|
DrewPodesta
2006-11-12 15:15
At the bottom of this post is a list of the top 80 players in baseball in Value Over Replacement Player from 2005-2006 combined. Thanks to this research provided by Dodger Thoughts commenter BHSportsguy, I have been able to rank the players by combined Salary/VORP. Largely because of the hit-by-pitch injury he suffered in 2005, J.D. Drew ranks as the 10th-most-expensive player on the list. Having nothing to do with what Drew is worth going forward, one can certainly choose to argue that he was overpaid in hindsight, in terms of the production that the Dodgers got out of him - although it's interesting to see the names of the players who rank ahead of him. Of course, many of the names below him have not been free agents yet and haven't had the chance to earn what he has. Drew was a key man in the Dodgers' 2006 playoff run, but for his two years here, he was an expensive one. * * * A lot of people never liked J.D. Drew, and now a lot of people really hate him. Many are already planning how much they're going to boo him the next time they see him at Dodger Stadium, in a manner that I believe has probably been reserved only for Barry Bonds or, in my youth, Pete Rose. Considering that Mike Piazza and Shawn Green have gotten booed steadily as visiting players in Los Angeles, for no reason that I can ascertain, Drew should expect to absolutely get hammered. He may even get worse treatment than Gary Sheffield, the least popular ex-Dodger of at least this decade. Because I feel none of this venom, I'm trying to understand it. As far as I can tell, Drew is guilty of the following: 1) a history of wanting the most money he can get, aided by agent Scott Boras I guess that the cumulative effect of the above is something powerful, though piece-by-piece there isn't much there. Item 1 makes Drew the same as 99 percent of ballplayers. Items 2-4 won't win him friends in some quarters, but aren't reasons to hate him. (In fact, I'll tell you this - I'm sick and tired for the heat Drew takes for not playing hurt. For every Nomar Garciaparra or Kirk Gibson home run while playing injured, you get guys like Eric Gagne ruining their years if not their careers. Playing hurt, very often, is a hateful thing to do.) However, I suspect those first four items lead directly into so many people having decided he is a choker, despite the mass of evidence in Item 5 to the contrary. Then, when you add choker to Items 1-4, that gives you a powderkeg waiting to be ignited by Item 6. Drew broke his word, and for some people, that's enough. I understand the reaction; I'm just not reacting that way. For one thing, the oft-cited September interview with Bill Plunkett of the Register does not indicate that Drew promised to stay. It says he planned to stay. "I don't plan on (using) it," he said Tuesday. "I've enjoyed my time living in Los Angeles. That's what it was there for – to make sure (wife) Sheigh and I didn't come all the way across the country (from their native Georgia) and get stuck in a situation we didn't like." Drew said the clause has hardly come up in discussions with his agent, Scott Boras, since the original negotiations. He couldn't imagine any reason for his opinion to change between now and the end of the season, prompting him to use the opt-out option. "You know what – I don't think so," said Drew, who also has a limited no trade clause. "Ultimately it's my decision, and we're happy where we're at. We love our house in Pasadena. My wife is happy. She's made a lot of friends in our neighborhood and with the other players' wives. That's really the thing that was nerve-wracking about it (free agency) for me. "At some point, you make those commitments and you stick to them." Now, in that last line Drew all but assured us he was going to stay - though nothing, from "I don't plan on using it" to "I don't think so" to "at some point" is definitive. A month passed between the end of the season and the warning Monday by Drew's agent, Scott Boras, that Drew would exercise the opt-out clause Thursday. I feel that's enough time for Drew to be allowed to change his mind, promise or not. Please understand - I know what a promise is. The whole point of a promise is for it to withstand changing circumstances, whether they be the sudden flood of money that now appears to be available to free agents, or Drew hearing tell (as Bill Plaschke's Friday column suggested) that the Dodgers were tied of "coddling" Drew, or for all we know, Drew's wife having a postseason change of heart. I'm just not sure Drew made a promise. But let's say that he did. If so, then he exposes himself to the moral consequences of breaking it. But just as every promise is of different importance, so is every broken promise. If Drew broke his promise, what were the consequences? Contrary to the mainstream media spin, the Dodgers did not lose any valuable offseason time with Drew's decision. Negotiations for outside free agents hadn't even begun; trades have barely started. The Dodgers want us to believe Drew hung them out to dry - if that's even the slightest bit true, then they're incompetent. I'm not