Baseball Toaster Dodger Thoughts
Help
Jon Weisman's outlet
for dealing psychologically
with the Los Angeles Dodgers
and baseball.
Frozen Toast
Search
Google Search
Web
Toaster
Dodger Thoughts
Archives

2009
02  01 

2008
12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

2007
12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

2006
12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

2005
12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

2004
12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

2003
12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

2002
09  08  07 
About Jon
Thank You For Not ...

1) using profanity or any euphemisms for profanity
2) personally attacking other commenters
3) baiting other commenters
4) arguing for the sake of arguing
5) discussing politics
6) using hyperbole when something less will suffice
7) using sarcasm in a way that can be misinterpreted negatively
8) making the same point over and over again
9) typing "no-hitter" or "perfect game" to describe either in progress
10) being annoyed by the existence of this list
11) commenting under the obvious influence
12) claiming your opinion isn't allowed when it's just being disagreed with

Crunch on This
2006-11-09 22:46
by Jon Weisman
Note: The Dodger Thoughts blog has moved to the Los Angeles Times.

Today at lunch, after digesting a turkey sandwich on a stale French roll, I was enjoying a bag of krinkle cut barbecue Kettle Chips that struck me as particularly tasty. And by the end, I was doing what I've been doing with a bag of particularly tasty chips ever since I was a child, which was to use my finger to pad out every single delicious crumb I could get. (At my desk at work, no less.)

From time to time, and today was one of those times, I think about how, well, childish a gesture this is. Somehow, it has to be beneath me, right? And I thought to myself, I wonder if I'll ever be the kind of person who, when he gets down to crumb level, is either mature enough to just throw the crumbs away or jolly enough in wallet and gut to march right back over and treat myself to a fresh new bag of wholly formed chips.

All these high-level musings came before J.D. Drew became a free agent tonight, but they're all surprisingly relevant. Because you can't truly evaluate how much you should be willing to spend on a player or a bag of chips without knowing how much money you have to spend to begin with.

And as you may recall, we have no idea what the Dodgers' budget for salaries is.

Is J.D. Drew too expensive for his value? Is Alfonso Soriano? Is Barry Zito? We can make comparisons to what other players are paid - one player may be more worthy of $X million than another - but ultimately they don't tell the whole story. A multi-millionaire with low cholesterol can buy 10 bags of chips for lunch and bask in all the salty ridges like a puppy in the summer grass.

Prior to 2006, we had an idea of what the Dodger budget limit was. I can't say I know now - I don't know if any of us know.

It's just something to keep in mind as the Dodgers pursue fortifications for their roster. Whatever money they put in baseball's vending machine, we don't completely know if it's smart or dumb without knowing how much is left in their wallet.

* * *

I'm probably going to regret saying this, but if Paul DePodesta had been caught off guard by Drew's departure in the exact, exact same fashion as Ned Colletti was, however innocently, however insignificantly, with that month going by without a phone call, we would be hearing all about how rotten a communicator DePodesta was.

"I told [Colletti] there was a strong demand in the marketplace for guys with J.D.'s skills," said Scott Boras, Drew's agent. "They never made any proposals to us. I let them know we would be open to listening."

But I expect Colletti will be let off the hook - which is fine, just different.

Update: Real quote:

"When Scott broached it (opting out) with me, I said, 'Scott, if that's what J.D. wants to do and what you decide to do, I'm finished with him,'" Colletti said. "We want players who want to be here. He wants out. He can have out.

Imaginary quote:

"When Ned broached (buying out Gagne's option) with me, I said, 'Ned, if that's what the Dodgers want to do and what you decide to do, I'm finished with you,'" Boras said. "We want teams who want to be with us. He wants out. He can have out."

Is the imaginary quote any more or less logical?

Drew wanted a raise. He may have come to that decision to ask for one just over the past month, but is that so wrong? Even if you don't think he deserves the raise, is it so despicable for him to seek one? If you think he won't get the raise, then the Dodgers could theoretically sign him for less money? So what's the problem?

Comments (200)
Show/Hide Comments 1-50
2006-11-09 22:56:56
1.   Vishal
i think you're right to point out the double-standard benefit of the doubt that colletti gets.

btw, kettle chips are incredible.

2006-11-09 22:59:42
2.   Greg Brock
Not only will The Mustache be let off the hook, I will guarantee that Plascke nails DePo for this.

Book it.

2006-11-09 23:00:43
3.   NoHoDodger
The bottom line is can the Dodgers get a power hitting outfielder for 10-13 million per year in a three or four year deal that effectively matches (or close to it) Drew's salary? We probably can. But the player will probably play more games than Drew and won't have to be coddled. I liked JD better than some of the posters, but ultimately, we can do better. He just created more options for the Dodgers by opting out. Andrew Jones would be a good match right about now.
2006-11-09 23:00:43
4.   Greg Brock
BTW, licking the ice cream bowl is acceptable childish behavior for grown ups as well.
2006-11-09 23:02:16
5.   Vishal
[2] haha that sounds exactly like what billy p. would do: bash depo for signing him in the first place, and then cry foul again when the player you didn't want signed chooses to leave.
2006-11-09 23:03:10
6.   regfairfield
3 Jones is a free agent next year, he has a no trade clause, and I doubt he'd take that small of a salary.

I think Carlos Lee's deal will set the market for the next few years. If a good, but not great player cashes in, the Dodgers would be lucky to get a player even resembling Drew for 11 million a year.

2006-11-09 23:04:35
7.   Bob Timmermann
Plaschke had a column yesterday about Kobe Bryant, so he likely won't be scheduled for one until the weekend and he'll probably be at the USC-Oregon game.

Probably just a column from Tim Brown.

2006-11-09 23:04:52
8.   StolenMonkey86
Jon, the difficulty with such behavior is that you get the residue on your fingers, and then you have to go through even more effort to wash your hands to keep from getting your keyboard messy.

At this point I fail to see how the analogy applies. So I will declare myself to be an artist, having created something with no particular meaning, and perhaps someone will derive some meaning from it.

2006-11-09 23:05:30
9.   StolenMonkey86
2 - That strikes me as Simers material.
2006-11-09 23:06:54
10.   Greg Brock
When I say, "Book it", it needs to be established that I understand that Andrew won't book it, because I didn't book the Stanford upset of Notre Dame, as I was told to do (I was saving that particular booking for the Dodgers playoff game, which didn't work out too well, either).

D4P may not book it either.

2006-11-09 23:06:58
11.   bhsportsguy
To be fair, Drew signed a contract that had an out that DePodesta had agreed to include.

While the deal was similar to the Ramirez situation in Chicago, until today, Drew, Boras and the Dodgers had not even hinted that Drew wanted to renegotiate his contract.

Ned was in a situation that he inherited and I can understand why he would not want to give Drew more money or years, given that he had 3/$33M already guaranteed.

So, if Boras wants to say that they gave the Dodgers the chance to pay Drew a little more or risk losing him, so be it, but Boras got this out in Drew's contract and now he is using it to get a better deal and I think it is unfair for him to say that all the Dodgers had to do was pay Drew more money when he already had a contract.

2006-11-09 23:07:00
12.   StolenMonkey86
I'm going to make a sandwich. If you want one, and travel 3000 miles to get here, you can have one too.
2006-11-09 23:07:18
13.   LAT
Jon, two words: Maui Chips!!!
2006-11-09 23:11:06
14.   LAT
6. I would sell Frank's soul for Mr. Jones. He would be my first choice on any deal and I would give him anything he wanted.
2006-11-09 23:13:41
15.   StolenMonkey86
14- what if he wants Manny Ramirez's contract?
2006-11-09 23:15:53
16.   Bob Timmermann
14
I don't believe you can sell someone else's soul unless you get a waiver from the Intercontinental Soul Arbitrage Collective, which is headquartered in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
2006-11-09 23:16:20
17.   Vishal
[14] frank has a soul?
2006-11-09 23:17:10
18.   caseybarker
I've been thinking about it for a while today, but Drew's contract really may not have been such a bargain. It ended up being 22 million for one-and-a-half seasons.
2006-11-09 23:18:26
19.   Bluebleeder87
14

i hope you mean Andruw Jones

2006-11-09 23:18:41
20.   Robert Daeley
15 What would it take to get Manny?

