This Lugo acquisition has the feel of a deal left undone, much as DePo was left without a true starting catcher after his big moves in '04.

It's as if one more deal was pending, but Coletti ran out of time.

But its different when the shoes are only in the eyes of a small subset of fans and not the media.

Joel Guzman was a big name if you followed the farm system but since he did not have a Matt Kemp debut nor the love fest which is Russell Martin or the steadiness of Andre Ethier, this deal won't be the same category as the "Heart and Soul" deal of 2 years ago.

I'm not saying that Ned won't hear about it if the Dodgers don't win but he has the honeymoon that Depo lost the minute he traded LoDuca.

I find myself agreeing with Tom Meagher on these recent trades: none of them is a franchise-destroyer, but all of them display a shockingly short attention-span that cumulatively evince a philosophy that could undo whatever good Logan White has done. So what if Guzman wasn't a world beater this year? The Dodgers couldn't have afforded to keep him in their minors and find out what he was actually good for? I don't want to call this busyness deck-chair movement, because I'm not sold on the idea that the Dodgers couldn't go on a run, but from this armchair, it looks like they could just as easily end up an also-ran. Ripping out your depth for short-term rentals would set up the Dodgers for a repeat of 2005, when they had nobody to cover for critical holes.

Say what you want about Bill Stoneman and his aversion to making trades, but I'll take that in a heartbeat over the itch to make trades just because.

2 - The last sentence of my post gives Colletti through the end of 2007 to win something - after that, I am pretty sure the mainstream Dodger fan would lose patience with him. So I think you may have slightly misread what I was trying to say.

The optimistic scenario is:
1. We have a rotation of Penny/Lowe/Hendrickson/Billingsly/Maddox
2. Billingsly / Broxton / Elbert / Orenduff/ Kuo/ Miller are still with us. I really expected to lose either or both Kuo and Miller
3. LaRoche / Kemp/ Ethier / Martin / Dewitt / Loney and especially Carlos Santan:) are still with us
4. Lugo has been better then Kent this year and if Kent is out for the year Lugo should more then hold his own so I don't think we need to give up the season cause Kent is gone.

I am thrilled to death JtD went to the DevilRays. I'm his sponser on the Baseball Cube and now he's on my 2nd favorite team. He should fit in very well with Young/ Upton/ Dukes as players with incredible talent but may never reach their potential cause of "makeup" issues. I hope they all end up having near HOF careers and tear the heart out of the Yankees for a few years before the Yankee's buy them.

I'm not sure why people think Kent would be out for the year. His injury isn't that serious.

I'm all too familiar with skepticism about the Dodger injury reports, as you know, but it's not as if every Dodger who goes on the DL fails to return. It's not a complete black hole.

Ned provides Logan White with excellent job security.

4 I got you Jon and you may be right but my guess is if anyone loses patience with Ned, it will be the McCourts first before the mainstream fans.

The DRays will be playing Zobrist at SS and Upton at 3B for the rest of the year. It seems as though they plan on keeping Guzman in Durham for the immediate future.

I like the Maddux deal, but I don't see why we would trade off one shortstop (Izturis) and turn around and acquire another one (Lugo).

There are obviously reasons, and hopefully Colletti will explain them to the Blue Notes guys at some point.

I'm beginning to think the Devil Rays-Dodgers relationship is becoming equivalent to the KC Athletics-NY Yankees relationship in the 50s.

Greg Maddux's 327 wins will be the most by any pitcher who has started for the game for the Dodgers.

Don Sutton won 324.

I would be more okay with these trades if I knew why we were getting Lugo. I'm not against giving up Guzman. But I don't see why we had to get Lugo. What is his purpose and how will he contribute to the Dodgers?

6. Since when do we take Dodger injuries at face value?

Is Kent even the better player than Lugo? I know Kent is still capable when healthy, but he is 38 years old and becoming increasingly fragile. Lugo has outhit Kent this season, and posted a higher WARP3 than Kent did in 2005. And he's actually in his prime seasons. I'd rather have Lugo holding the position until DeWitt is ready than Kent.

6
Only because we just traded for Lugo. Lugo won't pass through waivers but Kent can so maybe a deal is in place for when Kent comes off the DL. I'd hate to see Lugo replace Betemit at 3b. Confusing trade, hope something happens in the future to make it clearer.

10 At a guess, Colletti liked the options that Izturis gave him, but wanted an upgrade over his bat.

Just curious: if we had traded Guzman/Pedroza for Maddux and Izturis for Lugo, what would people be saying?

I'm sort of on the fence about the Lugo/Guzman deal (already on record as liking the other deal, though I find it head scratching for the Cubs' perspective) - but am willing to give this some time to sort itself out. Also, can't Lugo also play the OF? Like, say, CF? (A Lugo/Repko platoon there might appease Dodger fans more than a Lofton/Repko platoon in the future...) Also (take 2), didn't many people get upset when the Dodgers traded away Franklin Gutierrez? Of course, that was for Milton Bradley, and ultimately we got Ethier for Gutierrez (plus some time with the Milton Bradley bored game). Just sayin' - and I think Jon is saying this too - could and should be fair to wait awhile before fully coming down on Colletti or evaluating these trades.

As I said in previous thread, I have my favorite Dodger prospects, and none of them were traded before the deadline. I'd give Colletti some credit for that, at least.

Thanks, Bob, we needed some comedy relief, and from all places, Pittsburgh.

This rudimentary story reports that the Pirates have traded Craig Wilson to the Yankees in exchange for Shawn Chacon.

I doubt Ned resigns Lugo to play 2nd, considering Jeff Kent's contract.

13
I'd take Lugo over Kent at 2nd at this point in their careers but how can Lugo keep 2nd warm for DeWitt in only 2 months. He won't sign an extension for less then 4 years and I don't want him during his 31-35 years unless he's playing CF and not the infield.

Still nothing on Inside the Dodgers but there is an article about the trades on the Dodger main site. Any word of a Flanders news conference?

10. Because Ned thinks he needs a 2B, and Lugo can hit, Izturis cannot.

15 Izturis for Lugo: awesome.
Guzman for Pedroza: Ned must be working for the Cubs.

I'm guessing Plashke is as excited now as the old guy in "Old School" who keeled over from excitement during his mud wrestling match. I can't wait to read his next gushing article about how the Dodgers now have heart in their starting rotation.

For some reason, the CBS fantasy analysis says Kent will move to 1B with Lugo playing SS. Nomar is not hurt that bad, right? I would think the more likely option is Lugo playing some CF, 2B, 3B, depending on the lineup.

I can wait to read Plaschke's next article. In fact, I've waited for a year - the last time I bothered to read his drivel.

Also (take 2), didn't many people get upset when the Dodgers traded away Franklin Gutierrez? Of course, that was for Milton Bradley,

Gutierrez was never the top prospect that Guzman was. Also, Bradley wasnt a rental, and was coming to a team that had an open position in CF.

Lugo's a rental. Thats why this deal stinks.
I might understand it if Lugo was being brought in to play 2nd base for the next 3 years, but that aint happening bc Jeff Kent already has his extension. And Kent aint moving off 2nd base.

I'm not against giving up Guzman. But I don't see why we had to get Lugo. What is his purpose and how will he contribute to the Dodgers?

Yeah. If we're gonna trade Guzman, why not trade him for something we actually need? Is there anyone out there who thinks we actually need Lugo? Were we short on shortstops?

Wait a minute, Lugo being a rental is the only thing that makes this deal semi-palatable.

Dont completely hate on the Pirates.
They got rid of Casey's deal, dealt for Xavier Nady. Those are two good things.

