I posted this in the previous thread (except for the part I omitted):

Wait, Kevin Howard's been with the Jax Suns for at least 1-2 months, so something's off on that report.
http://tinyurl.com/3d9ghc

And he came from the Yankees organization, after being with the Reds in the Tony Womack deal a long while ago. He started the 2007 season with the Phillies minor league teams and then was picked up by the Dodgers at mid-season. I think BA was a little off. But anyway, it's cool to have some added depth in the infield.

Btw, Jon, this sort of post is one of the many, many reasons I read your blog every day and can skip Tony Jackson's. (Even though sometimes he does provide valuable information.) I was particularly frustrated with his point of view this weekend. Anyway, thanks for remaining rational.

Jon is more even-tempered because he doesn't have to go up and down the Dodger Stadium elevator.

Yes, the things poor Tony has to deal with. I can't wait until he experiences the awful humidity this week. That oughta be good.

Meanwhile, I was wondering (and maybe Nate or others could answer this better than I) if the Dodgers would consider promoting Miguel Pinango this season? He's been quite good at Vegas, after making the leap from Inland Empire. He threw a no-hitter in the Mets' farm system before joining the Dodgers this off season.

One story on him from a month or so ago:
http://www.lvrj.com/sports/8222037.html

Nice post Jon and am trying to remain optimistic, but the main question I have are there any starting pitchers who could come up and contribute. Tomko may only get worse and Lowe seems to be one move away from going on the DL. I think the innings they have gotten out of Hendrickson are amazing-he at best is only a five inning pitcher. Is there a starting pitcher who they could insert and perhaps extend the rotation to 6 pitchers?

Brad Penny's reaction to what he thought was a third strike was unconscionable. The umpire definitely needed to walk out to the mound to set him straight. To not do so would cause Brad Penny to become a veritable monster.

Hey, at least we're not the local team with a well-publicized rodent problem...

5 - Remember last year, when Hendrickson was acquired to be an innings-eater? Seems so long ago.

6 - Huh? Penny just raised his arms in the air and yelled. If the umpire had just stood behind the plate, what are you suggesting Penny would have done next?

Good-night I can't take anymore, its late here; but Jon keeps going-and going-and going.

To prepare for this upcoming series, I'm watching "John from Cincinnati" now. I'm determined that one episode will make sense!

I think the Reds rotation resembles this show.

8- Yes I do and sadly if Lowe goes down, we are putting more pressure and asking someone with far less talent to do so much more. Any thought to bringing up Jason Orendorf?

This week was brutal, but keep your chin up.

And for extra incentive to be happy, here's the Danny Kaye song staring Legos.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gvqO9q8yi-A

6 I think you might ought to look up the word "unconscionable" in a dictionary. While you're at it, look up "veritable" and "monster". I'm not sure what combination of meanings you have in mind.

2 Second that.

My weekend? Hundreds of miles driving to weddings, transporting family to airports (plural!) and, of course, summer school work.

I wonder how much I would complain if the Dodgers were winning? Not much...

Until Cincinnatti...

So, would the Dodgers have a place for old friend Mike Piazza?

10 Tonight on "John From Cincinnati":

"Shaunie's gone!"

(Repeat 183 times, increasingly hysterical.)

10 Don't they more resemble WKRP in Cincinnati?

6 Wasn't the umpire's reaction more out of line? He basically charged the mound himself. I thought umps were supposed to be the voice of reason and mediation.

From the last thread, El Lay Dave was comparing the Wiggonton-for-Wheeler deal to the Betemit-for-Proctor. Nobody mentioned, however, that Devil Rays assistant GM Gerry Hunsicker is pretty clearly still on good terms with his former peepz in Houston, and unless you count Ms. Ng's years with the Yankees way back when...

and congratulations to Mr. Glavine!! Just think, that one rotation had three pitchers with a combined 840 career wins. Somehow I don't think the Oakland Three will get anywhere near that total.