saying that I wouldn't have been annoyed or angry at Drew if I were Dodger general manager Ned Colletti. I would have. I get riled by stuff much smaller than this. I curse at people for not using their turn signal when they drive. Above all, Drew didn't put the Dodgers ahead of his own interest. So maybe that's all one needs to set Drew up as Public Enemy No. 1 at Dodger Stadium. I think the biggest problem I'm having is that so many people disliked Drew in the first place, and have been going out of their way to trash Drew's career, independent of what happened this week. And Drew did play well. Even with the time he missed due to his injuries, he found himself among the best. He helped lift the Dodgers to a playoff spot. But even though Drew never got into trouble and never complained, even though he did so many things right, multitudes will consider him a lifelong enemy to the Dodgers. Drew is the new Paul DePodesta, a man whose approach to baseball is so anti-cinematic as to earn widespread loathing. I don't know why I'm sympathetic to characters like these when I love the movies so much, except that maybe I realize baseball isn't quite like the movies. In the end, I can't expect everyone to like Drew, much less politely applaud when he returns in an opposing uniform. He'll not be a favorite son. All I would ask is that people acknowledge what he did do for the Dodgers. It's not all black and white, and Drew did a lot that was good. * * * Top 80 MLB Players in 2005-06 VORP, ranked by Salary/VORP
|
no one should begrudge him for that
Certain players performance (or perceived performance) combined with their personality (or perceived personality) tend to attract venom to a far great degree than others.
JD Drew just happens to be near the top of the Venometer because he seems to have failed the passion test.
I wonder where Drew would come out on your chart if we assumed that 2005 was just like 2006 and he played 145 games. Many of the top ten also lost many weeks of either '05 or '06 -- Bonds, Sheffield, Thome, Matsui, Griffey, and just under Drew, Giambi, Edmonds, and Helton.
This chart also suggests that the highest quality is at the far ends of the bell curve. Either a team pays a lot of money for a great player, or it lucks out and finds a great player in its system, and underpays them as long as it can. If you can avoid it, stay out of the middle.
completely agreed.
I think we'll end up with Schmidt..I've got nothing to back that up because it's just a gut feeling.
Losing Drew is just...ugh...it's pretty depressing. The worst part is that this year's FA class isn't all that great and I really don't feel comfortable giving ARam money to Carlos Lee. I could live with a Soriano signing, but I'm not huge on him either. At the same time, we can't blow up our farm going after trades. I really wonder what it would take to get Andru Jones seeing as how he's in the last year of his contract...should be an interesting couple months.
If we get permission to negotiate an extension before we make the deal, we're talking to Boras. In view of Colleti's comments about Drew, how much slack do you think Boras will cut him in talking extension for Jones. I don't see any way he lets Jones sign an extension without testing the waters after next season.
and now drew shows himself to be the person he has always been: a greedy and vacant person. he has chosen to leave a playoff team on the rise and uproot his family in order to grab a couple million dollars more on top of the millions he already earns. there is no reason to hate him for this; if there were, we would have to stop watching baseball altogether because baseball is filled with people just like him.
i imagine that the dodgers will take a step back this next year. but i think that i'm not alone in thinking that the dodgers were at least two years away from a championship. perhaps this gives the dodgers a chance to bolster their starting and relief pitching while allowing the kids to play and grow, if only to see what these boys are capable of.
yeah, I'm basicallyjust throwing names out there to get some discussion going on exactly how we replace offensive production. Just a really weird offseason
I would add one thing that was always a little frustrating about Drew, even though I liked him as a player: his tendency to make weak outs.
Now, I don't have any empirical evidence to support this, just my sense from watching games.
But Drew took many called third strikes, and a lot of the time they seemed like good pitches to hit. Most likely he was just fooled by the pitch and knew it. Drew also hit a ton of little grounders to the right side. Now, I could be off about this, but it seemed Drew did this more than other people. So when you're hoping for a hit and he takes a called third strike, or hits a dribbler, I think that can cause fans frustration.
So, I just think maybe that is part of the reason people don't like Drew, is that his at bats seemed passive at times, aside from any emotion he didn't display.
{{mutter}}
I say the Dodgers will be one of three finalists for Soriano. Not sure how likely it is they get him, though.