Chacon for Wilson stinks, but 2 out of 3 aint bad.

I hate this trade and I think that it is the first trade that makes me think it might be regarded as one of the worst trades of all time. Can't you see one of those lists in 2015 ranking players by Runs Contributed above Average (the new and improved stat of its day) and Guzman has 557 and Pedroza has 128 and Lugo as 5, plus the Dodgers got two draft picks who didn't turn out. Why trade a prosect of that caliber for a player who is a free agent in a year where we are under .500 going into August? Is Ned really keeping the faith that this could be the year?

If one were to believe it semi-palatable, which it is not.

Hmm... Lugo... WTF??!!! Why does Colletti keep insisting on aquiring crappy players from Tampa Bay. It's like he's sold his soul to the Devil Rays. /witty pun

Lugo is a rental, but I think Maddux stays a year over. The draft picks help shore up the farm system to compensate for Guzman (and the missing starting pitching).

But buy stock in Delwyn Young while you can still afford it. He's got a better chance at playing time not only in the outfield, but at second base too. My guess is Betemit's position depends on the contest put up between Young, Laroche, Kemp, and the health of JD Drew and Jeff Kent, which gives him a shot at being a winner.

To the casual fan (likely the majority), this dodgers.com headline says it all:

LA trade story: Maddux, Lugo in, Izturis out

To these fans, they will think this is a great day for the Dodgers. I suspect Plaschke will be in that group.

At some point, you'd think Ned would sit back and ask himself why Tampa Bay has been such a willing trading partner.

Does anyone have Ned's address? Could we start a grassroots campaign to write him angry letters about the way he is trading the farm for nothing. He is the anti-Dan Evans.

3 - I agree 100%. Dodger Math mentioned this before. How many franchise-destroying moves have the Royals done lately? It's the lack of direction that's killed them.

With every move Ned makes, I like him less. And I find that I distance myself from the Dodgers more. When the McCourts fired DePodesta, I lost control and spiraled into a very surreal state of depression (for a weekend). I loved that DePodesta had a plan. He knew the type of players he wanted and the type of jobs the Dodgers needed. I let invested myself emotionally because I had hope.

Now, without a plan, I fear for the worst (perhaps I'm being unrealistic). It's hard to stay so involved as a fan when I don't like the moves they keep making, especially when taken as a whole. So my response has been an increase in apathy. I don't want to get burned every time they do something I don't like; so I find that I watch fewer games, talk less on Dodger Thoughts, and just get less excited about them. The franchise isn't destroyed, but I don't have the long-term hope I did before.

And the whole thing makes me a bit sad.

Sorry for the rant.

In a dream scenario, Furcal is dealt for Tejada in the off-season.
Then Lugo is resigned to play SS.

But even given that, it makes no sense to trade for Lugo now, when you could just sign him as a free agent.

Last week we played this hypothetical about acquiring 2 months of Carlos Lee, vs just signing him in the off-season and keeping the prospects.

Upon further review, this trade does stink from all angles.

Okay, I've been checking out the site for the last few weeks and got myself hooked. This is my first post and am a little afraid of developing a DT addiction.

I'm happy about the Maddux trade and actually think it will pay benefits down the line if he can impart some wisdom to Billingsley. Now the Guzman/Lugo trade has a me a little worried. I think Guzman will pan out in the long run and will be a future All Star. My only reasoning for Lugo is that Ned thinks the next two weeks are ultra-critical and can't afford to wait for Kent and Nomar to return from the DL. If Kent and Nomar are healthy, he doesn't make this trade. With Lugo, he has a .300 hitter who can immediately contribute. If that's Ned's plan, he's probably not worried about having a surplus of players.

This is just speculation, but it's possible that Nomar's injury is worse than we know, and could be out for the year, and Kent will play first when he returns.

LOL -- on what world is Lugo 'crappy'?

Just looked it up. Lugo's career OPS+ is 92. He's basically a league average shortstop. And shortstop is blocked.

30 I don't think is will be an all-time bad trade. It's not like they traded a major league ready 22 year old catcher for a couple replacement level players, but ugg. Why would the Dodgers even want Julio Lugo?

31 I agree... the only thing salvageable about this deal is that Lugo leaves after this season. Colletti (and maybe White) must think that getting the first round picks for Lugo will yield better prospects than what they think Guzman has become. I don't know if I necessarily agree with that, but that is the only explanation that justifies this trade. Of course, in Logan White we trust, provided he was consulted before this deal was made.

Also, I remember Guzman caused a bit of a fuss when Kemp was promoted before him and also when he was sent back down. I wonder if that left a negative aftertaste with Colletti.

I think the Pirates essentially got nothing in return for Casey, Wilson and Oliver Perez (I'm not a big Xavier Nady fan). Casey gives the Pirates a much better fielding (and hitting) first baseman than they had there all year. The Cubs, meanwhile, got another light hitting, slick fielding shortstop instead of the prospect most pundits thought they'd demand for Maddux. A lot of trades made this past week were more head-scratching than the ones the Dodgers made.

44 "Casey gives the Tigers a much..." that should read.

Hey fellas-

One thing we arent taking into account is the commitment the dodgers have clearly made in the near future to Kemp, Ethier, and, i shudder to say it, light hitting JD Drew. Guzman clearly would have had trouble finding playing time, given the fact that Drew, as much as it sucks, will probably remain the lynchpin "big" bat in the lineup. Lugo is clearly a serviceable infielder, and an insurance policy for Kent.

Better to salvage major league value for guzman before letting his 'potential' smolder away in the vegas heat.

Why does Colletti keep insisting on aquiring crappy players from Tampa Bay.

I don't know what his line drive % or BABIP looks like, but I wouldn't call him crappy. He has an .871 OPS and something like a dozen homers. Also, he's 18-4 SB-CS, so he can be a #2 guy in the lineup, and maybe Grady will put Repko in at centerfield.

He's also going to be worth draft picks.

So when Kent and Nomar return are we looking at:

C Martin
1B Kent
2B Lugo
3B Betemit
SS Furcal
LF Nomar
CF Ethier/Drew
RF Ethier/Drew

??

I sure like the look of that going into the home stretch ...

If not then:

C Martin
1B Loney
2B Lugo
3B Betemit
SS Furcal
LF Ethier
CF Repko
RF Drew

I think Lugo is a solid addition especially if Nomar/Kent stay out for a while.

41 -- Earth. Welcome to it. LOL.

40 I think youre onto something. Nomar could have tweaked his knee pretty badly. The replay I caught of the play didnt look too good.

30

Guzman was blocked in LA. Would you rather have traded Ethier, Kemp, or LaRoche? Because that's the only way Guzman would have been able to show his stuff. The longer he stays in Vegas without being called up, the more he loses his prospect status. Colletti had to trade him for something, while he could still get something for him. And at least he got a decent hitter and probably a couple of lottery tickets in return.

As i said before, this season is over for the dodgers, so why trade league minimum prospects for rentals.
Izturis for maddux is fine because we get rid of izturis and dump his next year contract for hopefully starting pitching (with ned who knows tho).
Sorry but i'd rather have guzman and pedroza then 2 draft picks if its actually 2.
We already have some draft picks coming to us from the free agents leaving after this season.
I think ned is shaving away at 2007/2008, while trying to win this season (no hope there) and maybe getting a couple good draft picks to help in 2010ish.
I think he might have shaved too much from 2007/2008 already.

Lugo immediately joins the team tied for the club lead in HRs.

As a side note, will the dodger broadcast report Lugo's season stats as blanks because he has changed leagues?

My two pet peaves from watching baseball are seperate stats for players who have switched leagues, and boradcasts only showing a players post season stats in the post season.

