I understand the reasons, and since I haven't been there for over 20 years, I really shouldn't have any emotional attachment to the place.

There is a certain aura surrounding the Dodgertown grounds; former players are everywhere and you can still talk to some oldtimer Brooklyn fans. The beauty of Dodgertown was twofold: The grounds hosted only the Dodgers, and only the most diehard fans would travel out from California.

There is also some good in moving to Arizona: rainouts will be fewer and more fans have the means to make a six-hour drive instead of an expensive flight or a 40-hour drive.

Guess I'll just have to adjust my spring traditions.

It means the Dodgers really won't go back to Brooklyn.

So management is going to sweep away 58 years of tradition at Vero Beach, a place that allows fans and players to actively commune with the team's great history, for a facility in Arizona that they would have to SHARE with the White Sox???

So sad.

http://tinyurl.com/ymhotb

Economists have long pointed out (often to no avail) that sports teams are not the local economic catalysts that team owners claim them to be when seeking public funding for new stadiums and such. Among other things, owners overestimate the economic impacts, pointing to stadium revenues as an indicator. The mistake they make is in assuming that all the money spent at the stadium is new economic activity, when in fact much of that money would have been spent in the community anyway on something other than the sporting event if the sporting event hadn't taken place.

Here's a story about Seattle's decision to stop subsidizing the SuperSonics.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/swybw

This is a little much. The Dodgers remain one of the "flagship franchises," owing to their history, to the Stadium, and to their popularity. Notwithstanding the indignities of Fox era and the absence of championships since '88, they still manage to draw more paying customers than anyone else year to year.

This is also an east-coast-centric view. To the national sports media, there are three "flagship franchises": The Yankees, the Red Sox and (as anti-heroes) the Cubs. If the Dodgers were ever a part of that club, it was only because of their long run of success from '59-'81, during which they were in nearly 1/3rd of all World Series. If they're a "rank and file" franchise now, it's because the Dodgers play like one.

But I still think the Dodgers stand out. You can know a "flagship franchise" by its enemies. How many teams have their own anti-cheer? When I hear crowds on the road cry "Beat L-A, beat L-A..." I know all is right with Dodgerdom.

Don't tell Dave Anderson and George Vescey that.

Are they in the "No sleep 'til Brooklyn" crowd or something...?

Vescey wanted the stadium for the Mets to be named for Jackie Robinson. In the end, just a section of it will be.

Neither man is particulary enamored of Walter O'Malley, to put it nicely.

As an aside, I see that from 1947-1950, Jackie stole 100 bases, and was caught stealing zero (yes, zero) times.

100-0

A lot of players had zero caught stealing from 1947-1950.

A number of statistical catagories are incomplete for the first half of the century as they weren't accurately kept or, in some instances, that category did not exist (i.e IBB and the short-lived 1980's sensation game winning rbi).

The CS stat wasn't regularly kept then so most sources just list a zero back then. They should list a dash or something instead.

Nobody caught Duke Snider stealing from 1947-50 either.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/snidedu01.shtml

Play by play for the World Series must be easier to come by than the regular season games played in the same year.

*Relative to players who play(ed) when SB stats were kept correctly

It's only since the 1990s or so, it seems that the majority of managers have realized the risk-reward of the stolen base.

Except for Jim Tracy with Oscar Robles.

Sounds like the Powers That (Used To) Be were smarter than the Powers That (Currently) Be.

I don't think it is. Having a great history isn't really enough, there has to be some kind of palpable connection to it. The Athletics have a great and storied history too, but you would never feel it in Oakland.

Dodgertown was kind of a living representation of the tradition and history of the Dodgers. Everyone who's ever been to Vero speaks reverently of it. It was a real connection to the past that gave the Dodgers some of their universal appeal. Swapping it out for a shared facilty in Arizona is just another diminishment of the Dodgers on the national stage.

The Dodgers draw well at home because L.A. is a great baseball town, but that doesn't say anything about their national status. With the long concession lines, boorish fans, and intrusive advertisements, the Dodger Stadium experience (for me, anyways) is a far cry from what it used to be. YMMV. And you might be somewhat right about the "Beat L.A." chant, but I still think that has more to do with provincial antipathy towards Los Angeles than anything else.

When did he end up with Cleveland??? So much for that LF with power!

25 - YMMV?

The lesson, I guess, is that betrayal is a worse sin than never committing to your commitment in the first place.

You just blew my mind.

It's very long.

I will ask someone in "the biz" about this.

Kinda like not telling someone you're going to take them camping and then not taking them.