Jon, I think your whole methodology for trying to figure out why people dislike Drew right now. Trying to apply a logical explanation for the decisions by many people who clearly aren't choosing to think logically won't accomplish anything.
What I think this episode shows is the fundamentally illogical relationship fans have with their team and its players. If you really 'hated' Drew from the beginning you probably thought he was not very good and/or overpaid, in which case you wouldn't be mad at him for leaving. The only people that should be mad at Drew now are the ones that thought that he was an asset to the team to begin with, right? In my mind, you either disliked Drew from the beginning and now are happy to see him gone, or liked him from the beginning and are now dissapointed. That seems logical to me, and yet this doesn't seem to reflect the reaction from people at all.
I was under the impression that most Dodger fans didn't really know much about Drew, and didn't have much opinion either way, they just rooted for the guy because he was wearing the right uniform. (this is LA after all, not Philadelphia or Boston) I think people are just mad, for whatever reason, and sometimes it's difficult to tell why. I'd be nice if we had a press that could articulate things better, or just not have an obvious agenda, but I think that boat has already sailed.
Beyond that, is the style of out he makes all that relevant?
Scrappi Du instead of Scrappy Drew.
Or something.
That said, I'm annoyed (not mad, just annoyed) that we now have an outfield position we have to fill that we didn't expect to have to.
It's that old "What do you mean you're breaking up with me----------------I'm breaking up with you!" syndrome.
Statistically I really like Drew. I would have preferred to see a little more emotion. I don't have a problem with his deciding to see what he's really worth out there this year. After all, the contract we gave him said he could. As Jon says, he never promised (cross my heart and hope to die) to stay. I, for one, am ready to move on and would like to see Crawford in our outfield next year. I would give up a decent prospect or two to make it happen.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Piazza offered something like 96 mill that he turned down?
He wrote that it was probably the "scrappiest" team in the whole area.
Due to a uncaught typo, the story came out "crappiest." Guess where the only part of the press run where the typo appeared went?
Yup. How to win friends and influence circulation....
Piazza wanted 7 years-100 million: 14.15 million per year
Dodgers offered 6 years-80 million: 13.33 million per year
Piazza got 7 years-91 million: 13 million per year
I guess the extra year made the difference.
But really, at the end of the day, it's hard for me to muster any sympathy for a fellow who could turn down 3 yrs/33 million a year. JD Drew may very well be booed in LA the same way he's booed in Philly to this day, but he'll have his millions as fair compensation. I'm too lazy and indifferent to boo him, in the same way that I didn't usually bother to participate in the booing against even Barry, but there's no chance I'm going to feel very much sympathy for Drew's plight. If one can call it that.
WWSH
JD's .900 OPS in clutch situations was enhanced by his proclivity to walk. If we had had a couple of mashers, JD would have been awesome in the #2 or #6 spot. For us, he had to be a #3, #4 or #5 hitter and I just don't think he's that guy... unless of course, #3 is Ramirez and #4 is Ortiz! Then he'll be great!
Say hello to Jason Repko!
I am as happy as I was shocked that he opted out. I kinda got the impression it was Xmas early. So why would anyone be mad? If anything, they should be thanking him.
This is a gross understatement. He played in fewer than half of his games last year (yes, yes, I know it was a HBP), and this year, for only the second time in his career, he plays in more than 140. Color me unimpressed.
As for the lack of hustle, well, color me unimpressed. Garret Anderson often takes the Cadillac epithet because of his refusal to hustle; meantime, Darin Erstad, "Mr. Hustle", has collapsed thanks to the all-out style of play beloved by so many fans. I won't argue that Anderson is a good player anymore, but how many players battered themselves into irrelevance? And if you're known to be fragile in the first place, does it really pay to be aggressive to the point of self-injury?
I don't understand why ANYONE is capable of not understanding that other people can have different opinions and would rather not be interested in why those people would choose to hold such opinions.
For the record, I agree that loosing Drew is probably a good thing, but the reason is because his health is not dependalbe enough to warrent anything like the money that was coming to him, not because of something as silly as the reason you stated.
http://losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20061110&content_id=1738803&vkey=news_la&fext=.jsp&c_id=la
Maybe that is why Colletti was so upset about it, perhaps he felt Drew lied to them deliberately and sandbagged them. I don't care. We'll do just as good without him.