12 You know what's good? BBQ chips inside the sandwich. Having said that, I'm now unexpectedly headed into the kitchen for a sandwich with some sort of chips inside. :)

2006-11-09 23:19:45
21.   dzzrtRatt
to argue against my previous position, if in fact Boras gave Ned a heads-up about J.D. and where the market was, and how much his client would be giving up by not testing it, then honor is preserved. We had, in essence, an exclusive window, a period of at least 4-5 days during which Colletti could have thrown another bag of chips or two Drew's way, and kept him. It would have been for less than replacement value (because of the exclusivity) but more than the current price.

Colletti chose not to bite. That might've been the wise move, maybe not, but his complaining about it today now seems a little childish.

Unless of course Boras is lying.

2006-11-09 23:21:06
22.   Greg Brock
16 You can sell someone else's soul if ownership of said soul has been already been transferred to another party via sale.

See the landmark Milhouse Van Houten v. Bart Simpson case for further precident.

2006-11-09 23:21:31
23.   StolenMonkey86
19 - as opposed to the rights to the Counting Crows' song?

20 - $20 Million/yr. Jones may be asking for the same next year.
http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2006/10/the-20-million-man/

2006-11-09 23:21:42
24.   Steve
If anyone can solve these problems, it's Rob Morrow.
2006-11-09 23:22:54
25.   Bluebleeder87
*Colletti chose not to bite. That might've been the wise move, maybe not, but his complaining about it today now seems a little childish.

Unless of course Boras is lying.*

Boras lying!!??? no freaking way!!??

2006-11-09 23:23:14
26.   regfairfield
18 It's been a decent deal for how Drew has produced. He's been the 7th best player out of that free agent class in terms of WARP, and he recieved the 6th highest salary over the last two years.
2006-11-09 23:23:50
27.   Johan
I think it is much more efficient to just eliminate the creases in one side of the bag of chips, and pour the crumbs into one's mouth. Although I don't think the effort is even worth it for chips. Cheez-Its, where there is an abundance of salt at the bottom with the cheesy crumbs, are the bomb.

I think some folks are wildy underestimating what it would cost to sign a bat comparable to Drew's. Drew opted out primarily because he can get more money, not because he is unhappy in LA. This means that players of his caliber cost more than $11M per year.

If Nomar isn't back, does anyone think Coletti could join the Giants in pursuit of a guy like Sexson? Not that he would solve much of anything, just that Coletti is the type to be interested in someone like that.

2006-11-09 23:24:42
28.   Linkmeister
20 Wow, somebody else does that? Cool! Peanut butter, honey and chips!
2006-11-09 23:25:52
29.   LAT
21. Leave it to Ratt to take a thread that is splitting in two; chips and Drew, and seamlessly tie it back together. Nice writing (as usual).
2006-11-09 23:25:57
30.   StolenMonkey86
well, with that peanut butter sandwich, I just killed what was left of that gallon of milk
2006-11-09 23:26:39
31.   Bluebleeder87
if anything i'll just laugh at who ever get's this fragile made of glass player

specialy if he pays more money!! ;o)

2006-11-09 23:27:26
32.   Greg Brock
If there's one thing that can tamp down all this Drew acrimony, it's some really good sandwich talk.

Sandwiches...Is there anything they can't do?

2006-11-09 23:30:37
33.   Bob Timmermann
22
Van Houten vs. Simpson was just a circuit decision and it is only the law in Springfield. It is not part of U.S. or international law.

There is an international treaty banning the sale of souls. Most countries are signatories with the exceptions of Mauritania and Jamaica.

2006-11-09 23:31:26
34.   Robert Daeley
28 When I was a kid, my favorite was a peanut butter and mayonnaise sandwich.

Not a big fan of mayo nowadays. Sometimes I think it's a wonder I made it to adulthood. :)

2006-11-09 23:34:55
35.   Greg Brock
33 I always thought the ISAC was headquartered not in Halifax, but in the capital city of South Korea.

Learn something new every day.

2006-11-09 23:36:04
36.   LAT
I have two kids that don't like sandwiches. At least they say they are related to me. But not liking sandwiches, come on! They must get that from their mother's side.

One of my favorite sandwich places: Bay Cities Italian Deli & Bakery, 1517 Lincoln Blvd., Santa Monica.

Good stuff I tell ya, good stuff.

2006-11-09 23:43:05
37.   LAT
33. Notwithstanding the international treaty, I believe there is a sizable black market for these items. Moreover, I understand the ISAC is comtemplating an amendment which would create an exemption for 29 yr old center fielders who hit 41 HRs and drive in 129 runs.
2006-11-09 23:45:36
38.   Sushirabbit
37 I guess you haven't heard, that Bud Selig is now the ISAC chair?

My wife loves fried baloney, I like scrambled eggs, fresh bread, mayo and Franks Hot Sauce. Peanut butter and clausen dill pickle slices is better than I would've thought.

2006-11-09 23:47:58
39.   Linkmeister
34 PB and Mayo? I wonder you survived to adulthood too. Please tell me it was Best Foods, not Miracle Whip, or I'd be even more appalled.
2006-11-09 23:48:01
40.   Greg Brock
38
Frank's Hot Sauce may be the single most important liquid the world has ever known.

Water is important too, I guess.

2006-11-09 23:53:26
41.   Robert Daeley
39 It was Hellman's if I recall correctly.

40 Beer. Then Frank's. Then water. ;)

2006-11-09 23:55:18
42.   Bob Timmermann
41
So you were east of the Rockies weren't you?
2006-11-09 23:56:15
43.   al bundy
Ned's bitter comments in the AP article were worth a laugh or two, especially since he gave them while also professing the need for diplomacy.
...
"The last time I spoke with him, we had a nice conversation," Colletti said. "I don't really need to (speak to Drew) at this point."

While Colletti refused to say he was angry, his feelings came through during a 30-minute conference call.

"I hang onto my feelings," Colletti said. "You try to use some diplomacy right now."

But the GM also said: "I know J.D. is a spiritual guy and a man of his word. I guess he changed his word. You learn never to be surprised when you're dealing in this arena. People change their minds. People change their word. They move on."
...

Also, I love adding chips to sandwiches but the British, who for very good reason are widely believed to have the worst cuisine in the world, go in an extreme direction on this: the Chip Butty. Take 2 slices of bread, add butter or mayo (or even ketchup), add a pile of "chips" (what we call fries in the US) and that's your sandwich. Up until the government reformed school lunch menus this year, that concoction was served in many school cafeterias.

2006-11-09 23:57:37
44.   LAT
40. Don't forget beer.

38. I love scrambled sandwiches. Never had it with hot sauce, will have to give it a try. I never quite got the fried balony thing. I tried and it was ok-just didn't wow me.

That square Oscar-Meyer ham with the yellow cheese spots. Now that was pinnacle of lunch meat.

2006-11-09 23:58:04
45.   Robert Daeley
42 For a goodly portion of the growin' up years, yep. :)
2006-11-10 00:00:15
46.   DodgerKramer
So essentially what this means is, Dem Bums now have the ability to sign Soriano or Ramirez for $6-7 million. How? You take the $11M that Drew would have made, add $6-7 million to that figure and make an offer one of those boppers can't refuse. ... Sorry if someone already made this point.
2006-11-10 00:01:56
47.   Greg Brock
Speaking of other regions (and beer, for that matter), I'll never forget when I found out that Connecticut (the state in which I lived for four years) Did not sell alcohol after 8:00pm, and not at all on Sundays.

Thankfully, Rhode Island was 20 short minutes away. But what a shock. And they call sub sandwiches "Grinders."

Beer, regional differences, sandwiches...Yup, that about covers it.

2006-11-10 00:07:44
48.   LAT
I am always amazed that there are people out there that think eggs or mayo are gross. These are two of my favorite foods (not my Dr.'s), even together. But I guess I understand cause I hate peanut butter and I am about the only person I know who does. I like peanuts. I like Peanut brittle. I even like Payday bars. But peanut butter = yuk. This includes Reeses, Butterfingers and Nutterbutters.
2006-11-10 00:09:02
49.   LAT
47. I lived half my life in RI and still can't bring myself to call them Grinders
2006-11-10 00:25:35
50.   StolenMonkey86
and we have Plaschke.
Show/Hide Comments 51-100
2006-11-10 00:29:36
51.   Bob Timmermann
Has anyone ever seen Bluebleeder and Plaschke at the same time?

Have they?