16
I'm just watching the show out of sheer stubbornness.

19 Me $&%^$ing, too.

Thank John there's only one more.

16 - You certainly are glib. I mean Shaunie can really be gone.

If he is won't you feel foolish.

20
Woo hoo! Just 10 episodes!

I'm sure Milch will wrap everything up in a nice, neat package!

Sorry. I umpired for several years and I'm very sick of umpires making asses of themselves. If you just let Penny raise his arms a bit and yell, most of the Dodger fans think he's just being his hothead-self. When you trump out to the mound, you get even our dumb fans booing your every call the rest of the game.

Looks like I picked the right time to miss three games.

Ugh.

Jon:

I appreciate your intelligence and thoughtfulness, and the thoroughness of your coverage. I know way more about the Dodgers than is probably healthy for me because of this site. But there's nothing positive to say about the team at this point.

Players have hot and cold streaks, of course. And only the most deluded hothead would count Loney and Kemp out for the count because of their recent run. But there's no way this team is going to turn itself around with the current management structure in place.

The Padres and Diamondbacks gave their rosters some serious retooling in the last week, much of it revolving around the waiver wire. We traded one of our best power hitters for a mediocre middle reliever. The manager consistently puts out an inadequate lineup. Any one of us could fill out a better lineup card than Grady Little. Yes, the pitching staff has been brutalized by injuries, but one could largely chalk the brutalization up to the fact that Coletti signed two injury-prone veterans in the offseason. Note how they're the ones who've left us bereft.

This wasn't supposed to be a rebuilding year for the Dodgers. I don't trust this current regime to build for 2008. The Dodgers won't finish over .500 this year, and no one will take the fall. Sure, a comeback is technically possible. Technically, I could win the Pulitzer Prize, too. But we all know that's not happening.

If the Dodgers finished below .500 this year, there would be some serious fall taking. A head or two would roll. Little would likely be told to take his services his elsewhere in that eventuality.

I don't think I could fill out a lineup card better than Grady Little because I have really bad handwriting and all the players would be wondering what I wrote. Kent and Kemp would likely never know where they're batting.

And my 8s and 6s look alike, so Juan Pierre might end up at shortstop.

That would be really bad.

25. We traded one of our best power hitters for a mediocre middle reliever.

The trade does seem strange to me. Without getting into whether the guy we received is mediocre or not I just don't understand why we couldn't have at least taken a look at Meloan against major league hitters before trading away Betemit.

With all this talk of filling out the line-up card, I realized how much I enjoy all the hypotheticals dangled on these pages.

But I don't think we need any such top to bottom shake-up. Does anyone else think a switch of Pierre and Ethier in the order might net the Dodgers a few more runs a week. Ethier is just too smoking hot to languish in the 8 hole.

Plug a healthy(ish) Kent in at the 4, especially in Cincinnati, and Hendrickson, Tomko and Billingsey willing, we can turn this slide around--or at least the dismal mood that is currently accompanying it.

Jon, your reviews are excellent. You are fair and rational. For your next analysis, why not take a look at the front offices in the West?

Seems to me, here is where the Dodgers are getting outclassed. The Padres and Diamondbacks strike me as more resourceful. They appear to get more results from far less dollars. The Dodgers also seem to be reacting to events, rather than anticipating them. And when they do react, they seem overly convention (example, the Proctor trade) or devoid of imagination. The Dodgers trade a fine talent like Betemit for a middle reliever. The Padres don't seem to make that kind of move. They are getting a lot of value out of the waiver wire and designated players. They traded an over-rated middle reliever for a pretty good haul of minor leaguers.

Byrnes and Colletti each inherited good farm systems. Who is doing a better job of spending money and making trades?

