I now have to put up with at least one more season of "My least favorite player in the league playing for my favorite team."

Not going to move it up, but for any interested, I collected some links re the Church demotion (based on a whopping 50 ST at bats!) and other DC stuff at the bottom of the last thread. Nationals/Dodgers today at 1:05 Eastern. Will add that dc blogger Ball Wonk (www.ball-wonk.com) has proposed a new scorekeeping category for the Nationals this year: "E-GM".

Given his apparent desire to win a championship before he retires, I had always figured that Kent would not resign with Depo. From Kent's perspective, I think he probably thought Depo's vision for the team relied too heavily on waiting for prospects to pan out, and that the team wouldn't reach its potential for a few years.

But with Ned at the helm, and the acquisition of proven vets who "know how to play the game and know what it takes to win," Kent evidently feels like Ned is committed to winning now.

My guess is that this is Kent's idea, not the Dodgers... I'd also be willing to bet that before Ned agreed to it, contract language was inserted that guarantee Kent's willingness to change positions if they so request. They would have no reason in the world to extend the contract unless they were getting something out of it. Think about it: Even if Kent duplicates last season, how much is he as a 39 year old infielder going to bring on the free agent market? The Dodgers would have as good a chance as anyone else to sign him for less money than they're paying now. I am not criticizing the deal, just speculating on an explanation.

I don't think we can say the Kent signing was a good or bad move until we know the terms. Like buying a stock, the price that you pay will have a huge impact on whether it was a good decision or not.

I think Kent agreed to this extension rather than test free agency to secure himself a job at second base. I'd guess in free agency he'd have teams interested in him, but only as a first baseman.

The Dodgers get.....hmmmm.....older

In baseball there may be no good bets, but if anyone has been consistent the last few years, Kent has (and for different teams). So, to me this is probably a good thing, unless it's a LOT of money as Rich points out. It's better, say, than signing Beltre.

Hard to believe Kent gave any substantial discount, either in terms of money or a 1B proviso.

Kent's position on the field was on my mind when I saw this, too. Did Kent sign only after being assured that he would remain a 2nd baseman? Did Flanders only offer the extension with the stipulation that Kent may be required to shift to 1st base at some point? Was it even discussed? I don't imagine we'll ever know.

In light of this news, I'll bet Caesar Izturis is on the phone with his agent pronto.

4 - "how much is he as a 39 year old infielder going to bring"

Look at what Steve Finley got as a 40-year-old outfielder after 2004.

This tells me that Ned thinks the really bad contract is Isturis'. This sounds like adios Cesar to me.

Contract details up at dodgers.com now. $9 million next year and in 2008, with various incentives. Minimum of $11.5 million for one season, maximum value of $22 million for two seasons.

5 - I'm guessing Kent didn't take a paycut. I still want to know more about McCourt's finances than Kent's sticker price.

I don't know how I feel about this.

I'd rather pay Kent that money than give it to Loften/Mueller/Alomar/Martinez, etc.

The contract is by no means a steal, but it seems reasonable. Only one more guaranteed year than before, so if he craters, it's not like we're on the hook for some monster multi-year contract.

WWSH

For Sale: Prospects. All infield positions AA or AAA level. Take old models in trade. Cheap! Contact: NedFlanders@dodgers.com...

More news: Your fears about Aaron Sele have been assuaged. See update above.

The timing of this is what really baffles me. Seems like a bit of a gamble to offer up that much money when Kent hasn't even had a full opportunity to prove his wrist is absolutely not going to have any effect on his play. I would think making a move like this mid-season would have been more prudent.

I have to suspect Flanders has a personnel deal in mind and wanted to make sure he had Kent locked up before he makes it.

Izturis officially went on the disabled list today, by the way. Is there still a rule that you can't trade a player on the DL? I've lost clarity on that.

Players on the DL can be traded. They can't be sent to the minors.

They usually aren't traded because teams don't want players that aren't hurt and want someone to produce right away, but there is no specific rule against it.

Boy, Mr. Ned sure likes to shop (especially for old guys). Kent had a great season last year, but who thinks he is going to be able to pull that off twice more? Finley had a great half season before he crumbled.

Busy morning. More news on the bullpen. See Update 3 up top.

If Ned had waited until midseason to extend Kent, he couldn't use the "distraction" excuse to not extend Gagne. (yeah yeah, I know Boras clients don't get extended, they test free agency).

Hey, this extension clearly increases the chances that Jeff Kent enters the Hall of Fame as a Dodger!

Since I live in Giants country, I hear their announcers a lot. During the second game of last year's season, the announcers were (Miller and Krukow) were shocked that the LA Times were ripping the Dodgers for being a bad team (the Giants announcers thought the Dodgers had a very good team and that DePo had done a good job in the off season) and that Kent was getting a reputation in LA of being a bad defensive 2B. They felt that he was very good defensively and that he is a sure thing for the Hall of Fame.

I like the extension. I think Kent is worth the risk.

If Little only wants 11 pitchers, maybe it's Yhency that'll be visiting Vegas?

26 - It's looking like 12 pitchers now, though it may depend on Furcal. It's now Robles vs. Brazoban, I think.

Still wondering whether they'll get anyone for Cody Ross.

eh whatever. i have gotten 2 hours of sleep, i cant really diagnose this move yet.

If you were Stoic, the lack of sleep wouldn't bother you.

13 Since you asked, an executive at another ballclub told me earlier this year that McCourt's finances ARE in pretty sorry shape to be running a ballclub. Selling his property mitigates the problem somewhat, but meeting required cash outflows could be a serious problem and require additional financing.

In his words, "McCourt has no money. They're in bad shape financially."

dodgers= enron of baseball.

instead of trading energy, they trade live arms for middle relievers.

According to Gameday, Lucille II just swung and missed 3 consecutive pitches in the heart of the plate.

Indians sign Grady Sizemore to a 6-year extension. Wow.

Also, it looks like a new page design at MLB.com; thankfully, it seems they eliminated that pop-up video window.

So DePo got Kent signed for LESS in 2005/2006, than Colletti got Kent signed for in 2007/2008....Interesting. And Kent is gonna be 38/39 yrs old... Hmmm...

Usually, its the other way around.

Dodgers continue their descent into the abyss.

its basically a 1 yr 11.5 mil deal if you include the bonus and the 08 buyout option.

kind of pricey if you ask me.

34 In fairness, the difference in salary is not very significant. I can think of worse things than committing to an extra year of Jeff Kent.

There are worse places to put that money. Like veteran and former-Giant Russ Ortiz.

So if you had to choose between two, would it be another left hander in the bullpen or another left hander on the bench?

Right now I like another in the bullpen, though like Robles, I think he may be more a sentimental pick than a rational one.

