Thanks for the late post, Jon.

I used to work with Paul O, and he's a real pro. Not the type to write this unless it really stood out, FWIW.

1 - Paul was one of the few people in the local press willing to give DePo a fair shake, so even though he didn't mention DePo by name, I wondered whether this was an attempt at a blow for fairness. But I agree, I don't recall seeing him exaggerate details for effect in print.

I've often thought the LAT should have put Paul in Plaschke's spot.

It's late; maybe I'm already dreaming.

Last time I checked, the Dodgers had one Japanese speaking player and three players originally from Taiwan, though only one on the active roster, so if they are speaking their native tongue, I am not sure who they are talking with.

I think the vast majority of the players speak English, in fact I don't think there is a big Spanish speaking component on the team.

Now could there be some disagreement over playing time and both veterans and young kids siding with each other on the team, sure, why wouldn't 23-24 year olds hang out with each other then with the older guys on the team.

Of the regular players, there are three types, young players in their first and second years and seasoned veterans who have just passed their first free agent period and older players, who have really good career numbers but are on the back side of their careers.

The biggest dynamic is going to be between the first and third groups, especially as these older guys have memories of biding their time and how they watched and learned how to major league players from those who were there before them while the younger players just want to play now, these kids who have been built up as the future of the club, so in their minds, the future is now.

But in the end, they don't get paid to go out to lunch together, they get paid to play baseball so you can write a piece with no named sources only observations from the limited time this writer spent in the clubhouse and claim there is no chemistry but I just think what you saw is what you would expect of the makeup of this roster.

I rather enjoy the fact that the kids are disappointed with their current situation in the standings.

I like thinking that Matt Kemp is angry with his two day line-up snuff.

I'm OK with James Loney's big head. I don't mind if Ethier is cocky.

If they are winners, and are upset with anything less -- What else could you ask for?

Gonzo and Nomar may have winning smiles, but the last thing I want to see from a Dodger team is a bunch of grinning losers. I'll take a winning swagger, however intimidating, any day.

As for this chemistry issue, I think these kids will keep each other in check for years to come. I have seen pictures of Loney and Kemp and Martin on the town, and my guess is that the young guys who came up through the system together are probably very fond of each other.

I think tension between the rookies and the veterans is understandable, especially on a team where, one could argue, 8 of the 9 spots could be filled everyday by someone 25 or younger -- The comments made by Gonzo recently are filled with this tension.

The journey into obsolescence is not a happy one I'd imagine.

4 My point on the Asian languages is this, if this team is suffering because Takeshi Saito can't have beers with his teammates then I can see a problem. Also I don't see Tsao, Kuo and especially Hu raising any issues about chemistry.

And really, the people he would be referring to, all speak English, of the key players on the team, only Furcal, who does speak English well enough to do post-game interviews on the radio. The other Spanish speakers are primarily relievers (aside from maybe Loiaza) and maybe some guys on the bench.

Could it be that two of the more visible players, Luis Gonzalez and Nomar Garciaparra voice their thoughts about this more freely with the media, that's possible, they should have a pretty good idea at this stage of their careers of how to work the media.

Anyways, maybe I am too sensitive about the language issue but I thought that was a not a correct reason for this perceived discord.

4 - I don't judge the Dodgers for having bad chemistry. I just don't like the idea that Colletti keeps getting sold - and, I believe, done a little bit of selling himself - as a chemistry guy, as a way to justify his moves, when it isn't really justifiable for a couple of reasons. The chemistry isn't there, and it wouldn't matter much if it were.

If Paul had written the Dodgers have bad chemistry and that's why they're losing, that would have bothered me. Certainly, if he has made the whole thing up, that would bother me for different reasons. But if ultimately what his article does is cripple Colletti's chemistry credentials, I'm for it.

I expect that the Dodgers will deny this, though.

I'm wouldn't assume that the writer hasn't spent much time in the clubhouse. If you're getting that from his "you only need to spend a few hours" line, I read that only to mean it's an obvious situation.

Anyway, g'night all.

For what it's worth, there was this: "Ask people who spend time with them on a daily basis."

7 But I do think his point is that a team should pull for each other, get along, enjoy each other and the game and if they don't they shouldn't succeed.

And unless he feels that Wilson Betemit was the lynchpin that held the clubhouse together, the last "clubhouse churning trade" I can think of is the Lo Duca deal so I don't why he inserted that little phrase in his piece.

What stands out to me is the lack of confidence in management. That does not bode well for the free agent market. You know that all the guys on the team have friends and former teammates in other organizations who will give them a call when they are looking for a new home. One wonders if the answer would be, "California is great, but if you're looking for a job look at Anaheim or San Diego." It also indicates that the guys may be too interested in looking at other locations when their contracts come up.

As far as chemistry goes, I think it works both ways, but mainly in baseball (really an individual sport played in a team environment) it is meaningless.

Ethier's and Gonzo's comments over the last few days help validate the article, at least as I interpret them.

In Bill Shaikin's lineup article, he mentions "This makes for an intriguing clubhouse dynamic." Throwaway comment or a hint of trouble? Either way, I have a feeling Gonzo's presence is at least partly responsible for some clubhouse troubles (though I believe the current record is easily the biggest factor).

If he wants to make it old guys vs. young guys, fine.

If certain outfielders and third base rotaters are frustrated by the daily roulette wheel of seeing if they are in the line up, so be it.

And I would say that I could sense this in my living room without ever stepping into the clubhouse.