Jon, maybe you have been a bit too kind to the Dodgers' front office. Can they match Alderson/Towers/Depodesta? That's a tough assignment. I think they are getting heavily outpointed. None of this is to say the Dodgers can't win the West. Of course they can. But if the people in charge aren't as capable as the rivals, that's a red flag. If they don't have a grasp of integrity of process, a devotion to intelligent profess, that also is a red flag.

For what it's worth, nothing from what you related from the McCourts tells me that either McCourt is up to the task of matching Alderson.

process got typoed, sorry.

Unfortunately, absent Ned being caught receiving kickbacks from the $40 million being paid to Nomar, Tomko, Gonzo, Schimdt and Mueller, his job is safe. Listening to Frank a few weeks ago, I don't think Ned would get fired if he were found in bed with Jamie. Post 25 is right, this was not supposed to be a rebuilding year. Ned is clearly getting the least performance for the most amount of money. Wolf and Schmidt going down isn't exactly a shock given their history, yet Ned seems caught off guard. And while JP is not the disaster he was the first few months of the season no matter how well he performs he was never right for this team. The debate over whether he is any good is irrelevant. Even if he exceeded all expectations he was never a fit for this team. At the end of 2006, raise your hand if you didn't know the Dodgers needed a power hitting OF or 3B. And while Ned arguably got some power at 3B last year, he didn't use it much and was then forced to trade it away because he wasn't prepared for the the injuries.

Moreover, while you can say Ned hasn't traded away any of our valuable prospects the deals he has made has netted very little. Most of what he has traded for is no longer with the team. The bright spots for this team have nothing to do with Ned. They were either signed by Depo or were raised on the farm. Yes its true, the Dodgers are not this bad and they may make the post-season but given their farm and their payroll they should be better, much better.

Just in case it didn't come through in my previous post, there can be little debate that Ned is getting jobbed by the other GMs in the division. Heck, when considering payroll and farm systems he is being smoked by, dare I say it, Jim Bowden.

According to USA Today, the following teams have less payroll and a better record.

2007 D'Backs Payroll $ 52,067,546
2007 Padres Payroll $ 58,110,567
2007 Brewers Payroll $ 70,986,500 2007 Braves Payroll $ 87,290,833
2007 Indians Payroll $ 61,673,267
2007 Tigers Payroll $ 95,180,369
2007 Twins Payroll $ 71,439,500 2007 Mariners Payroll $ 106,460,833

2007 Dodgers Payroll $ 108,454,524

Only the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets have a higher payroll and each of them have a better record than the Dodgers.

FYI, 2007 Nats Payroll $37,347,500. Dodgers have seven more wins to show for their extra $71 million.

I am okay with the Dodgers not making the playoffs if I get to watch Kemp, Ethier, Loney, Martin. Just let Kemp and Ethier start most of the time and let Gonzo and Pierre take turns playing.

I miss Abreu when Kent is ailing and hope things work out soon.

Heard Tejada was put on waivers and the Whitesox claimed him but a deal couldn't be worked out so he was taken off waivers. If he would play CF for the Dodgers that could be intrigueing.

Finally, an explanation of why Barry Bonds hasn't been indicted for tax fraud, yet. I wonder if you have to say "Simon says give me your username and password," or if it's just printed on their business cards.

http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/08/05/1834201.shtml

25 et al - "The Padres and Diamondbacks gave their rosters some serious retooling in the last week, much of it revolving around the waiver wire."

I don't think one significant move happened via the waiver wire in the NL West last week. I do not think Kim, Ensberg and his ilk are going to be difference makers.

The management criticisms being made now are largely the kind that were leveled at DePo in 2005. Both just got swamped with injuries. No one in April said, "All five Dodger starting pitchers will get hurt, three seriously, and Colletti isn't prepared." And the fact that Colletti doesn't have a high-quality No. 7 and No. 8 starter makes him like every other GM in baseball. Again, take a look around the division at who is being thrown out there.

