The Padres are my pick to make it to the World Series with Young, Peavy, Maddux in a short series.

A lot of that depends on Young's health, but the Padres have more than enough offense now with Bradley, Ensberg, added to the rest of their core.

With the Rockies improvement (Holiday, Hawpe, Helton, Tulowitski, Atkins) can all hammer the ball: The Dodgers are going to need to improve themselves in the off-season or 4th place might be in the offing for next year too.

I speculate what a difference it made in the playoff race for the Dodgers when Greg Maddux went from Los Angeles to San Diego

Next up: Jon speculates what a difference it made in the playoff race for the Dodgers when David Wells went from San Diego to Los Angeles.

I always wondered that myself: Why didn't NedCo get Maddux to re-sign?

Here on DT folks have said to me that it has to do with NedCo's ongoing vendetta on Scott Boras. While admirable (on principle), this seems to have gotten in the way of a potentially solid 1/5 of the rotation. Ah well.

Bear in mind though, not signing Maddux may have helped instill Chad Billingsley into the rotation, but I honestly wouldn't know.

2 ---

The Padres should have just made Wells rest for three weeks instead of cutting him loose. ;)

--------------------------------------

I don't know if I'll get around to the defensive survey, but if I do I know I'll be raving about Furcal's arm.

2 - I guess you didn't read to the end ...

I don't think it was completely unreasonable to conclude prior to the 2007 season that Maddux wouldn't be worth $10 million in 2007. For one thing, the guy seemed to top out at around 6 innings and 80 pitches.

5
Guess correctly you did.

6 - Sure, but it depends on what you mean by "worth" and what you planned to do with the $10 million.

It really is a long shot to consider the Dodgers for a WC spot. Whoever did that study (maybe it was Jon) that suggested "overcoming even a TWO game deficit with two months to go is a reach" has a point.

So yes, like many here on DT, what was the use of getting all these Radio Shack parts in a desperate attempt to nab that spot? To placate the veterans? I think the best thing for the team to do right now is give every game their best shot and not worry about the other teams.

Somehow, I get the feeling that keeping San Diego from having Maddux was probably more valuable than actually having him on the Dodgers.

The other issue with Maddux and the Padres is that as good as the Padres' bullpen has been, there are 2 reasons why the Padres are not leading the West, one is their inconsistent offense, the second is that they constantly have to go their pen and that their relievers outside of Bell and Hoffman have been very inconsistent.

Some get tired of Charley Steiner bringing up this stat but lets compare the Padres, D-Backs and Dodgers on their record when they lead after 6 innings.

Dodgers 54-3
D-Backs 52-6
Padres 48-11

To put San Diego's record in perspective, the Royals and the Pirates are 45-8 and 44-8, respectively when they lead after 6 innings.

"..like many here have said," I meant to say

Sure, but it depends on what you mean by "worth" and what you planned to do with the $10 million

Agreed. I'm not saying Wolf and Hendrickson have proven a better use of the money, as they clearly haven't. I'm just distinguishing between "Should we spend $10 million on Maddux or on Wolf/Hendrickson" and "Should we resign Maddux for $10 million?"

10 million for Maddux? Feh!

I think that money would be better spend cloning Kyle Blair nine times and then signing all 10 Kyle Blairs. That would give the Dodgers some amazing minor league pitching depth, as well as unparalleled depth in Kyle Blairs.

"Well, well, well," says Boras, cackling and looking over at Stillwell, enjoying a moment of what might be considered payback. "J.D. Drew would've caught that ball," he says confidently, leaving no doubt that he has not forgotten the off-season controversy. "You just don't let Greg Maddux leave your building, and you sign J.D. Drew," he says.
--

Let's kick it up a notch. Would we have been better off with Maddux and Drew vs Pierre and Wolf/Hendu

1 Morgan Ensberg? He hasn't played in a week and after his first game, hasn't done much at all to show that Houston made a mistake by releasing him.

San Diego needs to take 3 out of 4 against the D-Backs because winning the division gives them their best chance to advance, so they will need to play as many game as possible at Petco.