Plain and simple, he did the Dodgers a favor, so why be mad at him?
That's what so perplexing. Most people I talk to and places I read, the fans are ecstatic he's gone. I guess I just figured that was pretty much across the board.
Yoko Ono.
But I do like this one particular quarter I've got in my pocket.
Wha happen?
How can you be loyal to money?
No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can't serve both God and Money.
49
Looks like 41 happened
The Yankees' lineup is mostly set, with a right-handed-hitting first baseman — Nomar Garciaparra, perhaps — the most pressing need.
Can you imagine if someone in 1998 had said, Hey, did you know that in a few years the Yankees will Have Jeter, Nomar, and A-Rod playing in the same infield?
The thing about Drew is that with the constant need to rest him, that requires using someone else off the bench in his place. Grady played him right, but even then, he's not going to play 155 games. Further, the statistic of 146 games is a little misleading because Drew pinch-hit several times, and he actually only started 131 games. He had an .891 OPS on the year, but if you add the plate appearances of the other right fielders, that number ends up at something like .852.
Bottom line: durability matters. Acquiring a Soriano or even Carlos Lee type player would have a net improvement on the team because they would require less of the bench. While the Dodgers do have a lot of depth, that depth is generally not going to do a lot more than .700 OPS, except for Olmedo Saenz.
First off, he hit only 20 homers, and half of them came in April and September. Maybe it's just me, but 10 homers in a 4 month period shouldn't be that hard to replace.
More importantly, I'd rather they just replace a player who seems to disappear for long stretches.
I can accept that from a rookie making $200,000, but not from a veteran making $11 million!
Me, I prefer someone who goes out there, doesn't try to show anyone up and tries to help the team. I will miss JD for all of those qualities.
Power is more than homeruns, a 200 ISO SLUG% is nothing to scoff at,especially when it comes with a good batting average. The best measure of power is Slugging Percentage, not HR total.
He was advertised as a .900 OPS talent before he was signed and in a healthy season, that is exactly what he did. He was also advertised as a player who would need to be coddled and would probably miss significant time to injury, and that is exactly what he did.
Drew's season is a perfect example for why homerun totals and power are not the same thing.
That being said, is it asking too much for him to hit 40 homers with those personality qualities instead of 20?
You see, bottom-line, the nice-guy, don't show up anybody approach is great....as long as it includes production as well!
Thing is, what if there ISN'T anyone who can replace him? Just because we want one of the few FA outfielders who might match that production, it doesn't mean we'll get one.
I trust there will be someone in RF for the Dodgers in 2007, and beyond, and we'll see how the team fares.
And, who said we want "any" of the FA outfielders?
http://tinyurl.com/ybh5nn
Believe it or not, Drew wasn't even on the team 3 years ago, and all the years before that. How did the Dodgers get by then...without him?
The guy is a complimentary ball player who made $2.6 million less than Pujols made last year.
It turned out that I wasn't Wardriving in Japan. My friends had a wireless hookup in their house. I asked them if they had "wifi" and they didn't know that term. They just knew "wireless".
I would have pegged Bob as more of a "wireless" kinda guy than a "wifi." Guess he's edgier than I thought...
Cubs re-signed third baseman Aramis Ramirez to a five-year, $73 million contract.
The guy is a complimentary ball player who made $2.6 million less than Pujols made last year.
JD always has nice things to say about you too.
I saw that. Looks like the Cubs got the home-town discount. Thank God. I feared the Dodgers were going to be the ones over-paying him!
Now, if we can just get Soriano, Lee, and Zito signed by other teams, there's a chance the Dodgers won't screw up this offseason.
That was actually my very subtle way of saying that the word you wanted was "complementary".
Then there some of it that's just luck. A line drive to the gap is not drastically different from a line drive directly to the fielder, except that the gapper is good for a double while the fielder is an out.
Moises Alou (more power than Drew, but even riskier)
Jeromy Burnitz (no)
Jose Guillen (I thought we got rid of Milton Bradley?)
Trot Nixon (maybe if it was 2003)
Jay Payton (completely empty batting average)
Daryle Ward (not unless he can replicate his PH #s)
Bernie Williams (sign Clemons too!)
Other outfielders:
Darin Erstad (he plays hurt, bad but on the field)
Steve Finley (only for use as a 9th inning PH)
Kenny Lofton (pass)
Gary Matthews Jr. (can he replicate 2006?)