Meanwhile, I don't think anyone is suggesting that their favorite GM choice would have gone out and gotten Santana last week - and certainly, it's unfair to suggest that their favorite GM choice would have had an injury-proof starting rotation.

Calling this a rebuilding year is a misuse of the term. A rebuilding year is when you trade the present for the future. It's a surrender. Having enough talent to contend for the World Series, only to be undermined by injuries, is by no stretch a rebuilding year. It's a disappointment, and it's life.

As for me not being hard enough on Colletti, well, no, I haven't called for his head specifically, but I have been clearly critical of many of his moves and his philosophies. Has there really been any mistaking that I feel that I think someone else could do better?

Oh, and by the way, based on last night's "Entourage," I think Ned would get fired if the team finished out of the playoffs and he slept with Jamie.

36- Would he take Pierre with him to his next job, when he got fired? Also, please stop relating everything to Top Gun.

I think people are making a false assumption, the assumption that a team that is spending more money than its competitors should automatically be expected to be better than its competitiors. Read Baseball Prospectus publications and you will see them repeat over and over that the key to building a winning ballclub is spending money. Poppycock. The assumption is wrong not only because there is no guarantee that money spent will be put to optimum use, but because there are too many forces at play in pro baseball that make large amounts of money prone to be misspent, and once money is misspent, to add more injury to injury, the money acts as an obstacle to making better, smarter baseball decisions.

Let me illustrate. Nomar Garciaparra is getting $20 million from us over the next two years. That is money down a rat hole, sure, but it is not JUST money down a rat hole. The money is not just gone, its expenditure has a negative ripple effect. The money becomes a "reason" (not a good reason, but a reason) to keep a lousy player playing when he would have been DFA'ed long ago if he were making league minimum. And because that lousy, expensive player is a fixture, a better, cheaper player (like LaRoche) is blocked. In this way, and in Nomar's specific case, the misallocated money is not just failing to HELP us, it is positively, actively HURTING us.

But what is we weren't a rich team? What if Ned, coming into 2007, had had a $50-60 million payroll to work with? I can assure you that that would have meant no Schmidt, no Pierre, no Wolf, no Nomar, no Gonzalez. Colletti would have had no choice but to "trust the kids." Teams with smaller budgets usually make smarter decisions because they have to. A premium is put on efficiency. A larger budget means a much bigger margin for error, so that disincentivizes the avoiding of errors.

I have said for a long time that the Dodgers, to become great again, need to build from within, to get young. The problem is, that means getting cheap with the payroll. Now, this shouldn't BE a problem. In most businesses, cutting labor costs is seen by ownership and management as a GOOD thing. But baseball is different, and there are all kinds of added political issues that go along with Los Angeles and its population's expectations for Dodger payroll, and the McCourts, and having the big-spending Angels in our back yard. The youth movement that I see as a pre-condition to future Dodger success is really threatened by the fact that I don't see McCourt being willing to shed nearly enough payroll to accommodate all the young players who should be coming to L.A. from the farm in the next two years. Thus, Colletti is going to have no reason to trust the youth, and he will continue to have lots of money to throw at the Schmidts and Pierres and Nomars.

To reiterate my point, Colletti is screwing up not in spite of all the money he has at his disposal, but precisely because of it.

I would give the DBacks front office great marks if it hadn't reported that their waiver pickups of Kim and Cirillo were because they wanted to block other teams from getting the. They didn't really want either player.

And if the Dodgers had acquired Rob Macowiak would fans in L.A. be all that energized? Would be building an artificial body of water in the parking lot and dubbing it Macowiak Cove?

38 -- To start the third paragraph, that should be "But what IF we weren't a rich team?"

39- When the Unocal station goes belly up, I say we do that, even though he's a Padre. A good idea is a good idea.

38 - I think that's a great comment (presuming that if Colletti had half the payroll, he wouldn't have given away all the Dodgers' draft choices for fear of paying bonuses.)