Playing at Petco is a problem for San Diego because while they pitch much better at home (see Young and Maddux), their offense, which isn't great to begin with, really suffers at home.

Hindsight is 20/20 and I would rather have Maddux over Wolf & Hendrickson & Tomko, but I do wonder how Maddux would have pitched if he wasn't in that large canyon in SD. He has a 3.28 ERA at home, but 4.50 on the road. Something to ponder...

10 Somehow, I get the feeling that keeping San Diego from having Maddux was probably more valuable than actually having him on the Dodgers

Yes but we had to use some of that money to make sure the Giants didn't get Juan Pierre. Oh wait I forgot I'm on the positive vibes for Juan Pierre train. ummmm....Juan Pierre has an .379 OBP in August! Go Pierre!

I dont really see an advantage in being either the Wild Card team or winning the division, especially since its not as if the Mets are a juggernaut.

THe Padres home/away records are nearly identical also.

16 - Would you take a 4.50 ERA in the starting rotation slot that Wolf started the season with?

I wasn't on this in March, either, probably because I wouldn't have wanted to give Maddux two years. I think that's the argument against signing him. I think in a straight-up comparison with Randy Wolf, if it were one-year contracts, I would have wanted Maddux. I did argue from the get-go that Hendrickson should have been non-tendered.

It seems the dodgers are being awful quiet on Nomar. Is there any news regarding him at all? I wasn't around much this weekend. And gosh, Kent is a man. I didn't see that until seeing highlights and wow, crazy. Any news on him at all?

20 - There was news over the weekend saying that Nomar couldn't run at full strength.

14 If VORP is supposed to be an objective measurement, Juan Pierre's 9.7 is not great but its a lot better than J.D. Drew's 5.5.

Also, while Drew has a higher OPS than Pierre(though at .756, its the lowest of his career), he trails Ethier, Kemp and Gonzalez.

18 I think the advantage would be in playing the winner of NL Central since all the teams vying for it are around .500.

Fans of attractive female tennis players might want to check out Julia Goerges, Justine Henin's opponent on USA network right now.

20 Grady said that he thinks Kent could play tonight, we shall see.

3 Because signing a homer prone, 41 year old who doesn't strike anyone out for likely at least two years would be a questionable decision at best.

PETCO and the Padres defense are keeping Maddux's numbers reasonable. If you put that many balls in play for the Dodgers, things would look much worse.

10 . keeping San Diego from having Maddux was probably more valuable than actually having him on the Dodgers.

If the Dodgers do not feel he is worth 10 million with our payroll, then SD spending that much on him with their limited financial considerations can only be looked at as a win for us. The only real question is did the Dodgers undervalue Maddux or more aptly, did we waste the "Maddux" money on non-impact players.

20 The LA Times also mentioned that he won't be activated until the first week in September at the earliest.

26 - Correct me if I'm wrong, but offering arbitration to Maddux would've resulted in only a one-year deal, or draft picks should he have refused the offer.

29 This is true, but after the year he had he probably would have gotten 12 million in arbitration.

Considering how the off season turned out, I might say this would have been a good idea, but it's debatable.

Did Wolf/Hendrickson have a greater 1yr upside than Greg Maddux?

Doubtful.

A better thing idea have been to spend the 10mils on someone better than all 3.

31 Hendrickson didn't, but I don't see why Wolf wouldn't.

The only thing Maddux can do is throw strikes. Without the park and defense behind him, he's nothing.

OK, here comes the part where I defend the nincompoop who runs this team. A two-year deal for a 41-year old pitcher is freaking nuts. The fact that Maddux pitched decently during the first year does not change that.

I was glad Colletti didn't offer him a two-year deal and I still am, even though he's pitched better than I thought he would. I do think we should have offered him arbitration. Although, wasn't that a timing issue? -- i.e., by the time Maddux decided whether to accept or reject arb, the fallback options like Wolf might have already been scooped up by other teams.