It makes me feel better that martinez doesn't appear on the dodger.com 40-man roster. Sigh.

everytime you say the name russ ortiz, a little bit of bob dies.

Great signing, think about it, who else is going to outproduce kent at 2b that we can get, even with a little drop off in kent.
I bet it would be hard to come up with someone who would outproduce kent at 2b, except if you want to move someone allready on the team to 2b, but then you have a hole at the former position.
I was hoping the dodgers would re-sign kent to a 1 year with an option and that's exactly what happened.
As you know i'm not picky about paying a guy 1 or 2 million more than what he supposively deserves, so great signing.

37 ...though I like Robles, ....

Is there anything else worth buying with that 11.5 mil in free agency?

I'm still shocked Kent got that much out of the Dodgers at his age. Unbelievable.

This also makes him pretty much non-tradable.

derek lee is the big positional player next free agency. he'll probably resign with the cubs though.

As you know i'm not picky about paying a guy 1 or 2 million more than what he supposively deserves

The Dodgers have limited funds available though. Its not that Kent isnt worth 11.5 mils (he may be he may not be), the issue is could they have made better use of the money.

11.5 mils for a 38/39yr old 2nd basemen is quite a bit, when there are noticeable holes in CF, LF, and 1st.

Personally, I'd have used Kent's 11.5 mils as a down payment for Derrick Lee and or a dominant starter.

This deal on makes sense if its on a team without a budget. However, the Dodgers are not the Yankees.

In fairness, the difference in salary is not very significant

2yrs at 17mils vs 2yrs at 22 mils or 1yr at 11.5 mils.

Its significant when you factor in age. I only hope the difference in production isnt as much either.

41 Why would we want to trade him? The committment is only for one extra year. The only reason we'd want to get rid of him is because he would be playing poorly, and his salary wouldn't be as big a deterrent to other clubs than his performance.

We also don't know if the signing bonus is deferred, which would affect the real present value of the deal somewhat.

Consider also that many commentors here are enthusiastic about the arrival of our cheap minor-league stars. The money we save by playing rookies and second-year players in 2007-2008 has to go somewhere, and I'd rather it be Jeff Kent than the owner's pocket.

Also worth noting that Kent is coming off a better season than when he first signed a free-agent deal with the Dodgers before 2005. That should affect his value positively.

Ah, the old Truby to Garcia to Saenz double play. Go Blue!

46 Well, slightly better. I just checked, and the difference between his '04 HOU season and '05 LAN season isn't that significant. So ignore 46. Sorry.

43

Think about the prospects tho, and there will be alot making nothing.
guzman
laroche
martin
billingley
broxton
kuo
osoria

Plus mccourt needs to up the payroll to 115-120 million.
We are at 100 million right now and with a 120 million payroll we could have an ace starting pitcher(instead of tomko) and a power hitting oufielder(instead of lofton) and if we had those 2 i would be predicting the dodgers to win the world series this year.
If 15-20 million is the difference between just making the playoffs and a very good chance at winning it all you up the payroll to win it all.

I don't buy it that kent's contract hurts the dodgers.

From Dodgers.com:

"Because of Furcal's injury, the Dodgers now are more likely to option outfielder Jason Repko to Las Vegas than Robles."

Is anyone watching this game. Is Livan 400 pounds nowadays?

Who's Jeff Duncan?

""Because of Furcal's injury, the Dodgers now are more likely to option outfielder Jason Repko to Las Vegas than Robles."
Steve: There is a God.

Terrible move by Colletti. Kent is going to fall apart this year and his already bad defense should get worse. If Colletti really wanted to keep Kent, couldn't he have waited until the season was over? I can't think of any other team that would be willing to give Kent this kind of money after the season he had last year, let alone after the year he will likely have in 2006. Hopefully, some prospect will force his way to the majors and Colletti will have no other option than to trade Kent to open up a spot in the infield for our blossoming young superstar.

Nate- did you ever end up finishing your paper and were you up all night? I ended up going to bed at 4.

I don't buy it that kent's contract hurts the dodgers

If the payroll is 115-120 mils, it doesnt.
If its 100mils, I think it does.

50 - Thanks, Terry.

53 Extending Kent this early in the year does give Colletti and Co. something of value: certainty. They can go into the season knowing that they have a 2B option in 2007 at a minimum and can approach both the 2006 in-season and post-season player acquisition periods without that question mark. This makes it a lot easier to construct the roster going forward.

Information and certainy can be extremely valuable. I'm not arguing that the decision to extend Kent was a good one, but I feel compelled to rebut arguments that it was a prima facie mistake.

Ah, the joys of html tags. :-)

Boston is the kinda team i like, a sabermetrics team that will spend that extra 20 million to put them over the top, mccourt and the dodgers could use some schooling from the red sox.
But i dearly love the dodgers, have loved them since 1979, so i'm not going anywhere even towards the red sox.

53 - "Kent is going to fall apart this year."

Decline, perhaps. Why do you think he will fall apart this year?

If Jeff Kent can get 22mils over 2yrs at ages 39/40, something leads me to believe that JD Drew will opt out.

If Kent gets that, what do you think Drew will command?

Randy Johnson will not be voted Father of the Year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12050948/

Just another 2 strikeouts for kuo in 1 inning of work.
I'm excited about our pen now that i know we have gagne baez kuo osoria.
Can you imagine that pen with an ace starting pitcher(instead of tomko, and a powerhitting outfielder(instead of lofton) with guzman waiting to take over if mueller or cruz go flat (mueller most likely, i think cruz is fine).
Dodgers should take some notes from the 2004 red sox.

60 Despite his old age, Kent is perceived as a durable, Hall Of Fame 2B who provides huge offensive production from a traditionally hitting-weak position. Despite his youth, Drew is perceived as an incosistent, fragile outfielder who never lived up to expectations and who provides only adequate power from a traditionally power-rich position.

Whether the perceptions are true or not, and the relative values of Drew and Kent, are up for debate. But I don't think the Kent extension suggests that Drew is a lock to find a contract any better than 3/33 after this year (Drew's 2006 peformance pending, of course).

63 "inconsistent", "performance" of course. I even previewed. Ugh.

Adding to 62

I also predicted the red sox winning it all in 2004 BEFORE THE SEASON EVEN STARTED.

63 - Drew's 2006 peformance pending, of course

Haven't you heard? JD is going to win the MVP this year. Rob Neyer said so.

Blake Dewitt, the 2B prospect who will be at Vero Beach this year, is at least 2 years away and the other middle infielders (Hu and Abreau) are probably the same so having Kent for 2 more years is okay and like others have said, once the Dodgers start bringing in prospects at the minimum, it probably equals out to some degree.