2006-11-10 00:29:46
52.   StolenMonkey86
highlight of Plaschke article:

"In the end, there's no reason for anger by anyone. Drew was just exercising his rights. Boras is just doing his job. The Dodgers eventually will get what they want. None of this was illegal or unethical."

2006-11-10 00:30:09
53.   Louis in SF
For me the more interesting point in the Drew maneuver is how much of this decision by Drew to opt out when he seemed to be happy in content was driven by Boras? I have always wondered how much influence agents have when suggesting a player go to free agency.

If Drew/Boras had wanted to stay in LA with the Dodgers, wouldn't the easier way have been to simply say how about a little more coin over the next three years. I also wonder what it is like to lose a star player and then immediately have to negotiate a new contract with a different player but from the same agent.

If there is ever a conflict of interest this is certainily it

2006-11-10 00:30:25
54.   StolenMonkey86
51 - I haven't been around quite as long, nor have I paid enough attention.
2006-11-10 00:43:00
55.   Greg Brock
51

I always thought Plaschke was BlueTahoe

2006-11-10 00:47:21
56.   Greg Brock
If you want to be upset, be upset at former general manager Paul DePodesta for giving Drew such a misguided quit clause in the first place.

On second thought, give DePodesta a standing ovation.

I win! He both insults and backhanded compliments DePo!

2006-11-10 00:47:49
57.   Sushirabbit
51 - Yipes. No wonder he was set off, the Scarlett Knights and Scott Boras all in the same day?
2006-11-10 00:48:31
58.   Vishal
in plaschke's world, the only RBIs that count are the ones bill remembers seeing. especially for players he doesn't like watching.

also, on his planet, aches are visible. unless he's confusing "hidden soreness" with " hidden sores". i never heard about jd drew having sores, but that's not the kind of thing i need to know about.

in the lack of self-awareness department: "He[Drew] grew weary of media that kept applying the heat." plaschke then goes back to attacking him in the very next sentence.

brilliant.

2006-11-10 00:52:02
59.   Sushirabbit
Really, I need sleep now, as I am alone with a 4 yo all day tomorrow. It may seem as if I were waiting for Plaschke's token, or that I was praying Novenas for someone, but it's not true. I was busy making a sandwich and hoping Marty would show up and tell me what Ford was saying to Hepburn at the end of that surreptitious recording.
2006-11-10 00:57:26
60.   Andrew Shimmin
2- Booked. See? See how easy that is?

I've read the Colletti comments a dozen times now, and am struggling to find a way to describe it without resorting to Neanderthalisms. It wasn't very manly, though, was it? Try to picture Tony Soprano saying the things Colletti did.

2006-11-10 01:12:04
61.   Vishal
here's a thought... i don't recall anyone mentioning this, but doesn't SF need an outfield bat? i can imagine drew in orange and black.
2006-11-10 02:10:48
62.   CanuckDodger
60 -- I've said it in reference to GoBears' comments in the last thread, but it applies here too: it is only members of the "Love Drew/Hate Colletti Brigade" who seem to be finding anything objectionable in Colletti's reaction to Drew's going back on his word. Righteous indignation is not incompatible with professionalism, and Colletti's verbal smack at Drew was measured compared to what it could have been.
2006-11-10 02:38:10
63.   Vishal
why does criticism of one or the other of drew or colletti necessary imply membership of a "brigade"? i think that's not quite fair to the objectivity of many of us.
2006-11-10 02:38:39
64.   Vishal
^necessarily.
2006-11-10 03:29:06
65.   Andrew Shimmin
62- I saw it in the last thread and it doesn't apply here, if it did there. I don't hate Colletti, and I never loved Drew. I think he's a good baseball player, but I have no emotional attachment to him. I'm not at all convinced that the Dodgers won't come out better for Drew's opting out. I think it's almost certain that Drew will come out better for it. So, win/win, right? The happy tastes like bitter. Or whatever. I didn't watch that show.

When I read Colletti's comments the first time, my response was, "Oh butch up, would you?" Fine if he's upset about it; fine that you think, for whatever reason you do, it obvious that Drew's gone back on his word. It's no good being a little cry baby about it. That's the extent of my interest in the matter.

2006-11-10 03:33:13
66.   Andrew Shimmin
Players to whom I have an emotional attachment: Eric Byrnes, Juan Encarnacion, and Michael Barrett (really only because he hit A.J. Pierzynski in the mouth).

Everybody else I could take or leave.

2006-11-10 03:38:43
67.   Andrew Shimmin
MLB executives I hate: Jim Bowden, Kevin Malone, and that one guy who was mean to Kim Ng, but whose name I don't remember, because he doesn't really matter.
2006-11-10 04:59:21
68.   DodgerfaninNY
67- That was ex-Dodger Bill Singer, working for the Mets at the time, fired shortly after.
2006-11-10 05:58:08
69.   Felton
What if Ned had anticipated that Drew could leave after the season? During the July losing streak, when this season looked lost, he might have traded Drew for prospects (Yankees prior to Abreu trade?), saying "I know J.D. said he wanted to stay here, but he has that option in his contract and we don't know what he is going to do after 2006". How would you have felt about what might have happened ethically? Like the line from North Dallas Forty, "every time we call it a game, you call it a business and every time we call it a business you call it a game".
2006-11-10 06:08:02
70.   Wayne Wei-siang Hsieh
Ouch. Not great news.

All that being said, if Drew gets hurt again, this could actually work out for the Dodgers. He's a great player, but only when he's on the field. It's definitely a blow for our WS chances next year, though.

One sleeper replacement for Drew, depending of course on who Ned signs in the off-season, is the oft-injured Werth, who is supposed to be 100% this spring after some kind of specialized wrist surgery at the Mayo Clinic.

WWSH

2006-11-10 06:11:21
71.   Wayne Wei-siang Hsieh
BTW, all the debate over Drew's "honor" or lack thereof has obscured how this might benefit the Dodgers long-term. This was, after all, 6-4-2's best scenario--two years of good production of Drew, and then him leaving as he gets long in the tooth and his knees further deteriorate.

WWSH

2006-11-10 06:11:39
72.   PlayTwo
69: Interesting. It was certainly clear, given that Boras is his agent, that he would be inclined to leave and it became crystal clear when Boras brought the subject up to Ned, whenever that was. It is a tricky business.
2006-11-10 06:48:18
73.   jakewoods
what player isnt paid more than his value??

its the nature of the beast. you have to pay for talent.

if im the dodgers i let drew go. i use his 11 mill and spread it around and sign zito and schmidt

kemp can play rf

2006-11-10 06:59:33
74.   Terry A
62 - Sorry to pile on here, Canuck, but I think you painted with a pretty broad brush in this comment. I wish you would revisit it.

73 - Colletti seems to think that Kemp will be in Vegas for at least part of next season, which is probably a good call. (I say "probably" only because it's entirely possible that Kemp could change things dramatically with another good spring.)

I do not favor moving Loney to the outfield. This guy seems to have been born to be a first baseman; why waste that ability when there are corner outfielders to be had elsewhere? I certainly don't condone moving Loney to make room for Garciaparra. If Nomar wants to play the outfield or perhaps 3B, great. But Loney and Saenz (and in a pinch, Kent or Martinez) have 1B more than covered.

2006-11-10 07:02:55
75.   Jon Weisman
62 - I want to nip this in its ever-growin' bud, because saying that it is only people who already hated Colletti that found his words objectionable is 1) senseless and 2) completely unconstructive. I'm sure there are people who liked or were neutral about Colletti who can think he overreacted or wasn't prudent, and even if there are not, what purpose does it serve to label these people in that way?
2006-11-10 07:03:21
76.   Jon Weisman
75 - Don't answer the question, by the way. Just let it go.
2006-11-10 07:22:32
77.   50 years a Dodger Fan
I am not a Colletti fan nor a Drew lover so I really don't care what Colletti said. But there are things I wonder about: Did the Dodgers try to trade Drew during the season or talk to him about it? Maybe Drew objected and told them he was happy here aqnd wanted to stay. Maybe they nixed a trade on that basis. Maybe that's why Colletti is so upset about it now. Pure speculation. Personally I am just as happy to see him go, The money can be spent better elsewhere. And don't figure the 100 RBIs are just lost. Whoever hits in his spot will drive in a lot of runs. And I'm not even going to speculate or suggest whom they will sign or trade for, the one thing I learned from last season is that it will be someone I never even thought of or wanted, Colletti's mind runs in different channels than mine. I am confident I won't miss Drew.
2006-11-10 07:23:26
78.   Jon Weisman
Small update above.
2006-11-10 07:26:15
79.   Gen3Blue
I woke up to this Drew thing here on the E. coast. One thing that occurs to me is that the D's signing a Boras client now is as likely as them signing B. Bonds for back-up catcher!
2006-11-10 07:46:17
80.   al bundy
I'd like to re-read the 5th Outfielder's original analysis of the Drew signing if anyone knows where to find it.