31 Gil Meche, Jason Marquis, Jeff Suppan, not a lot of choices and those guys got multi-year deals.

The owners and the players by having labor peace and high revenues may have created a market that actually results in players staying with their teams rather than test the market. Sure you will see the A-Rods and Andruw Jones go out to see what is available but you are also going to be left with some pretty mediorce players getting lots of one-year deals.

Player development will be key as well as the Rule V draft. I think as teams realize that the days of getting the big free agent becomes a less likely avenue to improve your team, it is more likely they will go for one-year deals and looking more internal than external for improving and maintaining their ball clubs.

I don't have a problem with having not signed Maddux. Sure, now that we know what we know, I wish we'd have signed him. But who knew that both Schmidt and Guo would be out for almost all of the year and that Wolf who was a decent gamble on a 5th starter spot would also go down. We had plenty of starting pitching depth going into the season. Penny, Lowe, Schmidt, Guo, Wolf, Billingsley with Tomko/Hendrickson/Houlton ready for emergency service. We just had some terrible luck with injuries. Sure, you can argue that we shouldn't have such a reliance on pitchers with past injury problems... but we did, and most teams do.
Oh well... I point most of my ire at what was going on during the season with the positional players, but that horse has been kicked around a few times.
vr, Xei

32 Yeah, the defense thing is a big point. Maddux strikes nobody out and relies entirely on his defense. If he were on the Dodgers this year and pitched exactly the same way, his ERA would be 4.60 and people would be complaining about him instead of clamoring for him.

We just had some terrible luck with injuries

The word "terrible" seems extreme to me. It's not as if the injury problems of Guo and Wolf came out of nowhere. Plus, Schmidt is not primavera poultry.

34 The Rule 5 draft has been rendered completely irrelevant by the extra year of protection afforded by the new CBA. They might as well eliminate the thing; nobody will ever get a meaningful player from it again.

I don't think we've had terrible luck with injuries, except for Nomar. For most of the year, the team would have been helped immensely if he'd gotten hurt, and he didn't. Then at the one time when an injury would actually hurt the team, he gets hurt.

I don't think SD makes the playoffs much less the World Series.

I'm quite happy that they are the team we are chasing, not that I'm sold on our team but SD is a team we can chase down.

Losing Schmidt, Guo and Wolf to injuries is atleast "terrible", if not "terrible luck".
Semantics. :)
vr, Xei

Thanks for the updates guys.

37 "Plus, Schmidt is not primavera poultry."

Why did that make me hungry?

I agree with the earlier post that we would be better off spending $10 million on 10 Kyle Blairs. We have too many aging vets as it is.

I am now seeing this season as one where we are both too old, and too young to win. But then again, I think in two years we may have a great young team that will make us a top team for years to come.

BaseballProspectus disagrees with 40 .

Playoff Odds Report (which are actually playoff probabilities, but who's counting...)

Mets: 97%
Diamondbacks: 71%
Padres: 59%
Brewers: 26%
Dodgers: 23%

OT, don't forget there is a total eclipse of the moon after midnight. vr, Xei
Aug 28th
Partial eclipse begins @ 1:51am
Total eclipse begins @ 2:52am
Total eclipse ends @ 4:23am
Partial eclipse end @ 5:24am

44. If only we could have 10 first round draft picks. vr, Xei

When considering injuries another one that has to be taken into account is Elbert's injury. Had he not been injured this year there is an extremely good chance that he would have been pitching for the major league club right now. If we were sporting a rotation of Penny, Lowe, Bills, Elbert and Stults who wouldn't be more comfortable?

45
A little 7 game winning streak would do wonders to those numbers.

If we had ten Kyle Blairs, would they all wear the same number? Or do we consider them independent and wholly individual Kyle Blairs.

If the latter, what do we do about the names on the jerseys? Roman numerals?

I have to disagree with the assessment of Maddux this year.

Yes, he has a very low K rate. He also has, by far, the lowest walk rate in the league among qualified pitchers.

Hardballtimes.com has him at 1.2 walks per game. The next best qualified NL pitchers are at 2.1 walks per game.