Off the top of my head, here are the Dodgers under contract for 2007 (excluding those who are not eligible for free agency)

Kent
Furcal
Mueller
Cruz, Jr. (team option for 2007)
Drew (player option for 2007)
Lowe
Penny
Perez
Tomko
Saenz
Itzturis
Quick estimate 72M in guaranteed contracts with bonuses

Players not eligible for FA on projected 25 man roster

Navarro
Robles/Repko
Seo
Carter
Brazoban
Kuo
Osoria
Hamaluck
Werth

Wow. That Matt Kemp note up top is quite interrrrresting.

Maybe the pitcher shuffle, taken along with the Kent extension, does indicate a possible trade going down. Brazoban, infield prospect, maybe a back-up infielder, for an outfielder, necessitating Repko going down?

By the way does anyone know where a person can get splits stats for minor leagues?

BTF's Weighted Park Factors for Vero Beach

Runs- 1.12
Hits- 1.04
Doubles- 0.88
Home Runs- 1.62
BB- 1.07
K- 1.06

71 Home Runs- 1.62

Wow.

Maybe Chuck Tiffany's HR problems stem from the ballpark he was pitching in...

Although, they didnt seem to effect Justin Orenduff.

Hmmmm.....?

"They can go into the season knowing that they have a 2B option in 2007 at a minimum and can approach both the 2006 in-season and post-season player acquisition periods without that question mark. This makes it a lot easier to construct the roster going forward."
Does it really or does it make 2007 more complicated ? If Kent's defense at 2b falls back more (it was below avg in '05 according to Dewan), then it makes sense to move him to 1st base in 2007. In which case, you have to spend $ 11.5 mil on a 1bman not likely (at age 39) to be much better than leag avg at his position. Having to find a spot to park an $ 11 mil obligation in 2007 reduces options rather than increasing them.

Russ Martin certainly did not do anything this spring to indicate that he could skip AAA and go right to the Show.

What is the more likely scenario:
A) Martin plays the whole year at AAA, picking awards like top ten prospect, invite to futures, game while Navarro and Alomar man the post in Chavez Ravine
B) The Dodgers dump Alomar and have the youngest catching duo in the Majors
C) Someone gets dealt

I can see the logic behind locking up Kent for another year -- although I would have waited.

My gripe: Another example of poor negotiating by the Dodgers. The club is sticking out its neck for Kent, but what part of those contractual terms reflects some reciprocity on Kent's part?

I see zero reciprocity. Those look like open-market terms -- not a guarantee two years in advance.

It should be a quid pro quo when a club is willing to guarantee a salary for a player in that age demographic -- no matter how good the player.

For those dollars, the Dodgers are getting no sweetener from Kent.

Show some negotiating acumen. If you must extend him, make it for a lower guarantee. If Kent says no, say no hard feelings and let it play out.

The Dodgers act too often like the player is doing them a favor by sticking around.

D. Navarro is sent down to Vegas, and Russ Martin is called up.

In which case, you have to spend $ 11.5 mil on a 1bman not likely (at age 39) to be much better than leag avg at his position.

Kent must play 2nd base for this extension to make any sense.
No reasonable person would give Kent 11.5mils to play 1st base in 2007.

I just went and looked at 2004 team ops and team whip.
And if i remember correct, the world series was boston vs st. louis.
Boston was #1 in team ops in all of baseball
St. louis was #3 in all of baseball and #1 in the NL in ops
Boston was #2 in all of baseball and #1 in the AL in team whip
St. louis was #1 in all of baseball in team whip

The yankees were #2 in all of baseball in team ops but #13 in team whip in 2004

All the above is a classic case of what i consider winning baseball (high ops and low whip)
And boston spent that extra little bit to put them there.

74 "Reducing options" is sort of the point, though. It's one less variable that has to be sorted out. For better or worse, the Dodgers don't have to look for a 2B in-season or in the offseason as a result of this signing and can focus their time and resources elsewhere.

I think the Kent extension really shows that people want to play for LA. Colletti's been a godsend IMHO.

If Jay Seo is going to be skipped in the rotation the first couple weeks anyway (meaning he'll be in the bullpen), why are the Dodgers going to still carry 12 pitchers?

Is their bullpen deep enough, with Seo added to it?

I think the Kent extension really shows that people want to play for LA.

Brian Giles?

81 The Kent extension shows that if you offer a guy more than he will get on the free market, he is probably going to sign the contract.

Mike Edwards has been sent down by the Pirates. Sounds like Tracy found a GM who could put him in his place.

85 Gio Carrara hasn't been sent down yet.

81

Kent said that he loves L.A. and grew up a dodger fan.
He said he wanted to end his career as a dodger WELL BEFORE BIG NED CAME ABOARD.
But i do love the signing.

Jimmy Rohan caught stealing home!!

Free baseball, as it were, in Vero.

MB31: Boston is the kinda team i like, a sabermetrics team that will spend that extra 20 million to put them over the top, mccourt and the dodgers could use some schooling from the red sox.

MB31: I've really enjoyed your comments over the past few months (not to mention your decision to start using capital letters and punctuation!), but this comment returns us to the werthgagne days when you kept reminding us that all McCourt needed to do was crank up the payroll. Unless your secret plan is to bankrupt the guy and force him to sell (in which case, Amen) you have to realize that it's a lot easier for us to spend McCourt's money than it is for him to come up with that money. At this point, I have to believe that he's maxed out on payroll, and that every expensive decision will have real tradeoffs.

Maybe Colletti convinced him to overpay for short-term deals to veterans now, and recoup that money when the kids replace them, but this Kent signing would seem to defy that logic a bit. More importantly, it makes one wonder why it's combined with such a fetish for lousy backup infielders. If you're going to extend an expensive veteran, pick a position where we don't have any prospects. And no, that doesn't mean Kenny Lofton.

LOL.... MB. It wasn't that long ago Kent wasn't too happy being a Dodger. Its great things have changed for the better though. The players are bitching like they used too when Colletti's predecessor was running the show.

Duncan, Rohan, and Hoorelbeke: the future has arrived.

They seemed happy when the signed the contract.

91
And Garcia.

Whoa. Just read your comment on 34 oldbear. An abyss. Sheesh. Why don't you take your Dodger player hating back to Dodgers.com. Try rooting for the team rather than the players you like. You'll find it more fulfilling.

Duncan, Rohan, and Hoorelbeke: Peoples of Middle Earth Unite!

Anyhow, Sergio Garcia with a first pitch eagle off Gigantor ends it in the bottom of the 10th.

89 - And if there is anything we have learned in MLB since the Olney Dynasty fell, it's that there is no one guaranteed strategy for building a World Champion ballclub.

...right?