When I am watching Tadahito Iguchi hit, and I have not kept up with fringe White Sox players all season, I don't care that he is hitting .100 having gone 1 for 10 in the ALDS. I want to know if he is a threat to get a base hit, and I need a large sample size to do so.

Off soap box.

If Guzman stays an infielder, he is better right now than Lugo is. That makes Lugo and this trade very questionable, if not flat out horrible.

40-

That has been speculated, but we have no proof of that.

I agree with Tom Meagher and post #3. There are very few single moves that destroy a franchise, but an accumulation of bad moves that turns you into the Royals.

My objections to Ned's trades stem from the lack of ingenuity and creativity.

Casey gives the Pirates a much better fielding (and hitting) first baseman than they had there all year.

The Tigers had Chris Shelton/Dmitri Young there.
Acquiring Sean Casey and his contract makes very little sense for them. I think that deal is probably even a little worse than Lugo for Guzman.

40 All trades are dependent on physicals, right? Otherwise, Colletti should have traded Nomar instead of DLing him.

I often wonder to what degree a team, when making a trade, considers the other side's player development program. As in, "I can't send Raw Robert to them, because they know what they're doing and can polish him into a player." But other teams, you know they can't refine a player worth a hoot, so you don't mind sending touted prospects there because they'll never grow into MLB-ready players.
Just a thought.

36 I still don't understand the "trading the farm system for nothing" comments - yes, he's traded some good prospects, or at least players who could turn out to be good with other teams. But with one of the deepest farm systems in baseball, and with all the players rated highly by Baseball America (with the one-time exception of Guzman) still with the team, and knowing that there is not room for all these players with the team, in the future, with payroll/free agency/rule 5 all a factor - why not get some return for the ones you (the management) are no longer so hot on?

Ethier and Martin. Still with the team.
Kemp. Check.
Billingsley. Check.
DeWitt. Check.
Loney. Check.
Elbert. Check.
LaRoche. Check.

Then there are the Kershaws and other guys drafted this year, of course.
These guys are the Dodgers future, along with Betemit and so on. I remain confident in the Dodgers' future.

54
If Guzman stays an infielder, he is better right now than Lugo is.

I don't know how you can say that.

The next two (Kent-less) weeks are going to be very important for the Dodgers if they are to really compete for even a wild card slot. In that sense, I'm glad to have Lugo's bat in the lineup (because I have no confidence in Robles' ability to hit major-league pitching). An alternative would have been to move Betemit to second base and bring up LaRoche to play third base. LaRoche is good player, has he has yet to face major-league pitching, so this would have been a risky move.

I watched Guzman play for the 51s when they came here to Albuquerque, and I wasn't impressed. Granted, it was only two games. But I didn't get the sense that he was anywhere near ready to compete for a major-league job (if ever). Still, I hate to see the Dodgers not get more value for Guzman than a player who is going to turn out to be a two-month rental.

Re: Chris Shelton/Dmitri Young - you should ask my Tigers fan friend/coworker what he thinks of them. Shelton was just sent down, and his defense cost them a couple of games this year. Casey may not be the greatest, and he may not make the difference for the Tigers as far as making the WS or not, but I'd still argue he's an upgrade over the previous choices.

Julio Lugo's BABIP and LD% are available at The Hardball Times. Basically, his LD%, BABIP, and GB% are consistent with the last 2 years. But his home runs per flyball has skyrocketed from between 4% and 5% in the last 2 years to 17% this year.

Hardball Times:
http://tinyurl.com/hfysg

I guess the major distinction here is win now/win later thinking. Getting Lugo and Maddux can definitely help now and appease one camp, and losing Guzman can irritate the other.

I don't know enough about the Dodger farm system to say anything with meaning, but it does seem to me that the system must be deep to have parted with such a popular player in a win now paradigm.

To have done that informs me that the management has provided it's view with specific relief - they think they have a chance to be both win now and win then.

If Kent and Nomar come back, then:

C Martin
1B Nomar
2B Kent
3B Betemit
SS Furcal
LF Ethier
CF Lugo/Lofton
RF Drew

We added 2 and subtracted 1. So who comes off the 25 man roster?

Winners from today:

-DRays- Guzman, Pedroza
-Padres- got Todd Walker for nothing. Also get draft picks when he leaves at the end of the season. Cubs paying his tab. Very good trade.
-Pirates- got out from Casey's horrible contract, Xavier Nady is a good player. Chacon/Wilson was bad, but still overall a good day for the Buccos

Losers:
Cubs- got Izzy, let Walker go for nothing and paid his salary. Horrible day for them

Good/Bad:
Dodgers- traded Izzy, but brought Lugo.
Mets- Oliver Perez has a chance to turn it around.

Lugo's OPS so far is .090 points above his career average. I'm sensing that he'll have a terrible last two months of the season. Looks too much like Jeromy Burnitz v. 2003

65 Sounds like a good line-up to me, although I wish it was: "CF Lugo/Repko" but thoughts of Lofton being traded (and I'm not on the anti Lofton bandwagon either, but just think they'd be better with those other two guys offensively and defensively) were probably naively hopeful on my part.

54 - I have a hunch that when all is said and done Guzman will be regarded as an infielder in the same way Pedro Guerrro was an infielder - minus the bat.

Grades on deadline trades:

Betemit/Aybar, Baez - B
Maddux/Izzy - B

Lugo/Guzman,Pedroza -Inc. need more info for final grade!

Yes, if its true Nomar is more seriously hurt than the Dodger trust has let on, then this trade makes sense in the short run. Otherwise, it kind of negates the other two trades where we got some value and didn't sacrifice our plum prospects, i.e. Elbert, LaRoche and Kemp.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong
(Sorry, couldn't miss a Dennis Miller line from his HBO show)!

59 I'm with you, underdog. I wish I had the details on who we will be protecting, but with the prospects we have, we were bound to lose some anyway. When you have a surplus of prospects, the only rational thing to do with them is to trade some you think you won't need in order to improve the team. Even if the prospects we get for Lugo (free agency) don't pan out, we had a possible improvement for this year, as opposed to nothing when prospects are lost in Rule V.

I somehow get the feeling that if Izturis was a 20 yr old SS at LV hitting .285 you wouldn't like the trade.

"Mets- Oliver Perez has a chance to turn it around."

LOL. Good one.

"Getting Lugo and Maddux can definitely help now"

Are they really any better than Izzy and Tomko?

If Nomar's more seriously hurt than thought, then it makes even less sense.

This team needs everyone healthy, and even then it probably wont be enough to make the playoffs. So trying to put Lugo in for Nomar/Kent, does nothing than simply treading water. Treading water wont get it done. The Dodgers need to play .600+ baseball to make the playoffs, and without Nomar/Kent they got no shot. Lugo doesnt change anything.

66

My guess is Carrara is headed back to Las Vegas.

I somehow get the feeling that if Izturis was a 20 yr old SS at LV hitting .285 you wouldn't like the trade

No, bc 20yr old SS's dont make 4mils a year.
Plus, Izzy has proven that he sucks with the bat. With the prospects, until they've proven that they suck, I think its best to keep them unless what you are bringing in is a difference maker.

Maddux isnt a difference maker. But unloading Izzy's deal is.

77 Izzy's contract isn't bad. Just he can't be used to his potential with Furcal at short.

The Dodgers have dealt Willy Aybar, Chuck Tiffany, Edwin Jackson, Joel Guzman, Justin Ruggiano, and Sergio Pedroza in a total of three transactions. I would argue that none of the players they received stands to be a real impact player in either the short or long term.