Maddux is allowing a 0.294 batting average on balls in play. This is pretty average, isn't it? Penny is allowing a 0.289 BABIP, in comparison. I find it hard to believe that in front of the Dodger defense Maddux would be that much worse. If the Padre defense was saving Maddux all the time wouldn't his BABIP be lower?

Maddux's FIP, according to hardballtimes.com, is 3.53. That number relies only on his walk, K, and home run rates, of course. His excellent home run rate is surely helped by Petco park --- though to be sure he's allowed 4 home runs on the road, 7 at home. Strange, eh?

Maddux does have better K and walk rates at Petco, but I'm not sure I can buy into the argument that his good year is a creation of Petco and good defense. I think it's more a creation of excellent walk and home run rates, with a bit of Petco thrown in.

I will say I don't have a problem with the Dodgers not wanting to sign him for two years.

49
It's true. They can change quite dramatically even from day to day. Course, the current numbers presumably account for the likelihood of little 7 game winning streaks...

46 I'd love to get some pictures of it, but it's super late. There's supposed to be another one in February that reaches total eclipse at a much happier hour... I think at around 11pm-ish.

It looked like Maddux had quite a bit left in the tank when he posted a 139 ERA+ for the Dodgers in 73.7 innings last year. A two year contract wouldn't have been ideal, but I think that Maddux at 41 was a safer bet than Randy Wolf (coming off injury and not having exactly set the world on fire the previous 4 seasons).

Thanks for the ballot Jon, I did a quick assessment but I think I was correct on some & maybe a little harsh on others, I'm a little surprised on how my Loney chart came out but I did give him a high grade on the "hands / catching" category

50. I think the best way to handle it, instead of having 10 wholly independent Kyle Blair's, would be to setup an array of Kyle Blair's. vr, Xei

45

The problem with those numbers is they underestimate the Diamondbacks. I've spent all year underestimating that team, and I won't do it anymore. The Snakes have a horrible third order winning percentage, which is what BP uses. As well they should, usually. But the Snakes are better than theirs. They just are. Ooh, I hate them and their bizarre alchemy. So they really have a better than 71% chance of making the playoffs.

--------------------------------

Now, about this ten Kyle Blairs thing:

1) When you draft a player, you also get the rights to his clones, to the Dodgers need to use only one pick to get all 10 Blairs.

2) Cloned players have to wear the same number, but they are different versions. So say Blair was number 80. Then the real Blair is number 80.0. He's the prototype. The clones are then 80.1, 80.2, up to 80.9. See, this is why you have to stop at 9 clones. Because 80.10 would just look dumb.

3) Of course, the Dodgers failed to sign even one Kyle Blair, so he and his clones are off to college, where I'm sure they will be involved in lots of mistaken identity hijinks. It will be like the Parent Trap crossed with Animal House ... the Animal Trap, or something.

19

that's what it comes down to, great point Jon.

54 ERA is not a good way to evaluate pitchers. He still had a terrible strikeout rate and not a sterling home run rate. He would have been very mediocre if not for the .263 BABIP.

Of course, the best thing about having 10 Kyle Blairs is they could naturally do that creepy simultaneous pivot thing from the Tom Emanski Baseball drills commercial.

57 - "1) When you draft a player, you also get the rights to his clones."

I can't believe Donald Fehr let this one get past him.

I remember wondering aloud here why the Dodgers were so happy to sign Wolf and punt so quickly on Maddux. In hindsight, offering Maddux arbitration now appears to be a no-brainer. I don't think he would've received $12 million (even if he did, it probably would've been worth it), and more likely, he and the Dodgers would've come to some sort of agreement on a one-year deal.

But all this was right around when the "he-wants-to-be-a-Dodger" formulation was taking hold in Colletti's brain. Hence Wolf.

http://tinyurl.com/2ro8fa

Ken Gurnick at MLB.com:

"This specific management team has been in place less than two years, and that's too soon to judge, especially when the team made the playoffs in the first year and is still alive in the second. This management team is trying to overcome the mistakes of those past errors and are saddled with some problems that aren't its fault."

I think this snippet eats itself alive.