That baseball is a business is never more apparent than when Boras is involved. I'd like to see more teams ignore his clients but for one team to do so could be a big disadvantage.

2006-11-10 07:47:59
81.   Suffering Bruin
Last year, I had 85 students. This year, I have 171. Do I worry about whether I'll have time for the family and friends? No. I worry about how often I can post on DT. Yes, I need counseling.

Anywho, my take on Plaschke is the same as GB above: If you want to be upset, be upset at former general manager Paul DePodesta for giving Drew such a misguided quit clause in the first place. On second thought, give DePodesta a standing ovation. Plaschke in a nutshell.

And here's something that really makes me angry. I'm teaching persuasive writing to my seniors and stressing as much as I know how to avoid the passive voice. So please, Bill, think of the kids and just stop it. That is all.

2006-11-10 07:49:19
82.   Sam DC
67: Happily the Nationals have both Bowden and Bill Singer who was so obnoxious to Kim Ng (he was actually hired to scout Asia, can I get a ruling from the Committee on Irony?). So you've got a good target for your bile.

Anyhow, sorry to lose DJ, but it seems to have dragged Jon out of his slump :)

I expect communication could have been better on all sides, but I don't have a lot of patience for the view that Drew or Boras did anything wrong here. I've had to change my mind in an embarrassing and public way before that I'm not ready to hang Drew with his prior statements.

And I've never understood why people feel its so far out of bounds for Boras to be so tough for his clients. I'm not saying he always wins for them, but often he seems to.

2006-11-10 07:58:24
83.   JoeyP
I've thought this was going to happen all year. Drew isnt a "Colletti guy", and he's worth more on the open market than 3/33.

Drew will probably sign with the Yankees, and the 2007 Dodgers will end up record wise similar to the 2006 Braves.

I understand why Ned's upset. He knows a big piece of 2007 just left, and with that possibly his job security. He's one bad year from being out of a job, if the McCourts history is any indication.

2006-11-10 08:00:51
84.   JoeyP
Also, the comments by bb87 in the previous thread were dispicable, and as a Christian was very offensive to me.

I'd support a 1 or 2 month vacation for that fellow. His posting style brings down the level of discourse in this blog in my opinion.

2006-11-10 08:09:18
85.   Terry A
You may have missed it, but B'bleeder87 has apologized. It's certainly not my decision, but I see no need for any sort of punishment for him.
2006-11-10 08:10:19
86.   Bluebleeder87
Michael Barrett (really only because he hit A.J. Pierzynski in the mouth).

same here

2006-11-10 08:13:11
87.   Bluebleeder87
One sleeper replacement for Drew, depending of course on who Ned signs in the off-season, is the oft-injured Werth, who is supposed to be 100% this spring after some kind of specialized wrist surgery at the Mayo Clinic.

i'd forgaten bout him, i read that too.

2006-11-10 08:15:08
88.   PlayTwo
Colletti was in a no-win position. If he, for whatever reason, agreed to offer Drew more $, Boras would have used it as leverage in the open market as establishing a floor.
2006-11-10 08:29:22
89.   Greg S
If you have a 10% chance of winning $100, the expected value is $10. I don't believe the expected value of J.D. Drew's contributions to a baseball team over the next three years is $33 million dollars.
2006-11-10 08:37:08
90.   Bluebleeder87
i wouldn't mind if Ned signed two great arms, but we really need bats as well.
2006-11-10 08:37:22
91.   Terry A
87 - Werth's full return would be a great story, but I'm not sure Colletti can count on it as he makes his winter plans/moves.
2006-11-10 08:41:03
92.   Goiter
I'm not sure if anyone made this comparision yet, but if they did, sorry. J.D. Drew reminded me a little bit of Josh from "The Office" last night. The future of the Dodgers' offseason somewhat depended on the idea that Drew was staying. The future of Dunder-Mifflin revolved around the idea that Josh was staying with the company.

I don't blame Drew for believing he was going to get more money. He will. My problem is the fact that he's been saying for a while that he had no desire to leave the Dodgers. If money was an issue, he should have said something along the lines of, "Well, I love playing for the Dodgers. I'm not sure what I'm going to decide, but I know I will make the best decision for my family" or something along those lines. Then it wouldn't have been such a shock. I think that's why so many people are mad, just because it contradicts what he said before. But as mentioned by others, this is a business and that's how it goes, right?

I like the idea now, though, of the fact that is now possible to get more young guys with playing exposure. So maybe this is a blessing in disguise?

2006-11-10 08:42:45
93.   Greg S
91 I very strongly doubt that the Dodgers are making any plans that revolve around Jayson Werth.
2006-11-10 08:56:35
94.   Robert Fiore
Well, at least it was a good day for Matt Kemp. I wonder if it ever occurred to Drew or Boras that the sort of executive who would value a player like Drew is exactly the sort that would be dubious about paying a premium long term salary at this part of his career.

Drew's durability questions always made me nervous.

2006-11-10 08:57:54
95.   StolenMonkey86
Colletti is simply a panicky individual, and needs to have a talk with Grady to calm him down.

Then he needs to sign a good free agent. He's good at that.

2006-11-10 08:59:28
96.   StolenMonkey86
Drew is a good player, but I'll say this much:

If he's not a DH next year, he'll make at least one trip to the DL.

2006-11-10 09:00:05
97.   dzzrtRatt
After sleeping on it, I've come to a new conclusion.

The best sandwich in the world was invented by my brother back in 1965. Peanut butter and bacon on toast.

2006-11-10 09:00:23
98.   Greg S
95 A talk with Grady could calm down Matthew Lesko.
2006-11-10 09:06:53
99.   Terry A
Sonny, true love is the greatest thing in the world. Except for a nice MLT -- a mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich -- where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomato is ripe. They're so perky, I love that.

But that's not what he said...

2006-11-10 09:07:48
100.   underdog
97 {{{Mmmmpppphhh}}}

Y'know, I still say the Dodgers should make a run at signing Frank Catalanotto. I really like him. And no, not someone who will replace Drew's numbers at all, but he's reliable at least, and will not be too expensive.

The Dodgers def. can't count on Werth next year, but he is a wild card in this equation - he has the talent that could make him a Drew at some point. Of course, he also has the brittle, injury prone nature that could also make him a Drew in the negative sense.

The world would be a better place if baseball teams refused to do business with Scott Boras.

Show/Hide Comments 101-150
2006-11-10 09:08:46
101.   Steve
Plaschke and Numb3rs are both re-runs today? What do these people get paid for?
2006-11-10 09:14:17
102.   Bluebleeder87
and needs to have a talk with Grady to calm him down.

just hearinm him talk calms me down.

2006-11-10 09:17:34
103.   Greg Brock
Hey, SABR 37 is being held in St. Louis next year. Bob gets to go to the best baseball town in America and visit his sibling.

That's what I call win/win. Okay, maybe just win.

2006-11-10 09:20:09
104.   Bob Timmermann
I've got to call the hotel and book my room. I'll stay with my brother for a couple of days before the convention.

St. Louis at the end of July. Ahh, that's the best time to visit! I remember when we flew out for my niece's Baptism in July and a lot of people had to stay in house that had no air conditioning.

I think the family almost descended into total anarchy because of the heat. I eventually checked into a hotel.

2006-11-10 09:20:50
105.   Vishal
[70] it's largely fallacious to assume if drew does get injured again, that an injury incurred with another team, in another place, with another set of circumstances would have occurred had he been playing with the dodgers. depending on the injury (which may be of the freak variety like the broken wrist a season ago, or could be related to an existing condition, such as his knees), the most one could infer is perhaps drew would have been rather likely to be injured had he remained a dodger as well. but it's illogical to assume that if he gets injured with another team, it would've necessarily happened with us, and that we dodged a bullet.