So, I find myself wondering: if rather than get three mediocrities for these prospects, could the Dodgers have acquired a real long-term impact player by bundling ALL of them together in ONE deal for a Tejada or Bay-type player that can help them win big in the next year or three?

If you're going to deal away that much young talent, unproven though it may be, I'd use it to at least guarantee I was getting something really good in return rather than nickel-and-dime my way to league averageness.

Don't the dodgers have a decent chance of keeping maddux next year, should he finish out the season strong, provided that he reverts to mid-nineties form, keeping the ball on the ground and in the park in the capacious confines of dodger stadium, i.e. turner field east?

68-Speaking of Burnitz, if the Dodgers needed a 2nd baseman, I'm sure the Mets would have been glad to give Victor Diaz back.

76 - You think so? I guess I can see that happening, but why delay the inevitable.

DFA Cruz or Ledee
(you can chant that)

65
I think that would be a sweet lineup for the rest of 2006.

This whole talk of Lugo being a useless player just leaves me wondering who you people are sometimes. I'm not saying it was a good trade but the negative comments about Lugo are just ludicrous. The other comments that a AAA player who has an unimpressive MLE being a better player then Lugo right now if they were both infielders leaves me even more bewildered. The leap of faith that every kid will hit is misguided. JtD should become a better player then Lugo but the odds of JtD ever actually posting an 870 OPS for a single season are probably very high while Lugo is actually doing it.

I'm pretty happy with the trades today.

It's obvious Izturis had no future with the Dodgers which is somewhat sad considering his contributions to the run in 2004. But it was time for him to move on. I'm excited about the opportunity to see Greg Maddux in Dodger blue for a few months. After all the years of him playing here in Atlanta I never thought I'd have the chance to see him in LA.

As for the Lugo trade it seems several people are upset that Guzman was moved. I was a big Guzman fan when he was in Jacksonville and had the chance to see him play a few times in Chattanooga. But let's face it was his stock going to rise in LA anytime soon? I mean he's too big for any infield positions other than first base which, last I checked, there is somewhat of a log jam with Garciparra, Loney, Saenz, etc. In the outfield with Ethier playing as well as he has Guzman wasn't going to get a regular shot out there. Not with Kemp, Drew, Lofton, Cruz, and Repko. So where was he going to play? In LV? Perhaps he would have had a breakout year in 2007 in LV but what if '07 was another bust year? What is his value then? Anyone remember Edwin Jackson when he came up and beat Randy Johnson on his birthday? No one wanted to trade him at that point but after a couple years of struggling what was his eventual value in trade?

Also let's don't forget Guzman's attitude at being demoted. I know we are supposed to give him a pass for being 21 and naive but actions and bad attitudes have consequences. It causes people to make judgments on you that don't go away easily.

I hope Guzman goes to Tampa and does well. He'll get a longer look there for sure. But I'm excited about the rest of this season for LA. I applaud Colletti for having the guts to pull the trigger and trying to help this team win now.

What we got, Maddux and Lugo, I doubt very much we needed. I said last night in another thread that the 2006 version of Maddux strikes me as worse than any of the five pitchers in our current starting rotation. We gave up nothing worth having for Maddux, so that part is not a problem, but the downside to the deal is that Maddux takes the rotation slot of a pitcher who would likely be better than him over the next two months. If Billingsley gets sent back to Triple A to make room for the 39-year-old has-been, you guys who live in L.A. better promise me you will march on Dodger Stadium with pitchforks and torches.

Lugo helps us as long as Kent is on the DL in that he is a clear upgrade over having Ramon Martinez at 2B, but when Kent comes back, what then? I suppose then Lugo goes to 3B and Betemit goes to the bench. Ultimately, the best thing to come from Lugo may be the two compensation draft picks we get when he signs with some other team after the season, and extra draft picks for Logan White is always a good thing. As far as what we gave up, Pedroza was no loss at all, so let's get that out of the way first. As for Guzman, I was a big supporter a year and a half to two years ago. But a lot has changed since then: (1) Guzman's a left-fielder now, not somebody who had at least a remote chance of being a big league SS; (2) Guzman's offensive production has gone down, especially when you consider the park and league context he is playing in now relative to the pitcher-friendly conditions he used to play in; (3) Significant issues have arisen concerning Guzman's make-up: he does not have a good work ethic and he sulks and complains like Odalis Perez; and (4) Guzman has been blocked at the big league level at his current position by a rookie player that the Dodgers like better than Guzman, Ethier. So am I unhappy about losing Guzman? In a word, no. I was expecting him to be shipped out for something, and am fine with his departure. But I do wonder if what we got for him is really worth having.

76I don't think Carrara can be optioned. I'd option Billingsley. That walk rate is fugly. Or perhaps DFA Hendrickson, but Colletti wouldn't do that.

76 - I think the Dodgers might go with 12 pitchers for a while and jettison their sixth outfielder.

86 - they want him to develop at the major league level. I say go for it. Would you rather see Hendrickson in there?

87 - yeah. Who will it be, Cruz or Ledee?

The problem with the dodgers is that they have too many casual fans that ned has to satisfy, plain and simple.
Sorry for being harsh, but that's the problem.
We have no pitching and we are 5 games out of the worst division in basebal and the american league is way better than any national league team by far.
Anyone who thinks the dodgers have a chance this season, i've got 1 acre of property thats worth 100 billion dollars, would you like to buy it.

Lugo is definitely better than Izturis. Tomko is just a middle reliever, so yeah I think Maddux is more valuable.

85 - I think Grady Little sold short on Sele a while ago. He's been getting passed over on starts when there have been off days. I really think Sele's going to the back of the bullpen as insurance.

I do think we need to know whether seeing Lugo in center field is a possibility.

The temptation with trades like this is to debate whether the particular prospect involved (be it Tiffany, Jackson, Navarro, Guzman, Pedroza, Aybar whoever) is going to pan out, and if he doesn't, then its o.k.

I think that's beside the point. Which prospects, particularly, if they're young are going to pan out, is an unkown. Its by maitaining depth in your system that you can be reasonably assured of producing major league talent.

On top of all the other arguments against (we don't need Lugo, Lugo's a rental, we're still in last place, we should have gotten more for JtD, etc) that's the one that resonates with me. This whole idea that we can trade whatever prospects we want so long as its not Martin/Billz/Kemp/Etheir is the way Plaschke would think. In fact, I think he said that exact thing.

For me, with this deal, Ned has gone to the prospect well too many times.

The problem with the (insert any sports franchise in the world here) is that they have too many casual fans that the GM has to satisfy, plain and simple.

They should make Maddux the new pitching coach. They could send Honeycutt to Ogden or Vero Beach.

"So am I unhappy about losing Guzman? In a word, no. I was expecting him to be shipped out for something, and am fine with his departure. But I do wonder if what we got for him is really worth having."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

89 - You better get your lawyer to read over your dares.

Yeah, Canuck nailed my problem with giving up Guzman. I knew it was coming, I just wished we got more.

Don't the dodgers have a decent chance of keeping maddux next year, should he finish out the season strong, provided that he reverts to mid-nineties form

Yeah, why wouldn't a 40+ year old revert to the form he showed a decade ago?

"The temptation with trades like this is to debate whether the particular prospect involved (be it Tiffany, Jackson, Navarro, Guzman, Pedroza, Aybar whoever) is going to pan out, and if he doesn't, then its o.k."

Dude, the true quality of a prospect is what he becomes. If Guzman becomes nothing, then he's worth nothing. So if he has perceived value, then trading him is good.

92 is right. 99 is wrong.