Jaun Pierre (the poor man's Dave Roberts, despite what the media thinks)
Dave Roberts (I prefer him to Lofton anyway)
Barry Bonds (controversial... but exciting)
Frank Catalanotto (homeless man's JD Drew)
David Dellucci (has had two nice years in high offense environments)
Luis Gonzalez (pass)
Todd Hollandsworth (pass)
Ryan Klesko (maybe a few years ago)
Carlos Lee (great power, mediocre everything else, huge price)
Alfonso Soriano (only 3 months younger than Drew, at least 50% more expensive, much worse defensively, only one time in past four years has he had a higher OPS, terrible OBP besides this year when it was mearly decent. Only advantages are health and speed)
Shannon Stewart (empty batting average)
Rondell White (pass)
Preston Wilson (pass)
All that is to say, there is no replacement for JD Drew without a trade or a much higher salary (and in the case of a trade, probably both). If Ned gets creative the money might be used to make the team better, but it can't buy a superior 1 to 1 replacement.
Heck, I only missed it by 4 letters. :)
1) never gave it much thought till now
2) got over it--but the question can be asked: In hind sight, now that Drew only played 2 years with the Dodgers, would they have been better off signing Beltre for 5 years?
3) don't really care--but you cannot have a team full of them
4) problem--3 surgeries b4 last season. He's not going to get more reliable.
5) who is?--always disappointing when a player doesn't come through in the clutch. When it was discussed that Drew stuck out 18% of the time with runners on base and 18% of the time when no one is on says a lot. He's consistent. I appreciated him more.
6) cumulative effect was powerful.--that is why it surprised me.--also I thought 3yrs and 33M wasn't bad especially for someone who needed extra care. Stan Conte was hired just for him. (OK, not exactly)
What gets me the most is that even though I'm wasn't a Drew fan, I rooted for him because he was a Dodger. I wanted him to hit 30 HR and get 100+ RBI. I thought that he would be here for 5 years given his contract and all that he said. (though a promise I never read) I was invested in him. Now I'm disappointed.
Stop.
According to the CIA World Factbook, two small island nations that are really protectorates of New Zealand, Niue and Tokelau, have GDPs under $11.
I'm confused about the arguing about his worth though. Most people who liked him and thought he did a decent job are not sore he left, while those that despised him and thought he gave nothing to the team are using this situation to get a few more good whacks in before he is completely out of the picture. So if no one is tore up about his departure, can't we let the guy leave in peace for our own sanity?
By the way I liked the SI write-up Jon. It's rare you see an off-season wish list that doesn't suppose onto itself to pick the players who will end up with which team and invariably get them all wrong. :)
me so happy!
My gut feel at this point (and that's all it's worth) is that Ned "the mustache" Colletti will sign either Moises Alou or Luis Gonzalez and then trade for a B-grade corner outfield prospect like Brandon Jones or Eddy Martinez-Esteve, hoping that he can recreate the magic of Ethier. If he trusts the scouting staff, he might be right.
which is great for me since i have chicago d and that td just gave me the lead.
who knows they might change it later. I still have a chester taylor td reception that needs to be accounted for.
My guess, though, is that Toronto is looking for both a good prospect and someone who can really help them in 2007, at least.
Here's a question for you, if we could get a 2007 in the majors from Kemp comparable to Jeff Francouer's 2006, how many people think that would be a bad thing? Kemp walks more, but outside of that they are similar specimens through age 21.
In St. Louis, anyway, he had some history of bad relations with kid fans. Wouldn't go out of his way to autograph stuff in public settings away from park, ridiculed a few younger female fans for their looks. Nothing fatal but I think it undermined him there.
So his self-involved personality reinforces the early judgement of him based on the pre-rookie holdout.
In the end, these are factors that pre-dispose fans to look beyond the overall on-field contribution and judge him as less of an asset. I disagree with them, but I can see their point, too.
----
My fantasy football team was taken out back and shot this evening at 8:11 PM. There were no survivors.
As to folk beliefs about a player (he's a quitter, he's soft, he doesn't hit in the clutch), if people are invested in these ideas all they need to maintain their beliefs are a few anecdotal instances. Anyone who doesn't have conventionally gaudy statistics (and some that do) is vulnerable to this sort of perception.