Cute quote about LoDuca in BP2006. Sheehan was just on The Hot List with Brian Kenny, and Kenny started with it. It could have been written by some of us. Basically, it mocks the heart and soul thing and points out that Paulie (now 34) lacks too much in the hitting and fielding categories for all that leadership to make up. And it basically says the opposite about A-Rod.

Try rooting for the team rather than the players you like.

Teams are comprised of players.

bluetahoe -- No call to be urging oldbear or anyone else off to another site (and certainly not based on anything in 34). You don't want to be on the receiving end of that sort of thing, and shouldn't be on the giving end either. Jon's been pretty clear on this point, I think.

99. Sam.

I should have phrased it differently. I just wish he'd post his Dodger hate elsewhere. It gets tiresome.

89

Maybe Colletti convinced him to overpay for short-term deals to veterans now, and recoup that money when the kids replace them, but this Kent signing would seem to defy that logic a bit. More importantly, it makes one wonder why it's combined with such a fetish for lousy backup infielders. If you're going to extend an expensive veteran, pick a position where we don't have any prospects.

But what or which prospects would outproduce kent at 2b.
And we could trade those 2b prospects for something else.
To me and only me, we only have guzman, laroche, martin, and maybe loney and ethier as good position prospects. I'm not high on any of our middle infielder prospects except maybe dewitt and he hasn't seen AA yet(i think).
Or am i missing what you are trying to say?

94 At least try to comprehend what OB is saying. Kent was signed for less going into his age 37 and 38 seasons on the open market last offseason. Even then, one could argue that giving Kent a 2 year deal at his age was a risk.

They extend Kent for his age 39 season at higher rate than he is getting paid now. Would Kent get that much on the open market next offseason? As each year goes by, the chance that Kent is going to decline because of age becomes more likely. It might not be inevitable, but the chances for it happening are better.

I may or may not agree with OB, but his comments were hardly hating on Jeff Kent.

Off topic AND random Q here, but I have been wearing some of my random baseball t-shirts the last few days to bug a friend who hates the sport. --gasp!--

The teams I've gotten through so far have been the Mets, Marlins, Padres, and Mariners. I can think of a couple of players who have played for three of those four (Piazza, Cameron) but have there been any Dan Miceli slash Mike Morgan types who have played for all four?

My bad. It wasn't player hating. It was general Dodger hating.

"Dodgers continue their descent into the abyss."

If you don't think a comment like this isn't Dodger hating then I don't know what one is. I generally ignore oldbear when he gets into his hate talk. Sometimes I feel compelled to respond though.

103 Dang.. too bad Rickey never played for the Marlins.

103 - If the trend continues, expect to see Loduca in SD soon.

bluetahoe,

It's not hate talk. Oldbear wouldn't be here unless he was a Dodger fan. It's his OPINION that he's stating. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's "hating" on the Dodgers.

Also, telling someone to go post somewhere else isn't very cool. The best part about this site is its various points of view. The difference between people here and on the official board is that people here can discuss the Dodgers logically whether they agree with each other or not...that doesn't happen on the official board.

I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with oldbear, but just because you don't agree doesn't mean it's hate....and at least he posts his opinions clearly and backs up the reasons he feels that way which a lot of posters on the official board fail to do....

103 -

Oooh, ooooh! (Raises hand feverishly)

http://tinyurl.com/z7vl7

What do I win?

I hear ya thinkblue0. Don't know why I got my panties in a ruffle anyways. We should all be ecstatic oldbear's predicting all this doom and gloom. He has history of being 'off target'.

108 Wow, that is pretty good.

110 - Just lucky. I knew for a fact that he had 3 of 4. Florida was just plain lucky.

Lenny Harris is another 3 of 4 guys.

Maybe I should try to get some work done today.

Lenny Harris played for the Pads/M's?

112 - Whoa, I guess he didn't. What was I looking at?

Ricky Henderson's a 3 of 4.

104 It isn't Dodger hating. At least not by my definition of "hating," although I'm vaguely aware that the term is used differently by kids these days. What I see in ob's comment is not hating at all, but pessimism about the future direction of the team. And with each decision Colletti makes, I also see more that bode ill than the few that bode well. As with Choi, Ramon II, etc., it's not so much the marginal impact of that single decision on the 2006 Dodgers that is the problem - it's what it reveals about Colletti's approach and philosophy that gets ever more troubling. If the Dodgers were the Yankees, and didn't ever need cheap prospects except as trade fodder, then fine - they could keep the Ponzi scheme going as long as they could restock the minors with assets that other teams covet. But they're not - the Dodgers are on a budget. Bigger than most budgets, but finite nonetheless.

See, that's the great thing about this site. We can argue about moves because we all understand that the Dodgers can't build a dream team (hey, Ned's an idiot - why doesn't he just trade Aybar for Pujols?!) and that there are lots of different ways to assess all of the tradeoffs (present vs. future, uncertainty with upside vs. known quantity with none, defense vs. offense). No GM will get every decision right, and knowing that, we can be optimistic, pessimistic, or just plain analytical about each one.

It is by no means Dodger-hating to argue that the GM made what looks like a bad decision. This is not a place for Kool-Aid drinkers, whether it's DePodesta flavored or Colletti flavored. And it is no measure of one's ardor as a fan that one must be only optimistic about every decision made. There's no contradiction between rooting hard for the team on the field and also opining that the team could be better (or could have been better) if not for some poor GM decisions.

Jon, I see him hitting between .260-.270 w/ about 15 HRs. Probably slightly above average offense, but also with even worse defense. He won't be worth half of his salary.

77 Is that true that Navarro was sent down? I can't find any story on it.

blue -- I appreciate your responses and really don't want to come off as preachy or whatever. But even in 109, you're still personally taking on another commenter, which gets pretty uncomfortable pretty quick. Just my two cents.

117. No, the "D" at the start refers not to Dioner, but to a new "choice D" in the multiple choice question offered earlier about the likely outcome of the catching situtation. That was a prediction, not a news flash.

117-

I'm wondering the same thing

Aah. I'm my usual astute self.

I do agree with you GoBears. I overstood my bounds. There's a difference in diagreeing and hating. But I have to make one more comment on the subject than I'm never speaking of it again. If the Dodgers go on to succeed and win the division, not one time during the whole season will you see any 'rah-rah, way to go, yippee, celebratory' sort of posts from oldbear. I promise you this.

117, 120 I think he was responding to 75. What happens after Martin has a good season in AAA?

Bluetahoe, I have spent all the time I should have to warning people about unprovoked attacks on this site. Please leave the comments for the rest of the week.

If you want to come back and play by the rules next week, that's fine. If you find it too hard to be tolerant of others and want to stay away, I also understand.

to 117 and 120.

77 was in response to 75.

One reason, among many others I come to this site daily is because it's easy to think that signing Kent to an extension is the right thing to do.