[82] my irony committee vote is for "somewhat ironic"

2006-11-10 09:21:20
106.   Vishal
[70] it's largely fallacious to assume if drew does get injured again, that an injury incurred with another team, in another place, with another set of circumstances would have occurred had he been playing with the dodgers. depending on the injury (which may be of the freak variety like the broken wrist a season ago, or could be related to an existing condition, such as his knees), the most one could infer is perhaps drew would have been rather likely to be injured had he remained a dodger as well. but it's illogical to assume that if he gets injured with another team, it would've necessarily happened with us, and that we dodged a bullet.

[82] my irony committee vote is for "somewhat ironic"

2006-11-10 09:21:39
107.   Vishal
bah, stupid double-posts.
2006-11-10 09:21:56
108.   Bluebleeder87
Dodger blues has a nice read on Drew's departure.
2006-11-10 09:25:51
109.   244face
Don't confuse me with the facts. As an ordinary fan, I'm glad to be rid of a guy who gets congratulated for almost finishing a season, never seemed to come through in the clutch and had the personality of a dead fish. No one talks about Andruw Jones anymore. What's up?
2006-11-10 09:29:05
110.   mountainmover
I am neutral on JD Drew:

1. He wasn't a troublemaker, but IMHO he lacked "passion" for the game;

2. He led our team in OB%, HR and RBI, but seemed "soft" in the process (if there is such a thing as a "soft" 100 RBI guy;

3. He made "only" $11 mil but he was not a guy I wanted at bat with the game on the line - even though he did well in September (stats don't always tell the whole story).

Bottom line: I don't think Ned cared if JD stayed or left. I sure didn't! I also think we could do better than JD Drew (of course, we could also do worse).

Finally, there is a BIG HUGE difference between failing to communicate with a player you say you want to re-sign and not communicating with a guy who IS ALREADY SIGNED (whom you may just as soon loose)!

Never, Never set a precident of offering to re-negiotiate with a guy who is already signed and is represented by Bora$$$$!

2006-11-10 09:32:33
111.   StolenMonkey86
Just a thought: is Ned trying to be crafty? I'm probably wrong, but if you're a GM and see that Colletti is basically washing his hands of Drew, does that at all put up a red flag in your mind?
2006-11-10 09:33:09
112.   PlayTwo
I will miss watching J.D. work the count to draw a walk. I have seen few players who projected more that being a major leaguer is a personal burden. Maybe he shoulda been a farmer.
2006-11-10 09:34:34
113.   Bob Timmermann
111
Interesting theory, but it seems to me that the 30 GMs each are looking out just for themselves.

Why do guys like Jose Guillen keep finding jobs after all?

2006-11-10 09:38:26
114.   DodgerJoe
I am suprised that no one mentioned this (or I just missed it:

Now Ned re-signs Nomar, Loney plays right, problem solved. Any thoughts on this?

2006-11-10 09:39:31
115.   blue22
I just looked at Carl Crawford's contract situation. He's got a heavily backloaded deal, with 2 guaranteed years and 2 option years. All totaled, he's under contract for 4 years at a sum total of $29M. Not too bad, though it would require contributing more youngsters to Tampa's system.
2006-11-10 09:40:04
116.   Jon Weisman
110 - Why did he seem soft in the process? Why did you not want him up with the game on the line even though (as has been written on DT) his stats in every situation with runners on and late-inning pressure were outstanding? Why don't his stats tell the story?

No other answer than selective memory. You're choosing to emphasize the negative in Drew's case.

Garciaparra, just to pick an example, also had good stats in clutch situations. And because he pumps his fist and flings his helmet when he crosses the plate on a home run, people tend to remember him better. I'm not saying that doesn't make him a more fun player than Drew, but I don't see how it makes him more valuable.

According to ESPN.com, in close and late situations, J.D. Drew's OPS of .931 ranked 28th in all of baseball (min. 75 PA). That means if you were distrubting the top performers in this category among all MLB teams, Drew would go in the first round.

And the bottom line: Clearly, Ned cared whether J.D. stayed or left.

2006-11-10 09:41:59
117.   al bundy
At least with Drew we knew what to expect and his contract wasn't bad. I get nervous about what Ned might do when I read speculation about "clutch" Jim Edmonds.

I think what people are reacting to, at least in part, is the fear that Ned will make a really stupid move in order to fill the hole left by JD.

2006-11-10 09:43:23
118.   Jon Weisman
114 - Certainly possible. There's been talk in the press that Nomar's chances of returning increased. Of course, perhaps so has his bargaining power.
2006-11-10 09:43:33
119.   blue22
117 - My two biggest fears:

1. A long-term deal for Gary Matthews Jr.
2. Sending a truckload of prospects for one year of Vernon Wells.

2006-11-10 09:43:58
120.   dzzrtRatt
109 If you look at Drew's splits, the "never came through in the clutch" reputation for Drew is 180 degrees wrong. Every offensive measurement went up for Drew when there were runners in scoring position, and/or in close games and/or late in games. Nomar did the flashy stuff, but Drew was far far more consistent in those situations.

Like I said on the last thread, there is hardly room to argue that the Dodgers in '07 will be weakened by Drew's move. For what he gave us offensively, $11 mil was a bargain in 2007 dollars. It might cost the Dodgers $15 million to replace it. So, either we'll do that, and be $4 million farther away from signing a Schmidt or an additional power hitter; or we won't and our offensive production will depend on someone like Loney or Kemp having a breakthrough season. We were in a much better position before yesterday.

The question is: If Boras told Colletti with time to spare that Drew was going to test the waters, but would not exercise the option if the Dodgers upped the contract to, say, $13.5 million, shouldn't Colletti have taken that deal?

2006-11-10 09:45:26
121.   Bob Timmermann
If JD Drew had only hit the fourth of the four consecutive homers against San Diego instead of the second, perhaps everyone's perception would have changed.
2006-11-10 09:46:04
122.   Jon Weisman
82 - By the way, Sam, I think this line from Wayne Campbell somehow applies:

"I once thought I had mono for an entire year. It turned out I was just really bored."

2006-11-10 09:48:16
123.   bearlurker
I've been wading through the comments and might have missed it, but is there a definitive answer as to whether the Dodgers can offer JD arbitration? If so, I hope Ned makes the offer.

Also, Depo should be criticized, not credited, for the JD deal. The Dodgers took all the risk on that deal--if Drew broke down, the Dodgers were stuck with a significant contract. If Drew performed well, he could opt out, which he did.

Finally, I'm not impressed with Ned's sniveling, especially if as reported he got a heads up from Boras earlier this week.

2006-11-10 09:51:47
124.   Greg Brock
I haven't really weighed in this Drew thing, but I will say that irrespective of Drew's decision, The Mustache's comments come off to me as petty and impudent.

As Jon said, if the club opts out it's okay, but if the player does, he's the bad guy?

Grow up, Ned. It's a business. And quit making yourself look bad to potential free agents.

2006-11-10 09:52:43
125.   bearlurker
120

I don't know, that's a good question. 11M for Drew's 2006 production is a very good deal. The most likely way to replace the production is to offer Bonds 16M (which is way more than the Gnats want to pay), but then you spend an extra 5M and lose out on defense.

But--and I know this sheer speculation--I don't think Drew himself will replicate his 2006 production because he's not playing for a contract next year. Extending Drew's contract past age 33 given his injury history probably would have been ill advised.

2006-11-10 09:53:04
126.   Jon Weisman
120 - It doesn't matter how much evidence one presents that J.D. Drew was what people like to call a clutch hitter. There are going to be some folks who take a look at his stoicism and absolutely refuse to acknowledge the numbers.
2006-11-10 09:54:07
127.   bearlurker
124 Agreed. Ned should have thrown his tantrum behind closed doors, although I think Ned will be able to overcome this episode and that we will still be able to get free agents.
2006-11-10 09:54:29
128.   blue22
123 - As far as Depo goes, he did say that offseason (generally speaking) that in this market, long term deals usually end up being a negative by the last year or two. It's just a necessary cost of business. If you get a solid return on the contract in the first 2/3 of it, you should be prepared that the remainder of the deal will probably not be in favor of the team.

What Depo did was allowed JD to opt out before his contract became a drain on the team. I just wish he'd given it after the 3rd year, not the 2nd.