92 - Thanks. Believe me, I haven't a clue who will end up where.
I've gotten to see Alou a lot over the past two years since I go to school up in the bay area. The guy can still like he did 10 years ago, but he's on his last legs. Every time he circles the bases, it looks like he's going to blow out his hamstrings. In the outfield, he has poor range to begin with and also gets terrible reads. Alou really needs to go to a league where he doesn't have to field or hit. I think Bonds is more an NL player than Alou at this point in their careers. Alou still might be worth the risk, as long as the Dodgers aren't relying on him to be their big bopper.
If Kemp passed the 30-HR and the 100-RBI barrier, the mainstream sportswriters would like him, and the average Dodger fan would also be more than happy for him. You and I, well, we should be a little concerned and a little happy about the performance.
I don't think Kemp is in quite the same boat as Francoeur. For one, his minor league stats are much better, and infinitely better when it comes to plate discipline. Also, and perhaps more importantly, Kemp has proclaimed publically that plate discipline and pitch identification are his biggest problems while Francoeur seems to believe that there is nothing wrong with never taking a walk and sporting .293 OBP.
And for all those moaning about their fantasy football teams, I pulled off the bonehead move of the year today. I benched Chad Johnson.
Matt Millen has nothing on me.
The team is worse now than it was a week ago, but the season doesn't start today.
I do care about how Colletti responded (burning the bridge to Drew, who is, after all, one of the very best players on the FA market), and how he responds now to the new OF need. He may still pull a rabbit out of his hat, but my view of the FA market (minus Drew) is that it's unlikely. I hope he surprises me.
Ned: I just want to know what you're worth. Over ten million?
Drew: Oh my, yes.
Ned: Why are you doing it? How much better can you eat? What can you buy that you can't already afford?
Drew: The future, Mr. Colletti, the future.
cesar izturis.
that's right, cesar "career .295 OBP" izturis. and A's fans want him in the oakland lineup! incredible.
http://tinyurl.com/y32vwb
The caption under said evidence:
J.D. Drew is clearly willing to trade his job security for the chance at a bigger payday
Those really aren't mutually exclusive, are they? I mean, isn't DJ likely to sign a 3-year or greater deal for more than $33 million?
Then we need a center fielder. That's a question of do we give Matt Kemp a shot.
Again, for no reason, I ask why Andre Ethier can't play center. No need to answer, I just don't get it.
http://tinyurl.com/yjhvzq
vr, Xei
One wonders if Ray Durham can play CF ala Davy Lopes.
but i do think we should try and acquire thames. Hes not going to hit for a high average but he does have nice ISOs; basically what we hoped jayson werth would have turned into.
so, NOOOOOO! :)
vr, Xei
The cash considerations would not only offset some of the salary difference, but play for Kent and Sheffield to be teammates.
their choice of hendrickson or tomko :)
or both if they want to drive a hard bargain.
His 3 year split shows a OBP of 306 against RHP. The power is still decent and it could just mean he needs more at bats because he hasn't gotten a whole lot of major league at bats but I'd rather have Delucci getting those at bats against RHP.
i hope so.
136- as much I dislike Kent, I probably wouldn't. Who plays 2nd if Kent is traded? Both Betemit and LaRoche aren't going to be starter.
The big free agent bat I'd go after is Alfonso Soriano. I've never been a fan of Soriano, but now that Drew is gone, the Dodgers desperately need someone to replace his offense. I'd probably just go with Kemp in CF.
Here's my lineup
Martin c
Loney 1b
Kent 2b
Furcal ss
Betemit 3b
Thames lf
Kemp cf
Soriano rf
I'd try Nomar at second if Kent is gone, giving him a JD Drew rest schedule, with Marlon Anderson as his primary backup.
Here's the lineup then:
(S)Furcal - SS
(L)Loney - 1B
(R)Nomar - 2B
(R)Sori - RF
(L)Ethier - CF
(R)Thames - LF
(R)Martin - C
(L)Betemit - 3B
Besides, if he'd be cool playing first, that would plug a hole for the Tigers nicely (and block Chris Shelton for a little longer).
http://tinyurl.com/yamkfs
See, this is my problem...Drew DID spout off by saying numerous times that he wasn't going to do it. I have NO problem with Drew using an opt out clause..it's his right. I DO have a problem when he comes out and says a bunch of times "I don't think I'll do it." etc etc and then the first thing he does is opt out.