Kramer: Listen. Heads up, Elaine. I'm gonna have to stop by later and pick up a fax.
Elaine: At work?
Kramer: No. At your apartment.
Elaine: I don't have a fax machine.
Jerry: Here we go.
Kramer: Well, now what are we gonna do? (to Jerry) See? This is why you should get a fax and a Xerox.
Jerry: And a dead bolt.
Kramer: (to Elaine) Are ya sure you don't have one? Because there's a lot of stuff in my apartment I've never seen.
Elaine: Then maybe you have a fax machine.
Kramer: You just blew my mind.

He believes that Linear Weights, Pete Palmer's method, never uses SB unless CS is available too.

1. Adam Dunn
2. Vernon Wells
3. Mark Teixeira
4. Andruw Jones
5. Carl Crawford

http://tinyurl.com/yd3ey8

I can't see us grabbing onto any of them at the moment, but on Crawford, Crasnick says: "That's why GM Andrew Friedman can afford to ask for the moon. If the Dodgers make a call on Crawford, they'll probably have to consider Chad Billingsley and Jonathan Broxton as a starting point."

I wouldn't even consider Billingsley and Broxton as an ending point. In fact, I'm not sure I would trade either player for Crawford. Maybe Broxton (if he's gonna remain a reliever), but certainly not Billingsley.

With the baffling exception of the Cubs.

"Garciaparra's contract last season included incentives based on plate appearances. This time around, the Dodgers would rather give him a multiyear deal at a higher base salary, enabling the injury-prone Garciaparra to take frequent days off without feeling as if he needs to play simply to meet incentives."

OK so he was really stretching himself to get into 122 games. So we'd give him a raise to play fewer games through age 34-35. It's just crazy enough to work!

I'd be more then happy to give Nomar 15/3 to be our super utility player but I expect he'll get 24/3 from someone.

While it sounds a little wacky, the non-incentive route for Nomar will probably result in him playing more games, not less. Last season, he would play even if his physical condition would have clearly benefited from some days off, which would then have him coming back in a productive capacity sooner. Instead of sucking for five games and then taking 10 games off, he might take 10 games off, and then be solid for three months. It also takes the pressure off of Grady.

"Nomar, my old friend from Boston, how ya feelin' today."

"Great, Grits. Ooch, ouch."

"What was that? Something wrong with you?"

"No, skipper. Just, uh, I was, uh...bit by a spider! That's it. Just a little Cort-aid and I'm good to go."

"Man, I hate them spider bites. They got spiders big as Chevys down in Texas. Okay, Nom' have a great game."

"You bet. Ow. AAAAh."

You don't think Loney and friends could match Nomar's production?

A: The Dodgers planned to move Drew to center field if they were successful in signing Soriano or Carlos Lee to play left. With Drew out of the picture, the Dodgers will either re-sign Kenny Lofton or pursue a younger center fielder.*

Man I would have loved to have JD playing CF instead of RF. Now I am feeling grumpy about JD leaving.

(You know someone was gonna say it.)

"Sacrifice! I ain't gonna sacrifice! I'll get $10,000 more if I get a hit here."

"Hey, I get $20,000 extra if I can steal third here. Who cares if we're down one run and there's two outs and Albert Pujols is up?"

I have a hard time rooting for anyone in the owners vs. players conflict. In general, I'm more sympathetic to the "little guys" than the "fat cats." Plus, if the players are the ones generating revenues, then they should be getting a big chunk of those revenues for themselves.

But I guess I have a hard time thinking of "guys who get paid millions to travel around the country 6-7 months of the year, sit on a bench 3-4 hours a day, with a few short bursts of standing, running, throwing, and swinging mixed in" as little guys. Maybe they're little compared to owners, but not to the other 99.9% of the population.

Maybe they will. Eventually, I assume that's the plan. What I liked about 2006 was that we didn't have to depend on Loney and friends, so they could develop without thinking they ever had to carry the team.

If we sign Nomar to 3/24, which I know is a terrible scenario for many here, that doesn't mean we can't trade him if and when Loney and friends take away his job. But if Nomar can remain healthy and gives us lots of stretches like the first half of '06, I'm sure we'd be glad to have him around for three years. He's 33.

Don't forget the part where they're mobbed by young hotties with long legs and brains. Nah, no perqs to this job.

For what that's worth.

Just kidding. Yeah, I'm sure the travel gets old.

Do you think Ed Bradley would have stopped reporting about General Lee storming the beaches of Normandy, just so he could have dinner? You're why people don't take blogs seriously.

Why do runners get caught less now? Are runners better? Catchers better at throwing? Pitchers speeding up pitch delivery time? What? Why? When? How come? (Scratches head trying to think of more ways to ask, however ill-advised.) ;)

"Don't challenge me at things I am good at," Sheffield said. "I am a businessman first. Playing baseball is what I do. People said I needed an agent but I got what I wanted. Nineteen years later I got my point across: You can't beat me on or off the field."

What a guy. All that talent. So humble, too.

http://tinyurl.com/ykxw9a