The interesting thing here, though, is that Colletti aquired a pitcher with good perepherals and a poor era. Usually, it's the other way around.

The Cubs board hates Izturis.
That Izzy for Maddux deal was amazingly good I think.

If Ned had just did that and called it a day, he'd be breathing much easier.

100 Actually I think that they are both right, it is a good strategy to trade minor league prospect who likely never amount to anything (my belief is that is what Guzman is doomed to become), however, it is best to do trade those playerin return for a great haul, which we really haven't seen.

I question though, the assumption that the totality of the players we have traded would have gotten a Jason Bay-type.

84 Warren
It's obvious Izturis had no future with the Dodgers which is somewhat sad considering his contributions to the run in 2004. But it was time for him to move on.

I agree. His real worth is playing SS where he is maybe the best defensive one in the game.

As far as Guzman goes I again agree that there was not a place for him. After Ethier put up his numbers even LF was blocked.

I don't think there's any reason to belive that Nomar is not coming back this year. I think Kent is the question mark. And if both are fine, there is some missing piece to the puzzle. We do not need another backup infielder and would not have traded Guzman to get one. People, don't let your hatred of Coletti blind you to reasonable thinking (please don't bother with the jokes slamming our GM).

Guzman has had a "set back" year in more ways than his stats. His work ethic has been called into question. I remember him being punished at AAA this year for not showing enough hussle. Also he's shown a certain amount of immaturity (even for a player his age) by questioning how the Dodgers have called him up (or not). I think those items sealed the deal as well as stats. My problem with the trade is the idea of "renting" Lugo. If we get Lugo signed, it's a good move. If not, it's a horrible move. Lugo has value as a future second baseman who can hit or as a trade chip ... remember, Boston was reported as making a pretty big run on him. So far the Dodgers have upgraded 3rd base - a player who can play the position and hit and solved the short term (long term if Kent's not coming back 100%) problem at 2nd with a guy who can field the position and hit. It's a much better lineup today than it was 1 week ago.

101 - without looking I can tell you he has a pretty high WHIP. His peripherals aren't all that low.

Kevin Goldstein wrote an article earlier this year where he examined the 2001 Baseball America Prospect book in which he looked at all of them at determined that 31% had established MLB careers and only half of that represented significant talent.

All I am saying is that is extremely rare for any prospect to become an established major league player and even rarer to become a star.

Now, a system like the Dodgers or D-Backs might have more of a chance to produce quality players due to their depth but then again if the Yankees top 2 prospects pan out, there isn't much difference aside from the fact that the Dodgers have more to use in trades.

Now that Joel is gone, I can no longer say that Ned has not dealt anyone in the top ten but I will say this, considering the past number one prospects for the Dodgers, you have to wonder if that is a good label to have.

1999 Angel Pena, c
2000 Chin-Feng Chen, of
2001 Ben Diggins, rhp
2002 Ricardo Rodriguez, rhp
2003 James Loney, 1b (He was just drafted the year before so shows you the state of the system at that time)
2004 Edwin Jackson, rhp
2005 Joel Guzman, ss/of
2006 Chad Billingsley, rhp

Izturis contract next year is 4.15 million, wow.
I'm lovin this izturis dumping.
4.15 million right off the bat for starting pitching plus all the rest of the money coming off the books.
The other trade ned made today i'm hating.

Making Cubs fan even more depressed is a funny benefit to the trade.

We could have traded Sandy Koufax for Julio Lugo, and it would still be a good day, after getting rid of that banjo-hitting nobody.

107 - okay, I'm wrong, 1.29 WHIP isn't awful.

So, any ideas as to why Lugo's 2006 SLG is 90 points higher than his career mark, and his OPS is 120 points higher? Any ideas as to why these increases just happen to have taken place during a contract year?

108 - Yeah, I don't feel that the list of No. 1s when the farm system was at the bottom of the MLB rankings is too relevant.

103 + 108 = Inexorable conclusion that one must trade all prospects.

113 - His home run per flyball rates are a LOT higher this year. That's a good place to start.

His home run per flyball rates are a LOT higher this year

Yeah, but why? Any ideas? Just luck, or something else?

Guzman was the #1 guy in 2005, and now is traded for 2 months of Julio Lugo.

That puts it into perspective.

These D-Rays trades...geeze. Its like how can one person do something so incredibly thoughtful with Izzy for Maddux, but then turn around and do something the exact opposite?

114 That's true but there were those who were upset when they got rid of those guys too.

If Ned never made any deals with Tampa Bay, his trade record would look pretty good.

"Dude, the true quality of a prospect is what he becomes."
Excellent point.
Really, in the last few years I can't recall the trading of a prospect that really came back to bite the Dodgers. So, the team is either lucky or good at determining which farmhands can make it in the bigs.
Half of scouting is knowing the opposition's players; the other half is knowing your players. Logan White, take yet another bow.

Wow. Lots of comments to wade through, and most of them have been thoughtful and civil.

I yawned at the Maddux-Izzy deal. For all of the reasons mentioned above, it seems harmless, and not a steal for either side. We get yet another mediocre pitcher. They get yet another mediocre middle IFer.

And I see the value of Lugo (1) over Ramon Martinez, and (2) as long as Kent is out. But I agree with those who are befuddled that we'd send away one excess middle IFer just to acquire another. I kind of doubt Lugo is slated for CF.

But I will remind everyone that (as ToyCannon hinted in 14) today is NOT the trading deadline. That's a month away. Kent, with that contract, will definitely clear waivers. Lugo might be his permanent replacement. Lofton/Cruz/Ledee - they're all still tradeable, and in a month, the standings will be better sorted out.

Still and all, I see Colletti as basically hyperactive with no plan or purpose. Protecting the top top prospects (assuming that no longer included Guzman or Navarro) has been accomplished, but was more a constraint than a goal. If I were McCourt, I'd be wondering what Colletti is up to. The team has gotten older and more expensive, with each deal costing more and more (in future-year production and present-year cash), and with no apparent improvement of the product on the field. Maybe Lugo and Betemit will be more productive in the next two months than Aybar/Izzy/Martinez. Maybe even 1 win's worth. But that's a lot of sound and fury signifying little.

IF the only plan is to fool the mythical "average fan" that big names are more likely to win than unknowns, well, good luck keeping that Ponzi scheme going.

Lugo leads the Dodgers in Home Runs even though he missed over 30 games at the start of the season.
Hard to explain the huge jump in power. His trend was up but 800 would be expected more then 870. Someone pointed out the flyball rate was the same but those same flyballs are now leaving the park. Maybe having a Melvin Mora power surge?

122
Didn't we win the pennant in 2004 by one game?

Rawitch has a new entry at InsideTheDodgers, but it doesn't have much information. He promises more information later, and conference calls will be online shortly.

Maybe Lugo will give whatever is making him hit HRs this year, to the rest of the team.

The power shortage must have really gotten to Ned. He's picked up two guys (Betemit and Lugo) that are in homer peak years.

If the Astros were willing to deal Oswalt then I would have gone hard after him.

115 I never said trade all the prospects, if that is what you thought I implied, that is incorrect.

Why is it when someone tries to point out an argument that has some merit, like the fact that the vast majority of minor leaguers never pan out, it gets shut down as a position where I am saying trade them all.

All I am saying is that is it possible that if we get one or two good prospects in a draft class, that might be all we can expect and if someone else thinks more highly of them, why not deal them.

No one is talking about Guzman's plate discilpine or Pedroza's horrendous contact rates right now, its as if we traded two All-Stars for a bench player.

Look, both those guys may pan out but they also may not, of the two, Guzman will certainly get his chance and he may become a Richard Hidalgo type player or he could become a Rob Deer.