By the way, oldbear, the name "oldbear" is among my favorites.

122. I think you're wrong. He's been around here for quite a while now, and I for one have never seen him as a doom-and-gloom type. He gets into it with natepurcell over the likely future value of prospects frequently, but he's always struck me as thoughtful.

I gather that his posts on the official board are qualitatively different. That's for the other board to worry about. If it's true, it's not reflected here. I couldn't care less what happens at the other place. I choose not to go over there precisely because I'm not interested in shouting matches. Same reason I don't pay any attention to talk radio, Jim Rome, or even most of ESPN radio these days. Posturing is boring.

108 - WOW Blue, good find!

What do you win? Hmm....how's about 10+ posts that aren't about Brett Tomko or Mister Ned? :)

This could actually be an interesting game, if Jon approves...I guess we would have to stipulate MLB games though to avoid any "Canseco = Expos" type debacles...

and FYI, I did get an "alright I don't HATE the sport, I just don't like it" out of her, so mission accomplished!

"I didn't even know we were calling him Old Bear"

122. If you continue your obsession with me, expect a very near IP address ban regarding your posting rights on this site. Jon has made it clear what is acceptable and what is not. Debate the post. Not the poster.

131 - Please don't respond to him. Let me handle it. Thanks.

So I'm guessing Repko missed on a squeeze attempt in the ninth, but Sergio Garcia won it in the 10th. Here's what I wrote about Garcia in September:

Sergio Garcia, Jacksonville, 5-10, 175, 3/20/80: At 25, he's got a tough road in in this infield-heavy system, but had his best season with a .773 OPS.

http://dodgerthoughts.baseballtoaster.com/archives/255147.html

Does he waggle the bat for 10 minutes like the other Garcia waggles his club?

133 From memory of gameday, he missed the bunt on his first attempt, than watched two called strikes.

The other Garcia has gotten better about waggling. Putting, however, is still the same old story.

A.J. Burnett has officially taken the second step in his pursuit of Darren Dreifort's career path - he'll start the season on the DL.

Jeff Kent actually said in the AP story today, "It's not about the money."

[crickets chirping]
[nervous laugh]

So...

Casey Hoorelbeke?

Great name, huh?

Yeah, Garcia could really move up their ML player rankings quickly this year - he's basically #(just off the top 10-15) with a bullet or an "up" arrow. If nothing else, the Dodgers have a lot more trade bait this year over last, to fill other needs should they arise, or should someone come a-knockin'.

137 When I saw that last night before going to bed, I thought "uh oh, AJs doing his Dreifort impression"

"minor league," not "ML," a useless abbreviation if there ever was one.

137 Oh, come on, surely you could have worked some of that into a lucky seventh update?

Thinking some more about the Kent extension, and ignoring my own advice by ignoring the size of the contract for a moment, I guess Kent is the one guy on the team whose deal was up after this year who was worth the risk. Drew is the other star in the offense, but his contract is in place unless he voids the rest or demands a renegotiation (IOW, the ball is in his court, not Colletti's). And the pitchers are, other than Gagne, either locked up or completely expendable.

So the true tests of Colletti will be:

1. Does he extend Gagne at Boras rates (hope not)

2. Does he jettison Tomko as soon as a better option presents itself (Billingsley) mid-season or next year, despite the foolish deal he gave the guy?

3. Does he re-up any of these ostensibly short-term veteran deals if they have a good season? I can swallow hard and take Nomar or Alomar or Lofton for a year, or Mueller for 2, etc., but if any of these declining, replaceable, and overpriced vets get renewed at the expense of the young guys, I'll know we're heading for Giantsland (only without the Bondsian reason for ignoring the future).

Last time I played, a couple weekends ago, I 4-putted one green. I'll be playing the same course this Sunday. We'll see if I can achieve the ellusive 5-putt.

141 Those are my initials. Actually MGL, but I'm not that MGL

142 - D'oh! Great idea!

138 - Casey Hoorelbeke, Vero Beach, 6-8, 245, 4/4/80: The Mighty Casey's 2.40 ERA led the team (except for Jose Diaz' brief appearances), and he allowed no home runs in 82 2/3 innings. Walks to strikeouts: 35/58. His older brother Jesse was but is no longer in the Dodger organization. The media guide notes that his father is the original lead singer, drummer and founder of Rare Earth.

http://dodgerthoughts.baseballtoaster.com/archives/255142.html

-----

So Vero is a home run haven, and Casey allowed no home runs there?

I think Garcia a small middle infielder who was suspending for roiding last year in the minors. If that was his first hit in spring training, it's kind of funny that it was a home run.

Where are you guys hearing about Navarro being sent down?

148 He's not. This is coming from 77, which was a response ("new choice D") to 75.

147 Thanks!
And I thought that last sentence was going to end with something about "...and the Sunshine Band."

145 No offense meant [g] useless only when trying to differentiate words and phrases, not names. I have the same initials as Carl Pavano but we otherwise have little in common.

137 One more thing..

Didn't Kent basically say that playing baseball WAS all about the money in an article last year?

Navarro's being sent down?

Oh wait, I started it.

151
Good point. I remember Kent saying something to the effect that he really doesn't even like playing baseball.

This would be a good time for somebody to create a fake Dodgers.com page with the headline:

NAVARRO SENT DOWN, MARTIN CALLED UP

Colletti, after reading DodgerThoughts: "Hey, That's a Good Idea"

I don't quite get it: why play Garcia and Hoorelbeek if they are not being considered for roster spots while others are? Is it a matter of having bench players around when many of the prospects have been reassigned?

151. I'm making a list of commonly used phrases that should generally be taken to mean the opposite:

1. It's not about the money.
2. Just between you and me...
3. To be honest with you...
4. No offense, but... (and "nothing personal.."
5. IMHO
6. I'm not a racist/homophobe/sexist but...
7. I'm sorry, but...

Anyone else want to play?

155 - It's getaway day - no need to overwork the players. The roster competition is all but over, anyway - the remaining decision mostly depends on the health of Furcal and the bullpen.

156 - I've got nothing against Choi, but ...

155. Maybe Colletti's made up his mind about everything, and now just wants to minimize injury risk. He can't not play the last few exhibition games, so he's using these scrubs as cannon-fodder.

Of course it's not money. Kent just figures the Dodgers are the last team in the majors that's going to sign Milton Bradley.

I'm making a list of commonly used phrases that should generally be taken to mean the opposite

<-----makes a mental note to stop using 1,2,3,4,5, and 7 in future job interviews.

It's not your fault, it's mine...
It's good for you...
This hurts me more than you...

156 And who could forget the all-time classic...

It's not you, it's....

159 Not only that, it does give the ML coaching staff a chance to see some of these guys. I doubt that they'll see them play that much live (if at all) until next ST.