I think this is the reason Colletti is so up in arms over this. His reaction leads me to believe that he had a pretty solid view that Drew wouldn't opt out...I don't think he would have flipped out the way he did if it was still up in the air. Aramis Ramirez played his situation right. As far as I know, he didn't say anything either way and the he opted out...that's the way to do it. But please, don't tell the fans, the media, the organization that you're not going to opt out and then go and do just that. I also want it to be known that I have nothing against Drew, I've been on his bandwagon since the day we signed him and I hate to see him go...but so it goes and so it goes....
Exactly. That's what irritates me about this. I don't think people have the right to be mad that he opted out since it was his right...but everyone should be annoyed that he constantly insinuated he wouldn't opt out.
We all keep talking about Eithier being our only OF...but really, can we really count on Eithier right now? I like him just as much as the next guy but he tapered off big time this year and we have no idea what he'll do next...I'd go with two OF...let's just hypothetically say Soriano and Alou and let Eithier and Kemp fight it out for CF.
I still wouldn't be shocked at all to see an ESPN headline in the coming weeks that reads something along the lines of "Dodgers' GM Colletti contacts Bonds' agent."
Great word for it, Jon. Perfect word. He's anticinematic.
Setting aside the issue of JD Drew's contract and "promise" entirely, it seems to me that this debate is just the latest in a long line of debates that come down to that one thing: cinema. I think it's probably the heart of the Moneyball debate, too.
I think it's fair to say that most baseball fans (read: I) follow baseball to be entertained, right? And that means we want our team to win, but it also means we want them to be heroic, or emotional, or funny, or cool, or scrappy -- i.e., cinematic -- when they do it. How much we value that cinema versus, say, straight-up run production, probably determines where you lie on the Beane vs. Morgan continuum, for example, but I think we'd all like to like the guys we're rooting for.
That's why guys like Gagne and Gibson and Hershiser hold the place they do in Dodgers history, innit? They gave fans incredible performances and incredible cinema, all in one package. Obviously, whatever Drew produces on the field or for the money (again, I'm not interested in furthering that debate), his lack of cinema knocks him down a lot in some fans' eyes.
I guess I fall in the middle somewhere. To me, sports is entertainment, pure and simple. So yeah, I'll admit I never really formed much of an attachment to JD Drew -- I think he's a fine player, but he didn't entertain me much. I don't begrudge him leaving, but I won't miss him much, either.
As for me, off to school where very, very few of the kids give a rip about baseball. Sad.
If the Dodgers can offer arbitration to Drew, I sure hope that they do. None of these posts about Drew have made the case for replacing Drew's all-around play without incurring a very expensive deal (Alou and Bonds come closest, IMO, but the D suffers). I do not see any other reason not to offer him arbitration other than Ned's personal animosity, which is not a valid reason.
80 Considering the prices involved, the most attractive free agents to me are Bonds or Alou (not both due to D, and I think we need a very good CF so no resigning of Lofton), and Delucci (a real nice fit for us, I think).
The offense is going to take a step back next year regardless. I'd just accept that, and try to build a team with the best pitching as possible.
I wouldnt spend money on any of the mid-level free agents like Alou. I'd rather spend it on high-end difference making pitching.
To some, just having recognizable names like Nomar and going to the ballpark every so often, is enough fufillment.
Others dont care about the individual pieces, but rather just the team overall winnings.
I fall into the 2nd group, but I understand the one's from the 1st group.
Infielders: Nomar, Kent, Furcal, Betemitt, Martinez, Saenz, 1/2 Loney
Outfielders: Ethier, (Roberts or Byrnes), Kemp, (Anderson or Repko. I say Repko), 1/2 Loney
Maybe hit more homers, but overall they don't come close to what JD did. If your plan is contingent on this, I think you may be disappointed.
By the way, I should be clear (in case I wasn't) that I don't think there are "cinema" guys and "stats" guys, not in the fat part of the bell curve, anyway. We all like to be entertained. My point is just that different people are entertained by different things.
Some people like action films, and some people like thought-provoking dramas. And when someone comes up with a really good thought-provoking action film, it's usually a hit.
Or something like that. (Jon, have I swerved off onto your other blog?)