Teams with smaller budgets usually make smarter decisions because they have to

I've noted the ironic flipside of this before, which is (to some extent) that:

"Teams with larger budgets usually maker dumber decisions because they have to."

Teams with large budgets are expected by their fans to spend those budgets. More often than not, this means paying overpriced veterans for services that could be provided equally well if not weller by younger, cheaper players. And since veterans are presumably more likely to get injured than younger players (is that true...?), millions of dollars end up being wasted by paying people to sit on the bench.

I would think (with absolutely no evidence) that injuries by age follow a sort of negative parabolic curve. Young players who aren't proven suffer a lot more injuries as a population, but then they get weeded out. What is left is relatively sturdy veterans who don't get injured much. Then when they become grizzled veterans the injuries spike again. I feel much more certain about this relationship in football, but it seems likely to me in baseball too.

The Dodgers have already conquered one emotional public relations hurdle. They have learned they don't have to trade the kids for short-term gains. The next emotional public relations hurdle is to not trade the kids' playing time for short-term free-agent production gains. Both require some backbone.

44 - positive parabola that is

33- that seventy one million for seven wins stat is just disgusting. ned is feeling the heat and it isnt even nine am yet.

See update above: My Fungoes post today describes the starting pitching problems that other NL West contenders are having.

Of course Kim, Cirillo, and Rob Mac(SP) wouldn't equal a pennant for the Dodgers. But the Padres also added Bradley and Hairston and, oh, someone else over the last month. The Padres and D'Backs already had a winning core. They've been nibbling around the edges all year, tinkering to make things better.

It seems to me that all Ned has done is remove any impediments to Garciaparra playing every day and make it impossible to have anyone but Tomko as an emergency rotation replacement. Remember, this is the team that decided that Tomko was better off starting the season in the rotation than Billingsley.

Let's put it this way: The D'Backs lost a Hall Of Famer from their rotation. The Padres lost an All-Star. And they're still rolling. It's not really because they have better players. It's because they're better managed, in every sense of the word.

48- You're using "scuffled," now, too. Has that word always been used that way? I really don't remember seeing it before this year.

I've mentioned this before, and it was mentioned above as well. It seems to me that Ned is a "conventional" GM who thinks inside the box and is not given to innovation. He pursues "safe" deals with limited upside, where "safe" refers to his own job security. Proceeding according to conventional baseball wisdom won't likely get you fired if your plan doesn't work out. The failure just gets chalked up to "bad luck".

A DT site search returns two "scuffled" hits, both from 2005. One was Bob and the other was Zappala, which is pretty terrific evidence that it's an acceptable construction. Hmm.

scuffled

Andrew - try your DT search again. I'll think you'll find the results even more compelling...

Well guys, I'm gonna take the day "off" from the Dodgers - from thinking about them, from writing about them, from obsessing about them. I hope to resume tomorrow just as I hope they resume playing like they're capable of tomorrow, too.

Be nice to have Jeff Kent back...

See you all tomorrow.

Did I miss the discussion of the Billingsley/Everybody Loves Raymond controversy?

It's a Screen Jam/Dodger Thoughts crossover opportunity.

51- Did he really think that we( the dodgers ) were " safe " with Randy Wolf and Jason Schmidt being counted on as key contributors? Or " safe " with Juan Pierre at the top of our lineup to get knocked in by such respected veterans such as Nomar Garciaparra, Jeff Kent, and Luis Gonzalez? I hope he didnt think we were safe, because as of now Plan B is sputtering. When do we say it's time for Plan C?

49 Btw, not to invalidate all your points, but there's no way on God's green earth the Dodgers would have brought Milton Bradley back. So while it's too bad the Padres could acquire him for a song (or an Andrew Brown), you can't blame the Dodgers for not. I do agree that the other teams have made all these moves while the Dodgers basically stood pat (so far) except for one trade, but except for Bradley I don't see any of those guys helping those teams very much. If they didn't have some holes to fill they wouldn't have been desperately signing all those players. All the teams in the West are flawed. And frankly, I don't find Bud Black any better of a manager than Grady Little, but that could just be me.