147 He also saw some time in the AFL, and still managed to avoid giving up homers despite pitching in Arizona. He only pitched 7.2 innings and managed to give up 8 runs in that time, but at least he didn't give up any homers

While the Jacksonville rotation doesn't look very good (Orenduff and not much else), they look to have a nice bullpen. Hoorelbeke should join Jumbo Diaz, Greg Miller, Carlos Alvarez, Alvis Ojeda, Justin Simmons, and Mark Alexander.

lol on 160

156 - Some of my best friends are...(Korean)

Ohhh yeah, I remember...(Dave Magadan)!

Another clutch hit by...(Bobby Abreu) :)

DeWitt is going to break out huge this year I think and will be ready by 2008, but I would not be surprised to see him in 2007 some time. Aybar was never going to be a starter for this team in my opinion. I just hope we hold onto DeWitt and move Kent out of the way when DeWitt is ready.

*(I think)

Sometimes we get lucky. I wrote when Mueller signed:

>

Just seemed logical that Coletti was keeping Kent around for awhile.

I feel like Chris Mortensen right now: One prediction (of about 100) correct! ;-)

(That is, I wrote that I thought Kent would be re-upping. Nice mis-use of the paste key, eh ...

On the other hand, I did get one Final Four team correct.)

Personally, I found 152 one of the funniest comments of the year on DT.

who else thinks we should be going after Ryan Church to replace either Lofton or Cruz?

What about a combo of Ross, Repko, and Brazoban? Too much? Too little? Do I ask a lot of questions?

172. I can think of about 243 things that would be better than starting Lofton even half the time. But Colletti apparently values the guy. He's not going anywhere unless it's to the DL.

Which way does Church swing (the bat, I mean)? LA seems to be short a RH-hitting OFer, especially if Repko starts the season in LV.

156

Stop me if you've heard this before.
I don't need a microphone.
I'm a great singer.
My comments will be brief.
This was my first time.
The doctor will be right with you.
I can take a joke as well as the next guy.

174. Since Steve's not present, I'll step up:

The Dodgers would be short a RH-hitting OFer even if Repko stays. At least if you put any emphasis on any part of the phrase other than RH.

Nobody's yet chimed in with "The check's in the mail?"

Blasted plastic card era.

Lofton (38, L) .335/.392/.420 in 110 games last year, .288 EQA

Church (27, L) .287/.353/.466 in 102 games last year, .288 EQA

It's funny that their EQAs were the same. Obviously, Church has more of a future and is cheaper.

I really don't know much about Church. No one thinks he's a fluke?

175/177. Hmm, I'd make distinctions between self-conscious lies, self-delusions, and throwaway cliches, the very use of which indicates a guilty conscience. But it's a fun game in any case.

The one that really sticks in my craw in internet forums is the ubiquitous and disingenuous "IMHO." Yeah, right. Real humble.

178. That IS funny. I'd also note, however, that Lofton is all about batting average, which is to say, singles. And one would expect that to dip after such an outlier year.

It's just had to know w/Church. He's old to be just showing up as a major league stud outfielder. But he was putting up a heck of a good year when he got injured catching a ball against the wall in Pittsburgh last season, and then he got some really bizarre treatment from management after his injury, with both Bowden and Robinson lashing him for being too slow to get back into the lineup. It was ridiculous stuff. He's a little like the Choi of DC in this way; his most reasonable supporters don't say he's the next Jim Edmonds, they just say he's showed enough to deserve more of a chance. This post offers an interesting comparison of Church's and Clint Barmes' in many ways comparable seasons: http://federalbaseball.com/story/2006/3/29/01146/2954.

175 et. al.

"Interesting story..."

Y'all got it wrong - Navarro's not being sent down, he's being put down. That hamstring turned out to be a busted leg and they thought it best to put him out of his misery.

No, I'm kidding. They're doing this for Pat Borders, actually. [crosses self]

176 I don't know if you specifically intended that to be an imitation or not but it was spot on. Made me laugh, too.

If I were looking for an outfielder, I'd be looking at teams likely to need a closer fast, or real fast.

179 - I'm always torn on using phrases like IMHO or "I think."

For example: IMHO, I think Choi would have 25 home runs if he were to get 500 at bats. Clearly that's my opinion, and it's obvious that because I'm saying it, I also think it. But you can't just say "Choi would have 25 home runs if he were to get 500 at bats" because you sound like a know-it-all.

178-

My biggest problem with Lofton is that last year's numbers aren't indicative of where his career had been going.

His previous few years are average at best, and I think it's highly unlikely that he hits .330 this year. In other words, I just feel that last year was an anomaly. Of course I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I will be.

Just seems like Church could be had on the cheap and it would be nice to have him in case Lofton or Cruz stinks up the joint....because I really, REALLY don't want to see Repko or Ross in the lineup what-so-ever.

Well, first make the distincion between an opinion and a guess/hypothesis. They're not the same thing.

But it's the "H" in IMHO that bugs me.

Then again, I'm not the arbiter of discourse, nor the judge of whether someone's statement of humility is sincere or disingenuous. I guess I just like it when people think about what they write and try to be precise.

Clearly, I shouldn't grade papers and comment on Jon's blog at the same time. My red pen has taken on a mind of its own.

156, etc.- I'd be more than happy to [insert chore here]. . .

187 - Is it clear that Church is even available? This roster decision seems like a classic case of a team sending down a promising young player who came in to camp a little too confident in his abilities.

Would it surprise anyone if Church was back in the bigs before May rolls around?

190 - Yeah, I think this is all a theoretical discussion. Lofton's the man for now, and Church will no doubt return to D.C.

I don't think displacing Lofton is really an option, at least until he proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he's done. I think a more likely move is to pick up a RH-hitter to platoon with Lofton.

Or, like mentioned previously, platoon Lofton and Cruz, and find another fulltime guy. Maybe by June, that guy is Guzman.

Also, with the exception of the Bradley deal, which most believe had nothing to do with on-field performance, Colletti has yet to make a deal that made the team younger or cheaper. The day he sends away a "proven veteran" for a kid with promise will be the day I reconsider my dread about the next few years.

Of course, if he lets the vets go when their contracts expire, in favor of kids we already have (with this Kent deal an exception) that's good too. But I'd be shocked if he actually were to make a trade along those lines.

That was DePodesta's most important accomplishment - purging those big contracts. While Colletti may not be the anti-Depo in that regard (the contracts he's signed have been short ones, for the most part) he's clearly got a different plan.

Kenny Lofton could use a platoon partner. So could Cruz. Left, Center, Right: Church, Drew, Cruz; Church, Lofton, Drew. The Nats still need a SS. . .

What I meant was, I agree with blue22.