See, I don't get this. Drew was not a family member promising us a kidney. Or even a ride to the airport. He's an athlete, paid to perform on the field. I have no problem understanding why some think he was overpaid, given the games he missed, and/or that the team is lucky to be out from under the $33M due him, due to his high propensity for more injury. But I don't get the "you promised us, you big liar" complaint. What he "promised" was a .900 OPS and great defense and baserunning when healthy, and to stay out of trouble off the field, and but for the broken bone, he delivered.
For me, it comes down to this. What if that had just been a 2-yr deal, with no option, and he were a free agent now? Should the team try to re-sign him? Given the team's needs and his ability, I think yes, although I would be sympathetic to arguments that he's gonna be too expensive in this market. The team should try, but maybe not win.
Colletti, OTOH, at least in public, slammed the door because of the "liar, liar, pants on fire" view of things, which just seems like a dumb thing to focus on for a GM (we fans can focus on anything we want - it doesn't matter).
That said, although it's belied by the ferocity and immediacy of Colletti's reaction (which smacks of sincerity, if not good judgment), I'm starting to think that maybe what Colletti had other reasons to be rid of Drew, and just made it easier for himself, and the fans, to bid good riddance by demonizing the former player. Teams do this all the time. That garbage about "players who want to play here" was not invented by Colletti - it's a common divorce pronouncement.
The stuff about too much coddling may be post-bridge-burning spin, or it might be a real reason that the team didn't want to shell out and extra $33M, let alone what Drew is actually going to cost as a free agent.
If I can be convinced that Colletti had already decided to dump Drew (by trade, if necessary), then his comments of the other day don't bug me nearly as much - they're just break-up words. But I don't really believe that. What I really believe is that Colletti made a bet that Drew would be part of the rebuilding (as with the example of Josh in "The Office" that someone brought up a couple days ago) that he was annoyed and embarrassed for losing that bet, and that he lashed out when a reporter poked him in the eye with it.
Byrnes is a pretty bad CF, IMO. We need someone to play CF, preferably a defensive upgrade, given the erratic play there last year and the absence of Drew, and someone to replace JD's production on offense. I hope we address these two needs before chasing Schmidt or Zito.
The FA names are pretty limited to Matthews Jr, Pierre, Lofton, and Roberts. And that guy Drew.
"I'm not trying to trade Shawn Green"
or
"Izturis is going to be our 3rd basemen"
or
"I'm not going to opt out"
Whatever people say to reporters is meaningless imo.
*11/13/2006
Giles might be traded this offseason, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune. The Padres are expected to sign a major free agent outfielder, which would make Giles more expendable. Several teams could take a chance on Giles in the hope that his offensive production would improve out of Petco Park. He also could be trade bait for a club looking to move a big contract. Giles is due to make $9 million in 2007 and $12 million in 2008, but could be acquired in return for an even bigger contract. He has a no-trade clause which includes eight teams, Boston, Baltimore, Detroit and Washington among them.*
So just to speculate. The Padre's traded their 2nd baseman to the Indians and now have a hole there. An interesting move would be for the the Dodgers to trade Kent for Giles thus fullfilling the big contract for big contract while each team fills a gaping hole, Padres sign Drew to replace Giles because Depo will go hard after him and the Dodgers sign Durham or Nomar to replace Kent. Depo seems to be showing his influence as they recently signed Ryan Ketchner who was a minor league free agent. One of his 1st moves as the Dodger GM was to trade for Ketchner from Seattle. We know how hard Ned went after Giles last winter so he might be interested. I'm probably the biggest Durham fan on this board which is why I keep trying to find a way to get him on my team. Course to me the obvious move is for the Padres to sign Durham or Nomar to play 2nd base and keep Giles. If the Dodgers trade Kent and sign Durham it would be the same cycle that Sabean/Ned did when Kent left as a FA for Houston and the Giants signed Durham to replace him. I'd much rather have a combo of Durham/Giles then Kent/Drew but that is strictly a personal preference.
172 Not a bad idea, but I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a Dodgers-Padres trade.
Me too but the choice could be Durham/Giles or Kent/Marlon Anderson.
I sense Colletti will bid against the Angels for Gary Matthews Jr. If we can make a trade for a big bat (Burrell/Dunn) then I can live with a Ethier/Werth platoon. Apparently the GM's are bowling today in Florida. If Ned and Gillick are on the same team maybe they can work a deal.