Okay, I will calm down but I do think some perspective has to be considered

FWIW, Greg Maddux ranks 11th in the NL of qualifying starting pitchers out of 46 in DIPS. Below Penny and above Lowe.
vr, Xei

118 - "Its like how can one person do something so incredibly thoughtful with Izzy for Maddux, but then turn around and do something the exact opposite?"

I don't think Colletti did the Izzy trade for the reasons that made it a "thoughtful" trade for you. I think he did it because he really thinks Maddux will help.

I don't look for the Dodgers to be World Champions but I don't understand why that always has to be the only goal. A great pennant race is always fun to be part of and something that can happen this year since were chasing teams with many of the same flaws as our own. I enjoyed 2004 even though I knew we had no chance against the Cardinals. What is wrong with trying to win a pennant as long as your not mortgaging the future and I haven't seen any sign that Ned mortaged our future with todays deals. Head scratching maybe but nothing more.

I don't see why everyone is yelling about Lugo regressing to the mean when the season is already 2/3 of the way through. Can anybody say "contract year surge"? I don't expect him to drop off much personally.

That being said, I don't like the trade much since it creates yet another logjam. The draft picks will be nice though.

94 I like that thinking. Doesn't Maddux make SoCal his home? We'll get added value from him after his playing time is over.

The reaction on Inside the Dodgers, so far:

Anger that Maddux was acquired for Izturis.

No mention of Guzman.

Lugo on the trade to the Dodgers:

"I'm very excited ... It's a different atmosphere over there when you're playing for something. Hopefully, we go all the way through October and the World Series."

Um, does he think he's gone to the Mets? Is intelligence a factor in these trades?

Can I interrupt the Dodger angst-fest for just a minute to seek some advice?

A guy in my league is entertaining offers for Albert Pujols. I am considering offering Miggy Cabrera and Prince Fielder. I also have the luxury of substituting David Wright, Ryan Howard or Manny Ramirez for Miggy, but I am less likely to do so. What do you guys think I should do?

Offer him Izzy!

136 - neither is literacy, it seems.

138 With or without Lugo?

From Rotoworld:
Giving up Guzman for a player eligible for free agency in two months would have been OK if that player was Barry Zito or Alfonso Soriano.

They also said that Billingsley might be sent back down to AAA to make room for Maddux in the rotation and that Colleti went 1 for 2 today. :)
vr, Xei

Anyone shocked that the RedSox did nothing to counter the Abreu deal? People complain about our rotations and yet the two best teams in the AL East have a complete mess on their hands.

I'm glad the Padre GM pulled out of the Oliver Perez deal with the Mets. I would have hated to see him get straightened out in San Diego.

Remember last year when posters were saying that Milton Bradley was as good as Carlos Beltran? Seems like a long time ago.

*The reaction on Inside the Dodgers, so far:

Anger that Maddux was acquired for Izturis.

No mention of Guzman.*

LOL, that's dodgers.com members for ya.

My dad has weighed in on the Izturis trade - he's a huge, huge Maddux fan but thinks that the Dodgers would have been better off seeing if they could get more for Izturis in the offseason than get a pitcher unlikely to help at all. He doesn't buy the "addition by subtraction" argument with Izturis. He likes Lugo, but overall, he's puzzled by Colletti's moves.

He's just my dad, but I felt like passing it along.

It's interesting because he's becoming a little bit of a Moneyball convert with each passing year, kind of gradually. He read the book two or three years ago, but I think he needed to see it in action a little bit. He has really paid attention to the A's and been impressed with Beane - not idolizing him, but impressed.

I think my Dad feels defense is undervalued and that therefore, Izturis was worth more than the Dodgers got.

There's another thing I've been meaning to say for a while. Many people have bunched all the prospects we've traded together and wondered why we couldn't get an impact player for them. This reasoning is extremely flawed, as I have learned from playing a lot of fantasy baseball.

Dealing quantity for quality is not something that a lot of GMs are willing to do, as they shouldn't. The mantra in fantasy baseball is to always acquire the best player in a deal unless you have a ton of holes to fill. Could we have gotten Tejada for Navarro, Guzman, Jackson, etc.? I seriously doubt it because Guzman is the only semi-likely impact player. If we're looking to get an impact player (not a rental), we're gonna have to give up someone like Kemp or Billingsley, end of story. To assume anything otherwise would be foolish.

132 - Headscratching is what worries me.

Major Premise: It is a good strategy to trade minor league prospects who likely never amount to anything.

Minor Premise: Kevin Goldstein wrote an article earlier this year where he examined the 2001 Baseball America Prospect book in which he looked at all of them at determined that 31% had established MLB careers and only half of that represented significant talent.

OR

Minor Premise Restated: All minor league prospects are likely not to amount to anything.

OR Minor Premise Re-restated: "the vast majority of minor leaguers never pan out..."

Conclusion: All minor league prospects should be traded.

That is the syllogism that the two comments posed.

122 - Wow, if a post-non-waiver-deadline deal involving Jeff Kent doesn't just make everything fall into place...?

Who needs a 2B-man with some pop? Boston? New York Mets?

134 Maddux resides in LV

142 ToyCannon
Remember last year when posters were saying that Milton Bradley was as good as Carlos Beltran? Seems like a long time ago.

He was yesterday. :)

Wow, people sure update the ol' Wikipedia quickly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julio_Lugo

In 15 games at Dodgers Stadium, Maddux is
6 - 5 with a 3.19/1.20 ERA/WHIP and .249 BAA. Not as good as I thought it would be.

Lugo is 2/10 with 4Ks there, but he'll obviously not face (recent) Dodger pitching until Atlanta comes to town ;-).

144 I agree with your Dad. I think defense is undervalued, mostly because it is so hard to quantify. And whoever said Maddux lives in the southland... I belive he lives in Las Vegas. So unless he gets sent down, he will not be able to sleep at home.

137 Sounds like it's a pretty shallow league (10 teams I'm assuming?), so what I talked about in 145 applies. If it's a keeper league I probably wouldn't do it, but I'm guessing it isn't. You also have to take into consideration who would replace the other empty spot in your line-up. If the combined production of Pujols and bench player is more than Fielder and Cabrera then you jump on that deal.

152
Atlanta isn't coming to town anymore. They came and went early this year.

I would have traded Guzman and Ethier for Oswalt.

I liked Guzman, too, and I hope that he'll develop into an All-Star player down the road, although I have always been suspicious of his pitch recognition and plate discipline-- way too many Dodger "prospects" missed because they lacked those crucial skills. But having said that, if you survey the Dodger landscape, I'm not sure where he would have fit in.

Through 2009, the Dodgers are more or less set at catcher (Martin), third (Betemit/LaRoche), shortstop (Furcal), leftfield (Ethier), and rightfield (Drew). Kent is signed through 2007 (with an option for 2008), though he could move to first if Nomar is not retained and/or the front office doesn't want to utilize Loney. If Kemp is the CF of the future, then the real problem becomes where would Guzman have fit in? I think the Dodgers probably realized that he didn't fit in anywhere very well, so they're looking to get something back, lest he become just an insurance policy.

Now why we couldn't have gotten something better than Julio Lugo bugs me, to tell you the truth...

145 overkill94
Could we have gotten Tejada for Navarro, Guzman, Jackson, etc.? I seriously doubt it because Guzman is the only semi-likely impact player. If we're looking to get an impact player (not a rental), we're gonna have to give up someone like Kemp or Billingsley,...

I agree but would add Aybar as another quality prospect.

I haven't seen any sign that Ned mortaged our future with todays deals.