63 Well that's a terrifying case of Deja Vu.

63 yeeesh I wish I hadn't of read that. I waas feeling so serene.

"Mistakes of those past errors." Mistakes of errors.

Um, yeah.

Dear me, Timmermann would make hay out of Gurnick's words there, wouldn't he?

Bob? Bob?

"This management team is trying to overcome the mistakes of those past errors..." = "This management team is trying to overcome success..."

I think this is the part where gpellamjr tries to tell us that "the management team are saddled with problems that aren't its fault" is correct grammar.

I'm looking at Gurnick's list of pending Dodger FAs. The team is gonna be in a position to cut a lot of dead weight from the roster next season:

Gonzalez
Hillenbrand
Kent
Lieberthal
Martinez
Saenz
Sweeney
Hernandez
Seanez
Wells
Wolf

Unfortunately, that list is heavy in PVL, so Colletti might not be able to resist hanging out to more than a few of them.

70 hanging out = hanging on

Problems that Ned is dealing with from the past regimes:

Odalis Perez
Drew opting out (not really)
Drafting Justin Orenduff instead of someone else?
Ummmm.....

Really, thanks to massive roster turnover this is almost entirely Ned's team.

The team of scientists assigned to the Blair cloning project has finished its task, but encountered some unexpected glitches along the way. The Dodgers are now the proud owners of 10 minor leaguers who look like Tony Blair but pitch like Linda Blair.

If they've been saddled with problems that weren't their faults, they've also been bridled with assets that weren't in their credit bank either. They need to build on the successes of their past triumphs.

I guess you can add 1.3 million to Cruz and Gagne if you want.

70 So we get to replace all that dead weight with deader weight. Whooooeeee!

I'll run out and buy my World Series tickets right away.

73 ---

Well, at least he'll be good at holding on runners.

73 Linda Blair -- now THERE'S a hurler.

70 Also, and I guess I'm going to have to keep saying this until I'm blue in the face, Jeff Kent will not, repeat NOT, be a free agent this offseason. We're stuck with him, boys.

79 Plus, it would probably be really dumb to let Wolf go, since he's about the third best pitcher available.

79 Tell it to Ken Gurnick. Did Kent's guaranteed option vest already?

Other Dodgers who won't be free agents this offseason include (but are not limited to):

Juan Pierre
Nomar Garciaparra

81 It didn't vest yet. But unless he has a season-ending injury, it will.

Also on Dodgers.com, this quote from Little on Wells.

"I don't know everything he has in his belly, but he has a lot of competitive spirit in there."

68 The Gurnick comment on Colletti is almost Rumsfeld-like. Didn't he coin the term "catastrophic success?"

70 Sorry to sound stupid, but what's PVL?

Okay, of those potential castaways, I'd be surprised if they didn't resign at least a couple of them. Here's what I'd want:

Gonzalez - I'm probably in the minority here but I could see resigning Gonzo IF (and only IF) he was fine with being/the Dodgers promise that he'll be a fourth outfielder. Depth to the bench, he can be a good pinch hitter and role player. On the other hand, I'd be happy if they just gave Delwyn Young the chance.
Hillenbrand - gone
Kent - see 79
Lieberthal - fine bringing him back as the backup if he is fine with only playing 5-10% of the time. Don't see a lot of good options for the Dodgers in the minors
Martinez - can replace with Abreu/Young/whoever
Saenz - good bless him, but time to hang 'em up Tomato
Sweeney - gone (though he is a solid pinch hitter)
Hernandez - for the love of God, gone
Seanez - gone
Wells - gone
Wolf - ?

82 I will depart from grouchy mode to name a few other Dodgers who won't be free agents this offseason:

Russell Martin
Andre Ethier
Matt Kemp
Brad Penny
Derek Lowe
James Loney
Andy LaRoche
Tony Abreu
Chad Billingsley
Jonathan Broxton
Takashi Saito

There, I feel better now.

81 84 more PA. I just added an option watch to the True Blue LA sidebar.

Sorry to sound stupid, but what's PVL?

Proven Veteran Leadership, of course.