53- Can I get a hint? I'm only getting two hits on scuffled, every time I do it.

58
Hint: at some point in the unspecified future, 53 will show up in your search...thus providing additional "evidence"...

To reiterate my point, Colletti is screwing up not in spite of all the money he has at his disposal, but precisely because of it.

I'm not sure here if you're blaming the money or just Colletti's view of what to do with it. I understand how you got to this conclusion, that there's a pressure to spend money, and that there's then a pressure to play overpriced has-beens.

But really, an owner-GM team with smarts and a little less sensitivity to the Plaschkes of the world could find a way to resist those pressures, and use the money available to build the best team possible.

It's a clever thought, and you might even be right that Colletti DOES think that way (gotta spend on famous guys!), but that's about Colletti (and maybe McCourt), not about any disadvantage inherent to a big budget.

49 - The Padres were behind the Dodgers in the standings until about three days ago. Is there really a night and day difference between the two teams' performances? And are the Padres' starting pitching injuries really comparable to those of the Dodgers? Losing Chris Young for two weeks vs. losing Jason Schmidt for 16 weeks and Randy Wolf for six, etc.?

Again, I'm not trying to argue a pro-Colletti case. But you're not giving the Padres and Arizona nearly the scrutiny you're giving the Dodgers.

Example: Three-fifths of the Padre rotation was Germano, Wells and Maddux, with no depth behind it. And it's not as if two of those guys are kids making the minimum salary. Is that rotation an example of some real genius?

scuffle
intr.v. scuffled, scuffling, scuffles

1. To fight or struggle confusedly at close quarters.

Appropriate for our pitching staff. Interestingly, as a noun a scuffle is a hoe that is manipulated by pushing or pulling:

http://www.bartleby.com/61/imagepages/A4scuffl.html

I wish Colletti would use a scuffle to clear Pierre out of CF and play Ethier there instead.

36. Could it be said that Ned should have been more prepared for the injuries after seeing Depo's 2005 season. Not to mention that Depo was held accountable for that season even if he didn't sleep with Jamie. Ned will not be held to the same standard.

38. I see your point and understand it but doesn't that meant that the Red Sox, Mets and Angels should not be in first place while the Marlins rule the league. I know that's absurd but suggesting that having more options through more resources is a negative, likewise doesn't make sense. The problem is not the resources themselves but when those resources are misused. Ned is misusing the money.

I'm not suggesting anyone here is tauting what a great job Ned is doing. In the end, I had hoped that we at DT were wrong and Ned's approach was correct. That is not the case.

And one thing Colletti has done that strikes me as a smart way of addressing that dynamic is working higher-dollar, shorter-term contracts for the FAs he really wants. Thinking of Furcal and Schmidt.

Obviously, he didn't deploy that strategy on the Pierre contract.

36 While getting Byung probably isn't significant, is he any worse than Proctor over 20 innings? It's seeing that type of resource management from other GMs that's frustrating.

64 is directed at the payroll pressure dynamic discussed in 38 and 60 and others, if that's not clear.

38 45 - Great comment, Canuck. I wonder if the big spending is more a result of baseball team-building philosophy or of PR concerns.

Considering all the early flak McCourt got from the press about his lack of finances (which turned out to be false, by the way), I think the PR aspect of expensive FA signings is a big factor.

I believe Dodger fans are more supportive of home-grown teams than other fans. If McCourt believes that fans demand a big payroll, I think he's wrong. Player development has been the Dodger trademark even as free agency changed the way other teams are built. Besides, free agent signings have rarely worked out well for the Dodgers.

Maybe the fans have changed over the years. I'm a product of the 70's infield, Fernando, Orel, Piazza, etc. so I see things through that prism, but I still think goi