This seams to be the running line with all of Ned's trading prospects for not much in return. Since they weren't (though I'd argue Navarro and Guzman were) "the sure thing" prospects, then they don't count as our future.

To me, Baez I was, in fact, a franchise killing trade. It may turn out that Jackson and Tiffany don't work out, but that does not change what I called at the time "a possible pattern" - I think that patern is now confirmed. Ned is getting so little value in return for these prospects that it is becoming inevitable that 1 or 2 will amount to, at worst, a close to average MLB player for 6 years. If that is true of even one of the players traded so far, we lose big.

Andrew Friedman is on the phone:

"Ned. Ned Colletti. How about a game of solitaire?"

Meanwhile Frank McCourt wakes up in a cold sweat and tells Jamie of a horrible dream where Ned Colletti killed the Dodgers minor league system, but he says it's impossible:

"Ned Colletti is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life."

I had a funny feeling guzman, aybar, navarro were going out the door, altho i was hoping they all stayed.
The reason why i had a funny feeling is because none of them supposively have the defense and athleticism that ned worships.
But then again izturis does have it, so go figure.
Well actually i don't think it was an izturis dumping for ned, i think ned actually believes maddux will lead us to the promise land.

Interesting. Very interesting. From the AP: Guzman, 21, had a .297 batting average with 11 homers and 55 RBIs in 85 games at Triple-A Las Vegas. He will also get some playing time at first base for Durham.
What a fall down the defensive spectrum. JtD's value is shrinking by the minute.

BTW, has anyone heard what the plan for the starting rotation is...?

156
I meant that I would be happy if we moved prospects in a deal like that.

I'm still digesting our moves, but I am enjoying a good laugh at Jim Bowden's expense...perhaps he thinks he still came out ahead with all the TV time his new blond dye-job got.

But there are two serious angles I haven't really seen commented on yet:

a) What advantage for waiver deals do the Dodgers have right now seeing that until at least 4pm tomorrow they're last in the division & most wild card contenders are well ahead (Lugo flip still?)

b) What value (if any) can be put in preventing a competing team in getting a player (e.g. Maddux/Betemint to SD)?

Obviously b) can backfire big time and has before, but it was one good aspect of at least the Finley deal.

I bring up again the quote in today's report by Will Carroll that teams are wary when the Dodgers offer prospects based on the track record of who they have dealt and the fact that if Logan White and his staff have signed off on a deal, then buyer beware.

Again, it was also the scouting staff told Ned that if Ethier was available, he should get do everything to get him.

164 trainwreck

That would have made me unhappy.

Well if there word is golden, than I guess we haven't give up much.

I have felt like Guzman was perfect trade material ever since watching him play 3 games earlier in the season. His statistics seemed to confirm what I was seeing with my eyes. Sure, he may become something someday and I could be wrong, but my money says he will not. At the time Ethier was still down and I was far more excited about him than Guzman. Guzman's swing is extremely erratic for a 21 year old and that makes it hard to be consistent. He steps out, he pulls his head and assorted other things all in the same at bat. Very undisciplined. You won't see that with Ethier. A picture perfect swing built on years of practice with his dad etc... Heck his dad learned to throw with his left hand so Andre could hit lefties. In my book the prospects we don't trade right now are Bills, Broxton and Kemp. Ethier, Repko and Martin not being prospects any longer. Loney I am not sure of exactly. Really, they have not traded anyone yet that bothers me. That's my .02.

THEIR word. I hate when I do that.

147 I absolutely do not believe that all prospects should be traded, but I think that there were big time warning signs with every prospect we traded, which makes them highly unlikely to succeed, with Guzman it is very poor pitch recognition with a high K rate. I don't see him as a hard worker either who is likely to improve and thus he was a good candidate. I think that Logan White has recommended which guys should not be traded, and which ones are are good trade bait, and I doubt any of the minor leaguers traded in the last year will ever see a single All-Star game unless they play for the Royals, who need a representative.

165 I've also considered the blocking-the-competitions'-acquisitions angle, but, jeepers creepers, there are 4 (f-o-u-r) teams ahead of us in the West. Odds are that one of them is going to have things go their way over the next two months.

159 - If you want to want to go back that far, you might as well go back to the McCourts' firing of DePodesta. Note: this is not a Colletti vs. DePodesta comment. My point is that the DePo/Colletti exchange was a trade that symbolizes what we're seeing now. Young talent struggles - forget about whether he can get better; let's cut ties before it gets any worse. Whether you liked DePodesta or not, this was the statement that his firing made.

Colletti, then, is just an extension of the McCourts. DePo is the exciting prospect whom some people think has holes in his game. Colletti is the Julio Lugo - older, but not necessarily more productive as the days pass.

To the extent that the Dodgers have a quick and sometimes ill-considered trigger finger, the McCourts remain where that starts.

As a viable alternative, you accept that no single move kills the franchise. Colletti will lose some and win some, and we don't know how it will come out in the end.

I can see it from both approaches.

I have to disagree on the characterization of these trades reflecting no plan, or a short-attention span. It appears to me that Colletti is adjusting to circumstances that have changed over the past few months (and days.)

1) Ethier's immediate success, combined with Kemp's huge potential, combined with the contracts given to Furcal and Drew, and finally the arrival of Betemit all add up to Guzman becoming expendable, and the sooner the better to realize value for all the hype invested in him.

2) Maddux is an immediate upgrade over any one of our #3,#4 or #5 pitchers short-term. Billingsley, like Kemp, might benefit from a month of low-pressure adjustment. He has not set the world on fire. The plan for Bills should be long-term. Alternately, Sele could be moved somewhere, including Vegas for a month, just to make room for Maddux. Alternately, Hendrickson could clear waivers and be traded.

3) Getting rid of Izzy is not controversial on this thread, but obviously, this was the most attractive possible way to get Maddux, who was the most attractive (balancing things out) starting pitching option out there. (Zito would have cost too much.)

4) Lugo does not suck {sigh}. It is maddening to be told something so manifestly untrue with the suave assurance of the insider. But, at the same time, he does appear to be a surplus piece if you think your starting infield is Nomar-Kent-Furcal-Betemit with Ramon Martinez available as a back-up. So, I'm going to have to assume the new news for Colletti to which he has reacted is that Nomar's knee ligament suffered potentially far more extensive damage than we realize. Depending on Loney-Kent-Furcal-Betemit didn't seem quite safe to Colletti. So I'm thinking he saw Kent replacing Nomar, and Lugo replacing Kent, with Loney getting some action when Kent needs a rest or if his obliques start acting up again.

There a lot of LOL around here (perhaps we should rename it L,B,OL for "laughing, bitterly, out loud") about Ned's pursuit of the post-season this year, but face it: This is what McCourt told him and his staff to do: Make every effort to win this year, without sacrificing the future. He's not at liberty to jettison that directive. There's never been any ambiguity about this. It was also what DePodesta was told to do and tried to do, and his failure cost him his job.

On this site there are many people who would prefer the Dodgers tear down and rebuild. I've wanted that to happen many times since about 1990. I also don't think our pitching is good enough, even with Maddux, to get us into the postseason. But, the point is, a tear-down/rebuild is our agenda. It's not Colletti's, because it's not McCourt's. So his moves should be judged on that basis.

So far, I'm way more comfortable with these moves than similar moves made by Claire and Malone. I loved the Penny/Choi deal. If you look at the mixed assortment of players Colletti brought in (Betemit, Hall and Hendrickson included) and who he gave up ("nobody who'll be missed"), I think Colletti's handiwork has been decent, solid, better than so-so, and certainly defensible given what his boss expects.