According to foxsports the braves are the contending team this year that has the worst bullpen (our strength in my opinion).
Do the braves have anyone that could be available offensively that we might be interested in.

Ned is reconstructing the Giants:
Kent= Bonds
Lofton= Marquis Grissom
etc

I'd take Francouer, but he's not likely available.

194. That'd be a good test: if Colletti were willing to trade Izturis for a young, MLB-ready OFer, I'd be surprised and impressed. If anyone is going to overvalue Izzy, it's Bowden. And I guess the one thing Church would have over Ethier is that he's a righty, and so could platoon with Lofton. But then, the Dodgers will have Guzman and Werth by mid-season...

Kent= Bonds
Lofton= Marquis Grissom
etc

Yeah, only older and not as good.

199. I mean, relative to when the Giants got those guys.

193 - I just sense that as long as McCourt is keeping the checkbook open, there's no incentive for Colletti to go with an unproven rookie when he doesn't have to. I think you'll see rookies in the Dodger lineup by the end of 2007, whether it's Guzman, Billingsley, LaRoche, Martin or whoever, but they're just going to have to bang that door down.

Right now, there doesn't seem to be a need for Colletti to be clever and make a trade for an unappreciated talent. He doesn't need to watch kids go through growing pains.

By the way, techincally, the Bradley/Perez-Ethier deal made the Dodgers younger and cheaper, for what that's worth.

Wow, go out for a few hours and miss a lot.

Picture postcard day at UCLA

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobt2/120027442/

197. last time I checked the Giants had more than 2 players. If Ned can duplicate Sabean's earliy success he'll be the best GM the dodgers have had in a long time.

I dont see Izturis going to Washington, they have too many infielders as is and trading for Izturis would be admitting his mistake in signing Guzman. I think the most likely destinations for Izturis are New York and Chicago. The Mets have a big hole at 2nd and the Cubs are starting a rookie at SS and Todd Walker at 2nd, how long do you think Dusty is going to let that last? Izturis to Chicago for Sean Marshall or Rich Hill would be awesome.

201. I agree, and cant say I blame Colletti. He cant afford to go with rookies because if they struggle and the Dodgers miss the playoffs, he gets the fired.

201. I agree, which is why I think the real test, per 143 will be whether he continues this veteran stop-gap stuff when current contracts run out, or whether he lets the kids play.

And, yeah, I said "with the exception of the Bradley deal..." in 193. Although, now that I think about it, since Perez and Bradley took two spots on the 25-man roster, it's not clear that swapping them for a AAA guy made the MLB team younger or cheaper. They turned into Lofton and Ramon II. Maybe still cheaper, given that Bradley was due a payday.

202. Nice pic, Bob. Looks like I picked the wrong day to stay home and "grade papers."

205 - Oops, my bad!

Bradley got $3 million even, right? Plus whatever second year pay is $3XXk, is still less than what Lofton makes all on his lonesome. The deal itself does directly make the club younger and cheaper, but not if you factor in replacement costs.

I guess I'm in the minority, thinking extending Kent is a Good Idea(tm). Firstly, as others have pointed out, he's been one of the most consistent offensive players over the last several years. Secondly, he's been the anchor on a Dodger team that needs him; he also doesn't traditionally go on the DL a lot. He provides a lot of offense for a 2B, but can play 1B in spot starts if need be, providing a bit of flexibility (admittedly his offensive numbers mean less from that position).

There's nothing to suggest that the $11.5 million he's getting would automatically be spent if he didn't re-sign, nor that it would be spent well. This is one of those instances where I think it's worth spending to get a known value than to wait and see. Even with an age decline, Kent should do just fine... and these days players seem to hold onto their offensive abilities longer than they used to.

202
Wow, go out for a few hours and miss a lot.

Moral of the story: never leave DT!

Nice photo of Casey. He looks different than he does in his other shots.

209 - I don't see that you're in the minority.

167 If Denker continues to outslug Dewitt it will mean Dewitt is not breaking out. I feel Dewitt will pull away from Denker myself, and Denker has no solid position or talent in that direction. But he is a good indicater of how DeWitt is progressing.

I noticed that at UCLA they don't plant any trees in front of Royce Hall because they know it's the "money shot". Powell Library has two trees in front of it that make it hard to get a good view.

It was spring break so the campus was relatively empty. There were high school students walking around taking tours.

I don't recall:
1) having anyone give me a tour of campus before I started (except for my brothers)
2) having my parents accompany me. They just sort of put me in a car, drove me to the dorm, carried my stuff to the room and said "See you on Friday." (I had to go work at my dad's store on Friday nights.)

There was a dearth of "Final Four" merchandise at the store. The only "Final Four" t-shirts came in only one size. That size could best be described as: One That Would Not Fit Bob.

One of these days the clothing experts will come up with a one-size-fits-all, mesh and foam trucker T-shirt.

213. I remember being at UCLA in 1995, when they won the NCAA tourney. Walking around campus, you would never have known it was happening. Sure, after they won the championship game, some drunk frat boys went out and flipped over a news van, but there was no buzz around campus during the 3 week run to the title. And it's not like it was old hat - UCLA hadn't won anything for about 20 years!

At CAL, the campus would be abuzz with a win over San Jose State. Beating UCLA in '86 or '87 (I forgot) to end the 26-year drought almost caused a riot.

Then, one year, I had a student tell me that the UCLA football team really sucked that year, as evidenced by their 1 loss so far. Spoiled kids! I had to explain that real love comes through shared pain, and a secondary bowl game does not constitute "pain." It's true for marriage; it's true for sports fans.

Yeah...spring break is great here. The campus is so much nicer without all the undergrads. :-)

I think they call them "helicopter parents"...hovering over their kids and making sure everything goes alright. They tend to drive the faculty batty.

Thousands of students invade Franklin St. lighting fires and turning over cars when UNC beats Duke.

Mental note to never park on Franklin St. if I'm ever in Charlotte.

If UCLA were to win it all, that game would be played on the first day of classes. It's hard to get everyone in to a celebratory mood.

Then again, it's hard to get UCLA fans into a celebratory mood about anything. I think that UCLA will definitely have the least amount of fan support in Indianapolis.

UCLA is not exactly a sentimental favorite. I doubt Florida is going to have a lot of crowd support either with warm and fuzzy Billy Donovan coaching them.

If Ned can duplicate Sabean's earliy success

Where is his Jason Schimdt and Barry Bonds going to come from? And steroid cream could help also...

Or Chapel Hill or something like that...

In hindsight, I believe my parents actually came to the UCLA campus twice while I was there. Both times were in my senior year and one was graduation. I think my brothers moved me in.

It wasn't as if they didn't care. I came home practically every weekend, so it wasn't like they missed me. They also figured I was old enough to figure out what to do. I don't even recall my parents asking me what sort of classes I took. They knew I was a history major and that was enough for them.