2006-11-10 09:55:41
129.   Vishal
[123] another point: people are acting as if the opt-out clause was a pure gift from depodesta to jd drew, tied with a ribbon. it seems to me that the opt-out clause is why drew's contract wasn't more than $11 million per, which apparently must be less than what drew's real value is. instead of throwing more money at drew, they came up with the opt-out clause. considering the financial restrictions depo apparently faced (his payroll was significantly less than what colletti had at his disposal last year, if i recall), i think that's why the clause is there.
2006-11-10 09:56:55
130.   Bob Timmermann
125
If you are interested in the "playing for a contract" theory of performance, you may wish to take a look at Phil Birnbaum's presentation from the last SABR convention about that subject.

http://tinyurl.com/y5blnj

It's in PowerPoint, so don't click on the link unless you have that installed.

To cut to the chase, Phil could not find any correlation between a player's "walk" year and increased performance. His study focused on the bigger free agents, not the roster filler type players who are free agents just about every year.

2006-11-10 09:57:28
131.   Jon Weisman
123 - Drew was the No. 1 or No. 2 offensive player on a playoff team, at a salary that was well in line with the rest of baseball. What's the criticism?

Any player that is signed to a multiyear contract can ruin that deal by getting hurt - that's nothing new. The fact that Drew could opt out of his just minimizes the risk of years 3-5 of the contract - which are the riskier years anyway.

It was never an ideal contract, but in a negotiation with a top free agent, you aren't going to get an ideal contract. The point is, the contract got the job done.

2006-11-10 09:58:06
132.   Jon Weisman
129 - yes. It's all part of the overall negotiation.
2006-11-10 10:00:00
133.   GoBears
Great points by Jon and Ratt. This quote from mountainmover highlights the crux of the disagreement about Drew the player (leaving aside the business side:

stats don't always tell the whole story

Depends on the story. If the story is performance on the field, well then yes, stats do tell the whole story. You just have to look at the most appropriate stats. On the other hand, if the story is "likeability" or "excitement," then mm is right: stats not only don't tell the whole story - they don't tell any of it. That's how awful players with consistently dirty jerseys can be loved while terrific players who are quiet and businesslike can be disdained. And that's a matter of taste - there's no point in arguing about who should be more popular. If you love Darin Erstad, great! Just admit that he's a below-average performer on the field. If you like JD Drew, fine! Just admit that he's about as exciting to watch as a box score.

2006-11-10 10:00:15
134.   Greg Brock
127 I don't think it will impact anything, I just don't like it. It doesn't look good.
2006-11-10 10:03:28
135.   bearlurker
130. I'm familiar with the evidence that playing better in a walk year is a fallacy but in Drew's case I'm not so sure. Maybe I put too much stock in Three Nights in August.
2006-11-10 10:05:44
136.   Vishal
if players could flip their performances on and off like a switch, why not just keep them on all the time? don't they like to win and hit homeruns? sure feels better than striking out. losing is no fun, even when the game doesn't really matter to you.
2006-11-10 10:05:52
137.   GoBears
add to end of 133 ...unless performance on the field is enough to excite.
2006-11-10 10:15:55
139.   Dark Horse
"Petty," "impudent," "sniveling"...these descriptives are all horse--feathers, I guess, and implicate the speaker more than they do Colletti. He's annoyed, and makes a backhanded-yet-mild remark to the press about it. I consider that to be akin to Nomar's hat-flipping, actually: an acceptable release-of-steam that's not comparable to a Bradley-esque jersey-stripping in terms of impact and damages. If Ned goes on and signs {insert useless veteran "impact" player} for too much money, that'll be another matter, but really, really, I consider his remarks to be quite proportionate and fair.
2006-11-10 10:17:28
140.   LAT
Peanut butter and bacon on toast

As pennance Boras should be made to eat a hundred of these.

2006-11-10 10:17:32
141.   Bluebleeder87
3-5 of the contract - which are the riskier years anyway.

i like it.

2006-11-10 10:22:54
142.   Greg Brock
Red Sox may have posted the top Matsuzaka bid.

So sayeth the WWL. Of course, "may have posted" is not exactly the Pentagon Papers, but hey, it's something.

2006-11-10 10:24:48
143.   blue22
142 - The rumor, so sayeth Buster Olney, is that they went in at $45M!
2006-11-10 10:24:57
144.   Greg Brock
Stupid Griddle...
2006-11-10 10:25:27
145.   bhsportsguy
ESPN.com is reporting that the Red Sox may have posted in the neighborhood of $38M-$45M to talk to Daisuke Matsuzaka.

Keith Law ranks Drew and Lugo among the top 10 free agents available. Interestingly, he ranks Zito 15th because he feels he is more of a 3rd or 4th starter.

2006-11-10 10:25:56
146.   blue22
143 - Oops, sorry Bob.
2006-11-10 10:26:20
147.   Greg Brock
Sorry Bob, that was just uncalled for on my part.

I shall now go watch twenty minutes of Karl Dorrell marching up and down the sidelines as penance.

2006-11-10 10:26:59
148.   Bob Timmermann
146
Don't worry about it. I'm used to it.
2006-11-10 10:27:35
149.   still bevens
Rotoworld was also saying that Kei Igawa would be posted. Any thoughts on making a run at him? I kinda like his stats better and he's a lefty. Also cheaper.

Also was looking at Ryan Church's stats. Is he availible? For a young CF he looks great on paper. But I stress the 'on paper' part since I've never seen him play.

2006-11-10 10:31:52
150.   blue22
149 - Not according to Newsday:

It appears that the Hanshin Tigers will not allow lefthander Kei Igawa to use the posting system, Sports Nippon reported Thursday.

Show/Hide Comments 151-200
2006-11-10 10:33:53
151.   Greg Brock
Keith Law has Julio Lugo ranked as the 9th best free agent available, and Zito ranked 15th. Um, okay.
2006-11-10 10:34:45
152.   still bevens
150 =(
2006-11-10 10:35:08
153.   LAT
Just saw the update.

I should be more tolerant of people changing their mind because I am changing mine.

I have no problem with the opt out. My issue was whether Drew/Boras gave Ned advance notice that he had changed his mind. When the initial reports of the opt out broke, it appeared Ned had not been given a warning or a chance to retain Drew. It now appears that Boras approached Ned gave him a chance to renegotiate and Ned turned him down outright. Ned should not be mad. He had a good player at an under market price. He was given the opportunity to keep the player by paying him market price and chose not to. He is mad he lost out on a good deal. I'd be disappointed too but I wouldn't feel I got cheated.

As for Drew, if someone told me I could earn an additional $15 million, money that would take care of my kids, grandkids and great grandkids, money I could give to charity, money I could help my in-laws with, I'd do it too. The money will still be there long after the bitterness of this little controversy has died down.

Final point. Have to give Boras credit for seeing Drew's future. It was brilliant to insist on the opt-out 2 1/2 years ago which makes all this possible for JD. (Don't get me wrong I wouldn't mind seeing Boras take early retirement but you have to give credit where its due, even if grudgingly).

2006-11-10 10:35:21
154.   regfairfield
149 He should be, considering the Nationals hate him with the fire of a thousand suns. But, they have no outfielders right now (as far as I know) so he might get forced into service. Washington's outfield is:

LF: Church
CF: Nook Logan
RF: I haven't a clue. Brandon Watson maybe?

2006-11-10 10:35:36
155.   Bob Timmermann
150
That report is in direct contradiction to this report from the Mainichi Daily News.

http://tinyurl.com/v5qrn

2006-11-10 10:36:17
156.   Greg Brock
154 Kearns
2006-11-10 10:43:28
157.   JoeyP
The Drew contract with the Dodgers was a win-win for both sides.

The Dodgers got a great player for under market value 2/22. Drew/Boras get to enter free agency twice in the prime of Drew's career.

Thats good business for both sides.
Good for baseball.

2006-11-10 10:45:22
158.   JoeyP
Theo Epstein has to be thinking Youkilis/Drew/Ortiz/Manny.....I hope the Dodgers one day have a lineup like that.
2006-11-10 10:49:39
159.   natepurcell
158

one of the 4 is not like the other 3.

you do the math.

2006-11-10 10:50:20
160.   blue22
157 - Perfect summary. Also to note is that this next contract is a much higher risk than the 2-year deal LA got. I doubt the next team gets a chance to shed the back half of the deal via an opt-out, and are going to commit more years and dollars to an older player.
2006-11-10 10:51:07
161.   natepurcell
also, red sox are going to go a ridiculous spending spree this offseason. a total of around 80 mil probably for Matsuzaka and 60 mil or so for Drew. I have already seen them linked to Drew.