[165(b)] - If these deals were to keep the opposition from getting these players, at least the Dodgers didn't do something nearly as dumb as grabbing hold of the anchor that was Randy Myers and his contract. Maddux and Lugo will be FAs; Betemit has a while to go before he's there. (When is Betemit arb-eligible?)

All prospects are unlikely to succeed. That has already been established. As such, the assertion that you "doubt any of the minor leaguers traded in the last year will ever see a single All-Star game unless they play for the Royals" is also true for the prospects that remain with the Dodgers.

174 - Nice comment.

174 dzzrtRatt

Wow. A long comment that was worth reading.

174 - I think this was a bad trade, based on what I know. Lugo is a very good player, but I feel that there had to be a better market than Lugo for Guzman. And I'm also one of those wondering what Colletti could've bagged had he spent all those prospects in one place.

To say that we shouldn't blame Colletti for doing something that McCourt may have mandated is fine, but excusing his trading of Guzman and criticising what he got in return are not mutually exclusive.

btw, Vic the Brick hates the Maddux deal.... "The Dodgers have collapsed because they traded away the best double-play combo in baseball: Cora and now Izturis."

To the credit of the other on-air personalities, they basically laughed in his face at that comment.

Three 21 year olds at A/AA with avg power, high K's and no apparent position:

.775 OPS, 16 HR, 118K
.814 OPS, 8 HR, 103K
.763 OPS, 16 HR, 139K

That would be Richie Sexson, Jim Thome, Travis Hafner. Just sayin!

no single move kills the franchise

But a single move can sink a franchise for a few years, such as the Giants' acquisition of A.J. Pierzynski (in exchange for Francisco Liriano, Joe Nathan, and Boof Bonser).

174 Nicely said, thanks, if you had posted earlier, my rants would have been unnecessary.

181 What league are those guys playing in?
Just sayin.

174 - Maddux is an immediate upgrade over any one of our #3,#4 or #5 pitchers short-term.

I'm curious where the people saying Maddux immediately improves us are coming up with this. Am I missing something? I look at his numbers since April and he's pretty terrible. Considering that he's 40 years old, why the optimism that he will revert to form and be better than even a #5 on our staff, let alone a #3 on any staff.

I don't think it was a bad trade to get Izzy's salary off the books, but I don't see how Maddux helps in the rotation. I would be interested in seeing what points to him improving, or his recent numbers being a fluke.

124. ToyCannon
122
Didn't we win the pennant in 2004 by one game?

No. Dodgers won the NL West Division crown. Haven't won the pennant since 1988.

184 And your point is?

174

It all comes down to satisfying the casual dodger fan.
I'd much rather kept guzman and pedroza, and i'd much rather have gotten a legit prospect for izturis.
I totally see your point but it still doesn't make it right, because this season is over and might as well build for 2007 and beyond.
Heck, to think what we could have gotten for izturis, guzman, pedroza.
Not to mention aybar, baez, navarro, seo.

I wonder if we can at least match tropicana's crappy ticket prices to go with its crappy team.

Which league is Tampa bay in?

Can anyone find stats for this - I seem to recall that Greg Maddux historically is better after the all-star break than before (his numbers get better and better as the season progresses), but am not sure how to back this up. Anyone know?

I bet they have Cool-a-Coos at the Tropicana Dome.

check out humbug/score bard for a great dodger haiku.

191 Yahoo has splits going back to 1987. Retrosheet's go back pretty far as well.

Maddux before the break: 3.10 ERA
Maddux after: 2.99

188 But that is his point, Ned can't tear down and build for 2007 because his boss doesn't want him to do that.

Let's see what happens in Philly where there is no question what they are doing.

Also, they may be casual fans but despite everything, they still buy more tickets here in Los Angeles than anywhere else but for the Yankees. And they have bought more tickets in this three year period than at any time during the time they measured attendance by tickets sold.

For the McCourts, tickets sold count more than a bunch of us commenting on a fine site like Dodgerthoughts and we should never lose sight of that reality.

limerick

Now that the reserve infielders and fifth starter have been replaced, I think this team is headed in the right direction.

181 - Context of league(s) and home park(s), please.

Ah, thanks. Better, not hugely different.

http://tinyurl.com/zeewv

It's not Colletti's, because it's not McCourt's. So his moves should be judged on that basis.

That doesnt make any sense.
Its almost like with every bad deal that Colletti makes, all you suggest is for us to blame McCourt. Thats ridiculous.

If its really the McCourts that are calling these shots, then there should be no difference in who the GM is.

However, there's a large difference between how DePo GM'ed, and how Colletti has GM'ed.

192 ~ if so they got them from us in return for the five dollar single bag of peanuts and a boiled dodger dog to be named later.

195 So you have more faith in the Phillies' future than the Dodgers'? Now, you may be right that it appears the Phillies are in a mode of rebuilding now with some direction, but I'd argue they have no better a sense of direction over the past few years, and much lesser of a farm system.

Perhaps we shouldn't overthink this. I just know that the Dodgers are a better team today than they were a week ago today. Betemit is a legitimate 3rd baseman, if not an All-Star one. Maddux is a HOF pitcher and a perfect #3 starter. Julio Lugo is a MAJOR upgrade offensively from Izturis.

What did we give up, really? Nothing. Guzman has proven zilch at the major league level, and he looked slovenly when called up to the show earlier this year. Izturis probably had his peak year, offensively, in 2004. And Danys Baez is gone.

This is the DODGERS we're talking about here, not a team that's wholly dependent on youth to win. Let's not hand-wring and whinge about losing a prospect or two. We can afford to lose a prospect or two, and still keep most of the farm.

If nothing else, the current team is...interesting.

195 You can satisfy the casual fans just fine with pricey FA signings and low-risk deadline deals for famous guys (Maddux). When Joel Guzman is hitting balls off the 3rd deck in the 2008 HR Derby I'm going kick the shins of every casual Dodger fan I can find.

I haven't posted in a long time, but this month's efforts from the front office are irritating. What bothers me is that Ned is chipping away at the depth of the system. It is foolish to believe EVERY prospect will pan out, but it also doesn't make sense to rely on a higher percentage of a smaller base of prospects. Whether you agree with TINSTAPP or not, you have to agree that the larger the sample size, the better the odds are that someone above league average will come up and be a bargain for 4+ seasons.

That said, I love the Maddux deal. Trades away a piece we don't need for a piece that may help but definitely doesn't block the path from the minors to the major leagues for Billingsley et. al.

174

There a lot of LOL around here (perhaps we should rename it L,B,OL for "laughing, bitterly, out loud") about Ned's pursuit of the post-season this year, but face it: This is what McCourt told him and his staff to do: Make every effort to win this year, without sacrificing the future. He's not at liberty to jettison that directive. There's never been any ambiguity about this. It was also what DePodesta was told to do and tried to do, and his failure cost him his job.

Good comment. The sensitive ego of Frank McCourt is probably behind this damn-the-torpedos push to win the division in 2006. I don't think he could handle the cacophony of criticism that would emanate from talk radio and section D of the LA Times if the Dodgers turned into deadline-sellers this year.

With that in mind, I guess Ned did ok, although it's tough to believe that Ned had to ship Guzman to Tampa, rather than a lesser prospect like Young.

Betemit is a legitimate 3rd baseman, if not an All-Star one. Maddux is a HOF pitcher and a perfect #3 starter. Julio Lugo is a MAJOR upgrade offensively from Izturis

How is Betemit an "All-Star" 3rd basemen?
When is a 5.00+ ERA a "perfect #3 starter"?

You got a point with Lugo, but with Nomar/Kent out that doestn really matter.

174.