I agree, and cant say I blame Colletti. He cant afford to go with rookies because if they struggle and the Dodgers miss the playoffs, he gets the fired

At some point he's going to have to go with rookies. If the team misses the playoffs in 2006, is Ned going to take that same strategy "cant go with kids or will get fired..must make playoffs* into 2007?

You gotta either sign the premier/in their prime free agents (Derrick Lee), or committ to the kids. I dont think there is an in between.

But it seems at least this year, Ned has done the "in-between". What will the reaction be if he does that next year?

There's probably a Franklin St. in Charlotte, but there's probably not as many UNC students there.

But it seems at least this year, Ned has done the "in-between". What will the reaction be if he does that next year?

Not actively dumping all the prospects counts as "in between?" Hmm, I guess maybe if Kuo and Osoria really do make the team, then there'll be a couple kids in the mix.

Problem with your "no kids in 2007 if no success in 2006" scenario is that success in 2006 might lead to a "don't change anything" attitude. Remember how DePo got raked over the coals for "breaking up a division winner?"

Good things can still happen. I'm just more and more wary of this carpetbagger from the North.

Good things can still happen

Hopefully those good things entail going with young players entering their primes, or signing superstar/above average level free agents.

So far, I see a late 1990's-early 2000's type of team. The names have changed, but the cost-benefit problem is still very apparent.

Not actively dumping all the prospects counts as "in between?"

Signing the low upside low downside 'safe' vets is the 'in between'. The Mueller, Nomar, Lofton, Tomko, Cruz, Carter, Alomar...

Nate- did you ever end up finishing your paper and were you up all night? I ended up going to bed at 4.

i finished at 7am. went to bed around 8, woke up at 1130 and spent the rest of the day at school doing pointless work. what a great day!/sarcasm

If Denker continues to outslug Dewitt it will mean Dewitt is not breaking out. I feel Dewitt will pull away from Denker myself, and Denker has no solid position or talent in that direction. But he is a good indicater of how DeWitt is progressing.

i believe dewitts going to break out as well. A lot prospect analysts, sickels, john manuel, jim callis, etc, all believe dewitt is going to have a huge offensive year this year.

In reference to denker, he outhit dewitt at columbus but when he was promoted to vero, he absolutely fell apart. Now the sample size may be too small to judge something of it, but it is worrisome. Then again, i look at what laroche did at vero when he was called up in 2003 and compare it to his 2004 year, and my worries drift away a bit.

the big thing with denker is that he must improve defensively. it seems to be a consensus with scouts is that he has fringe range, stiff movements and an average arm.

227. Hmm... The only things worse than that would have been:

1. Looting the farm.
2. Signing clearly crappy, no-upside, huge-downside, expensive vets to long term contracts.
3. Signing the guys he did sign, only to long-term deals.

So, OK, he didn't do any of those things. But I do see zero upside and lots of downside with Lofton (age, reversion to previous mediocrity) and Mueller (injury), and even Furcal (younger, but both decline from career year and injury are likely), I see upside with Nomar, if not huge, and downside risk with Seo (career year, right?).

And I just don't see the point of Tomko or Ramon II. More expensive, older, crappier versions of what we already had, again, with no upside potential. The only thing "safe" about those two is that Colletti knew them and liked their character, I guess.

No, I take it back, the only thing "in between" about Colletti's signings is that they're short term. And as I said above, the real test is whether they stay short term (i.e., go away after a year or two) or become longer term (are extended). On that, we know nothing except that Kent just got extended. Gagne is next up, right?

226 The difference between the team now and 1997-2002 teams is that today, we have young impact players waiting to break into the Big Leagues, while the cupboard was bare back then (Joe Thurston, anyone?).

I see your point, though, about a cost-benefit problem; Colletti doesn't seem to have been exposed to the theory that money should only be spent on top-level players, and not average veteran fill-ins.

227
Let's at least be accurate. he didn't sign Cruz and he didn't sign Carter he traded for him. The players he signed were Furcal, Mueller, Nomar, Lofton, Tomko, Alomar, and now Martinez.

228
Denker was moved to 3b according to the BA interview with Roy Smith.

230
What is Furcal besides being the best SS in the NL last year?

230. And while we all assume that the kids will eventually inherit the team, we still don't know that. They're mostly still there, so it's not impossible. And they're all still young enough that parking them in AAA is not unreasonable. But we'll have to wait a year or two to see if they really do become the headliners, with the Giants Reunion Tour merely a warm-up act.

Colletti doesn't seem to have been exposed to the theory that money should only be spent on top-level players, and not average veteran fill-ins.

Exactly. With as good of farm as we supposedly have now, the 'average fill-ins' should come from the farm, which would then allow for enough cash to acquire the top-level players. Colletti had an advantage here that DePo didnt. He has those 'average-fill-ins' already on the 40-man roster, but has decided to either not go with them or trade them away. DePo had to go out and acquire those average inexpensive fill-ins (Navarro, Choi, Bradley, Werth, Perez) bc there werent any on the farm to begin with.

Ned had the advantage of both but did nothing with it.

Gagne is next up, right?

I thought DePo's 2nd worst move was giving Gagne a 2yr deal and avoiding arbitration. It just seemed like an unnecessary 'thank offering' for Gagne's services.

Now that new mlb rules are in place, I hope Gagne is not re-upped for anything more than 9mil a year. I'd probably wait to see how he performed this year too before extending an offer.

If he is extended at a high rate, I hope the McCourts are planning to go with a 115-120 mil payroll to alleviate the cost-benefit problem.

Going to be a bitter pill for you when the Dodgers win the pennant and Ned gets all the credit for putting a team that won 71 games the previous year back into the playoffs. The reason I'm not negative is because of the Depo players who will carry this team and Furcal/Mueller/Nomar will do enough to earn their money.

But, there were no top level players available this year (unless you count furcal). I'm not a huge fan of Colletti's moves, but there wasn't that much of a choice. Everyone agrees that the farm hands won't be ready until midseason at the earliest, probably not until next year. As a new GM he couldn't stand pat, especially after the disaster that was last season.

i think its safe to say that the dodgers view dewitt as the second basemen of the future. I think the decision to pick up kents 08 option will be based on how far dewitt is along in his development. as it stands, dewitts normal developmental curve would be

06- high A vero
07- AA jax
08- AAA vegas
09- mlb LA

the kent signing was made so that dewitt would not be rushed but also made that if dewitt developed faster then the normal developmental curve set above, the dodgers will be able to cut ties with kent after 2007 and have dewitt be the starting 2b in 2008.

IMO, dewitt will advance to AA at midseason and be called up to the majors in sept of 2007