Theo sure knows how to spend money.

2006-11-10 10:51:45
162.   natepurcell
157

i agree that in the long run, this is the best for the dodgers. but it is a detriment to the teams 2007 success.

2006-11-10 10:53:25
163.   hernari
157

I personally think the Dodgers got the bad end of the deal. Drew had a good year last year, but was a non-factor the year before. That's 22 million for 35 home runs and 136 rbi. Which would be fine if it was during one season but it was over two.

2006-11-10 10:55:31
164.   blue22
162 - Yep, that's why I bummed that Depo couldn't have got the opt-out after the 3rd year. Oh well, it got the deal done.
2006-11-10 10:57:59
165.   RELX
"Extending Drew's contract past age 33 given his injury history probably would have been ill advised."

I think that is one part of the equation that has been overlooked. If it was just a question of Drew wanting $3-5 million more per year for the next THREE years, than that is something the Dodgers should consider. However, I doubt that Boras/Drew want just a three-year deal--I am sure they are looking for another five-year deal, and frankly, as much as I think Drew is a fine player, I would not want him signed for five more years at $13-$15M per.

2006-11-10 11:03:50
166.   regfairfield
163 22 million really doesn't buy you much these days. In that free agent class, 22 million plus would have got you:

Richie Sexson
Carlos Beltran
Pedro Martinez
Adrian Beltre
Magglio Ordonez

Drew has been signifigantly better than Ordonez and Beltre, better than Martinez in terms of Wins Over Replacement, and made much less than Beltran. The only person who was clearly better was Sexson, but his back loaded contract will decrease his value in the coming years.

You can't just look at Drew's production in terms of home runs and RBI, you need to look at his on base percentage, his OPS, and his defense to get his real value.

Just for fun, players from that free agent class who have out performed Drew in terms of WARP, regardless of salary:

Beltran
Sexson
Jeff Kent
Carlos Delgado
Jermaine Dye
Derek Lowe

2006-11-10 11:04:55
167.   Jon Weisman
I would guess that most of us agree that J.D. won't be playing at age 40 like some other ballplayers. So on that level, it would make sense for him to try to maximize what he can now.

Let's say Drew gets $13 million a year in his next contract. That's an 18 percent raise. If you decided over the past month that you might be able to get an 18 percent raise if you left your job, would you turn it down?

Also, in the midst of Plaschke's expected column today, there was this: the Dodgers have let slip that they have grown tired of coddling Drew. If you felt the work atmosphere was turning sour on you, wouldn't that encourage you to leave?

2006-11-10 11:06:15
168.   Jon Weisman
166 - What I'd love to see is a chart of those whose 2005-06 combined VORP is higher than Drew's, with their salaries next to them. I don't have time to do that myself today, but if you or anyone does, I'd love to link to it.
2006-11-10 11:12:27
169.   Steve
Baseball players aren't worth what they're paid. Huh. I thought this was Sweeps Week and everything.
2006-11-10 11:15:23
170.   Jon Weisman
169 - Yeah, but we don't air our best stuff on Fridays.
2006-11-10 11:24:14
171.   Bob Timmermann
Actually, "Numb3rs" is a new episode. They have already had to rehash old plots. They already had one baseball themed show.
2006-11-10 11:24:59
172.   bigcpa
Drew and Soriano are the human embodiment of the stat wars.

Drew career   .286/.393/.512 (plus defense)
Soriano career .280/.325/.510 (minus defense)

Plus Soriano gives you the sexy 41 SB's with the invisible but deadly 17 CS. So Drew's value is tied up in peripherals and Soriano's is in plain view on baseball cards and ESPN graphics. Soriano's downside is Beltre 2005/2006. Drew's downside if he plays is essentially his 2006 numbers.

2006-11-10 11:26:49
174.   Daniel Zappala
81 If I could get my students to eliminate the passive voice from their writing, I would be the happiest man alive.
2006-11-10 11:30:46
175.   Daniel Zappala
How about if we adopt a no-fault policy toward sports contracts and not try to blame one or both parties when a contract is legally terminated or when a deal cannot be reached? This is a business, and nothing illegal or immoral happened.
2006-11-10 11:31:01
176.   Bob Timmermann
I think the passive voice should be eliminated by your students, Daniel. Then I think that their lessons plans should have more emphasis placed on the meaning of "voice" in English grammar by you. After that is done by you, then the lessons learned by your students will be of more use.
2006-11-10 11:32:54
177.   Jon Weisman
Bluebleeder, I need you to e-mail me.
2006-11-10 11:37:48
178.   hernari
166.

Looking at his on base percentage and his OPS is fine but can we also place that in context of his games played?

What good is a high OPS if he only averaged 373 at bats per full season?
JD Drew is a good player. I've never argued that. But I will argue that he's "great".

2006-11-10 11:49:52
179.   Sam DC
Availability of Church is quite unclear even given the thin Nats outfield. Church has always been viewed as not a major league by Bowden, and it's not clear why that would have changed. Also, Church is an average defender who can make a good play here and really botch one there. He's got a good arm and his best fit is right, another reason the Nationals really could move him along, since Kearns is pretty locked in in right.
2006-11-10 11:50:31
180.   Sam DC
122 is a pretty resonant quote Jon, especially as I unproductively sit here with a "stomach virus".

:)

2006-11-10 11:55:45
181.   Jon Weisman
180 - My old "County" job has had two holidays since I left, while my new job has had none.

At least this job promises to have personal days.

2006-11-10 12:01:57
182.   Bob Timmermann
The City of LA is closed today.

And the library is closed tomorrow.

I'm crushed.

2006-11-10 12:14:19
183.   hernari
182.

Considering the topic of discussion, shouldn't you instead be crunched?

2006-11-10 12:20:53
184.   twerp
Hunting seasons are open many places.

Could DT pull strings and arrange for Boras to go hunting with VP Dick Cheney?

2006-11-10 12:32:17
185.   bhsportsguy
I have started the research that Jon asked for right now I have the VORP for 2005-2006, now I need to input the salaries, right now J.D. Drew is 61st for all players, 5th in RF (1st in the NL). There were 80 players with VORP of 49.3 or higher for the last 2 years.
2006-11-10 12:57:44
186.   blue22
Wow, Sheffield for Humberto Sanchez and two other pitchers.

http://tinyurl.com/ygup9v

2006-11-10 13:18:51
187.   Tangled Up in Blue
I do not agree with the comments Colletti made, specifically who he "slammed the door" when broached by Boras.

To assume that Drew wanted to leave the team rather than wanting more money was an assumption made to quickly.

In fact, IMO it sealed the deal for him leaving.

I realized Drew made comments that he wouldn't opt out however it should come as no suprise to the GM that this was a possibility. It appears to me that Colletti had no plan in place should this happen.

A lack of a plan is what continues to concern me with Ned Colletti and the Dodgers.

2006-11-10 13:30:28
188.   Daniel Zappala
186 I hate when anyone trades with the Yankees. The guys they got have good numbers, but I have no idea whether they are considered good prospects. Sheffield seems primed for a decline, so I'm surprised he got an extension through 2009 out of the Tigers.
2006-11-10 13:31:33
189.   Andrew Shimmin
Drew made comments that he wouldn't opt out

I've been thinking about this and now I'm not even sure I blame him for that. What's he supposed to say, in the middle of a pennant race, when asked if he's coming back? What's the answer to that, other than, "yes I'm absolutely coming back," that doesn't cause a major headache for everybody involved? Would that have been better for the team? If he gave Colletti a direct, additional, private assurance that he wouldn't opt out, then what he did is in any way morally suspicious. If he didn't, I don't think it is.

To me, it's less a test of moral fiber than an I.Q. test. You don't set yourself on fire for the entertainment of Bill Plaschke on grounds of principle.

2006-11-10 13:40:02
190.   Tangled Up in Blue
189 - I agree. We don't know what was said behind the scenes.

If nothing was said privately between Colletti and Drew than, IMO, you can't hold Drew accountable for toeing the company line.

2006-11-10 14:40:19
191.   dsfan
As for Drew's value in 2005:

I tend to think he was worth a whole less than $11 million to the Dodgers, simply because he missed so many games. When you are counting a guy to be one of your best players and he misses as many games as he did, seems to me the extended effect on one's team is fairly large
My guess is that a strong OPS he posted in '05 doesn't come close to offsetting the negative impact of him being out of the lineup to the extent he was. Something to think about if one wants to evaluate his VORP/salaries for 2005-06 relative to those of other frontline or well-paid players.

In shorthand, I thought he was a subpar value for $11 million in 2005 and a good value for $11 miilion in 2006 (one small factor that I include in the evaulation for this year is that defensively, in the first half, it was clear that the surgical shoulder wasn't up to full strength).

I was dead wrong in year's past saying that Drew probably won't leave -- my premise was that the market wouldn't be enticing enough. Obviously Boras has good info. that Drew has generated value beyond $33 million.

I had predicted that the second year of his contract would be his best. We shall see.

2006-11-10 14:49:47
192.   dsfan
Curious to know what others think on this subject, but it seemed that Little was very good at handling Drew.

Getting Drew 7-12 ABs in minor-league games across a mere 2-4 innings so that he didn't have to stand in the outfield was a pretty pro-active move -- the sort of thinking outside of the box that probably isn't typical among managers.

And even when the pressures were strong to keep playing Drew, Little was disciplined enough to buy him extra rest, piggybacking team travel dates with planned off day for Drew, even when the media was pushing for Little to cave.

I cannot prove that Little's usage factored into Drew playing as many games as it did, but that's what I believe. I think Little was good for Drew.

It's possible that Drew's next manager will be similarly protective, but I would be surprised if he is as protective.

Of course, if Drew goes to an AL club, which might be the better fit, performing as a DH could reduce the season's attrition.

2006-11-10 14:58:50
193.   dsfan
Acknowledging that the Dodgers will find it difficult to replace Drew's production in '07, I still expect Drew's departure to be a win-win.

Drew almost certainly will be better as a result of departing -- he'll get more money and perhaps won't encounter some of the resentment that appeared to be growing at the L.A. workplace. Although it won't surprise me to see Drew stay in the NL, going to the AL, where he could spell the team's regular DH, would serve him well.

As for the Dodgers, it's harder to see this providing immediate gratification, and the market being what it is, easy to see it being harmful, but I see potential benefits

This probably increases the chances the Dodgers will do all they can to develop/nurture Kemp, which pleases me.

The Dodgers also lose a Boras client. This has its advantages, and I am mindful that some teams have won World Series with a handful of Boras clients.

I also doubt that Drew would have given good returns on 3 years/$33 million in this situation. The injury cascade troubled me. I like how Little rested him, but I tend to think that when a star player is that high maintenance, it can create resenment within a clubhouse. Not a major factor over 1-2 years, but over 3-5, could have erroded some of Little's power within the clubhouse.

2006-11-10 15:11:39
194.   Wayne Wei-siang Hsieh
Re: 106

I fail to see how it's fallacious to take into account Drew's long injury history--injuries which are, btw, obviously chronic, and not only limited to the "freak" wrist injury. Sure, if Drew gets hurt for another team in the future, those circumstances are different, but that's like saying that past performance with regards to things like OBP is irrelevant to predicting future performance, simply because each situation is different. Surely we can make educated guesses about a baseball player's injury prospects based on past experience, and Drew's past experience can hardly be seen as a positive.

Is he worth 11 mil/yr IMHO for this season? Yes, because if he's on the field, the production is that solid. In this market, he probably will get more than the 33 mil remaining on the Dodger contract. But these are all calculated risks, risks that increase with age, and Drew might very well crater very, very fast, to such a degree that this might very well end up a blessing in disguise. I for one am not so sure Drew is going to be worth 11 mil/yr in 08 and 09, so him choosing to dump that obligation is no skin of my teeth.

BTW, I actually think Drew's injury problems can be decoupled from the whole debate over his moral qualities. The guy gets injured a lot--he's missed many games--that's a simple fact. He's missed those games in large part due to chronic knee problems. Last winter, he had shoulder surgery that inhibited his throwing for much of the season. He's not getting any younger. I for one don't know if Drew is an honorable man or not; I don't think I really care; I do know, though, that his achilles heel as a baseball player is his injury history.

WWSH

2006-11-10 15:18:49
195.   Tangled Up in Blue
193 - "This probably increases the chances the Dodgers will do all they can to develop/nurture Kemp..."

I hope you are right however there is a chance that Drew leaving will hurt our farm system. Colletti may trade away some prospects (like Kemp) for a bat to replace Drew. In addition, he may now feel even more inclined to sign Ramirez (which would block Laroche) or sign Nomar (which would block Loney).

I guess what I am saying is that this puts the Dodgers as major buyers this offseason. Colletti has already shown that he "overpays" with prospects in trades.

2006-11-10 15:22:46
196.   Wayne Wei-siang Hsieh
Re: 192

I think Little did probably help Drew out by resting him consistently, but with JD's chronic knee problems and then some, in the long view, it may just not matter much. Drew is about to turn 31; if he was banged up as he was in his prime, why should anyone think his health would actually improve? Yes, the wrist injury in 05 was a fluke, but his knees are a chronic problem, and he had shoulder surgery last winter. Big bats are scarce enough that teams will take a flier on him, but when should any team blindly follow the market rate?

WWSH

2006-11-10 15:55:36
197.   mountainmover
Look, I am not smart enough to figure out stuff like VORP and all that. I did watch most Dodger games and here's MY take on JD Drew (agree or disagree):

JD has amazing power - he routinely hits upper deck shots in batting practice and appears effortless in the process. He is a 5-tool player and there ain't many of those! He is also (as I have said before) devoid of passion about the game, or so it appears. He's a GOOD guy, doesn't get in trouble, doesn't stir things up and goes about his business, but give me a David Eckstien in a tight situation (i.e, a guy who playes the game with ALL he has).

Part of the problem I have with JD Drew is that the reality never lives up to the expecations. He has Mickey Mantle ability-but he is JD Drew!

He also misses a lot of games - his stats depict him as the #5 RF in baseball, but that's when he plays. He missed a lot of games and I don't see that getting any better as he gets older.

He is soul-less IMHO! Give me a guy who cares.... or at least looks like he cares!

I think Ned and his staff had planned the offseason WITH JD Drew being part of the team and then were thrown a curve at the last minute.

Give me Luis Gonzalez at $20 mil for 2 years any day over JD Drew at $33 mil for 3 years!

I was excited when we first got JD, but his lack of passion for the game is not a good thing for a team.

Does anyone here think James Loney could put up very similar stats in RF for about $10.5 mil less?

Jon, You are the Stats King, but the STATS certainly didn't support the 1988 Dodgers winning the World Series or for that matter, the 2006 Cardinals. A computer-generated game would have had several other teams beating them. That's the problem with "STATS" - they cannot measure the power of the human spirit!

David Eckstien - MVP? Go figure that!

2006-11-10 17:09:44
198.   DodgerfaninNY
197-I'm sure Luis Gonzalez is a great guy and everything but I'd still rather have souless automaton Drew
2006-11-10 18:17:49
199.   Andrew Shimmin
197- Running the simulations now. I expect that the Dodgers will win some number of WS titles, and lose some other, probably greater, number. Do you think that if the series had in reality, been played 100 times, the Dodgers would have won every time, because of their spirit? Or do you think that they would have won some, and lost some probably greater number, because the Athletics were a better team?
2006-11-10 19:00:10
200.   PadreJeremy
Drew did the Dodgers a favor. Hes a great player, will get more then 11 mil per year on a 3-5 year contract, but I would rather spend 13 mil on a younger Armamis Ramirez over 5 yrs then pay Drew that money in his 30s when hes more likely to break down. If he is playing 11 mil a year for the past 2 years is good, but he missed time and is getting older. The money can be better spent elsewhere. The Dodgers wont miss him as much when hes making 12-15 mil a year in his mid 30s and playing 100 games if hes lucky. Id be more upset if I was losing Furcal or someone who isnt as easily replaced.
2006-11-10 19:36:04
201.   Andrew Shimmin
Well, so much for that. Computers really aren't any good. My 100 simulated seasons return zero championships, and only six seasons completed in better than fourth place (one in second, the best season). If I ran it a thousand times, I'd probably get it to come out right, once or twice. But, I can't spare the CPU cycles. And, anyway, it just proves that the program is flawed, which was a pretty good bet in the first place.

Wait, what was the question?

2006-11-10 21:51:07
202.   Gold Star for Robot Boy
181 - My last job had impersonal days, and plenty of them. :P

Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.