And I could also imagine that there are not a lot of fun guys to get quotes from on thise team which makes it even less fun to be around. Probably the only person the writers like to deal with is Grady.

Does all of this shape perception? Yes it does. Should it cause them to win or lose a game? No it should not.

Which free agent didn't get a fair shot this season, Luis Gonzalez?

Free agents will come to the team for one reason, money. Occasionally, they may want to live somewhere but that is rarely an issue. How management perceives to treat players is not something that enters the equation.

Again, I think the lack of respect for management (which is a pretty strong statement) is something to come from outside sources (think agents) than from any player directly.

Oberjuerge's main beef seems to be that the Dodgers lack a single, definable veteran leader who brings the team together. That's probably true. Nomar is reserved to the point of aloofness. Kent hates everybody and everything. Gonzalez, while he has the reputation of being a nice guy to reporters, has always struck me as something of a snake. He seems to dislike younger players and has made veiled comments to that effect both when he was with Arizona and here.

Martin has the personality and performance to be a leader, but I would imagine some of the old guys find it hard to look up to a guy who's been around for a year and a half as a team leader.

The ethnic divides, the language barrier, that stuff goes on in every major league clubhouse and I don't see the Dodgers being any different. Basically every major league clubhouse is divided into cliques along ethnic and linguistic lines. If anything, the Dodgers are probably less cliquish than most because they have biracial guys like Ethier and Martin.

Ok, I've been thinking about it, there are only a couple of places I can think of where chemistry might matter in baseball.

1. Turning the double play

2. calling for a ball in play

The double play is really about the second baseman and short stop being on the same page.

But calling off another fielder to make a play does matter. Say the right fielder doesn't trust the center fielder's range, route, or throwing ability on a fly ball to right-center. Traditionally, the center fielder has the right of way when it comes to making these plays. But there's a runner on second and the right fielder has a gun (as opposed to our hypothetical noodle-armed center fielder), so he doesn't yield to the center fielder. Lots of bad things could happen (outfield collision, dropped ball for a hit, errors, etc).

It might just be a selective memory, but I do recall seeing a few too many plays recently where there seemed to be some miscommunication between guys as to who was going to make the play on a ball.

Still, I can't be surprised that young talented guys are frustrated by being blocked. And guys who have borderline hall of fame credentials are frustrated by having to share time.

11 I don't have too much faith in that comment since it contains both the words "might" and "perhaps".

10 I think the phrase was used primarily as a comment about Ned's frequent transactions. A player isn't in the uniform very long, as the whole line was "They wear the same uniform. (At least until the next clubhouse-churning trade.)" Nonetheless...

Betemit and Furcal were good friends from their Atlanta days. It's possible that his trade alienated Furcal.

And while they weren't trades per se, the Wells and Loaiza acquisitions probably didn't make the Born in '79 gang too happy (Stults, Houlton, and Hull).

But put it all together, and numerous players currently on the team were members of other major league teams one or two months ago (Wells, Loaiza, Sweeney, Hillenbrand, Hernandez, Procotr). None of those guys are likely well established members of the club house, and each one took another player's roster spot. Certainly "clubhouse churning trade" doesn't seem correct, but Ned's overzealous tinkering probably hasn't helped.

10 - I think I see what you're saying, now. I didn't read the ending to the column carefully enough.

14 - if that was directed at my comment, I'm not saying that guys pick where they play based on where they want to live. But I can bet that it gets factored into the equation - if you're going to get 10 mil a year and you're choices are LA, Kansas City, and Cleveland? More of what I mean is that these guys talk to each other, and you can bet when a free agent narrows the list down to three or four teams, he's going to talk to guys that he knows on those teams to find out what it's really like. Kind of like when you are looking for a new job and you call a friend's girlfriend who works at a place that's hiring to find out what it's really like.

16 I think chemistry matters in the sense that a happy worker is a more productive worker. This is true in every profession, baseball presumably included. However, that only brings us back to the "winning breeds chemistry" philosophy, which I think is absolutely true. We wouldn't be reading this article if the Dodgers were 4.5 games ahead rather than 4.5 behind.

If there is actually a big rift in the clubhouse, I'm guessing it'd be between the very young players and the very old ones. The former group could be (justifiably) peeved at not getting enough playing time and not being trusted, while the latter group is probably, like all aging athletes, having trouble accepting the fact that they're not as good as they used to be.

Its not suprising that the club house lacks chemestry. Look at some of these folks

Kent. Surley just because.
LuGo. Unhappy about playing time.
Nomar. Same.
Pierre. Under performing and bla,ed for Global Warming.
LaRoche. Made about being sent down two months ago.
Furcal. Career lows in everything.
Abrau. Service Time/injury grudge.
Ethier. Has to put up with Gonzo in his way.
Kemp. Has to put up with Gonzo in his way.
DJ Hulton. His starts went to Wells and Loaiza
Stultz. See above.
Hull. See above.
Hendrickson. See above and thinks he should start.
Broxton. Rough patch.
Tomato. Career over.
R. Sanez. See Tomato
R. Hernandez. Wants career to be over.

Unless you are named Russell or James why would you be happy.

"Unless you are named Russell or James why would you be happy."

Or Sammy?

18 His friendship with Wilson didn't make him re-up with Atlanta when the Dodgers gave him 39 million dollars to play here. If Stults, et. al. are making a stink about their pitching opportunities, I think the Dodgers can survive that.

15 Funny how A-Rod has an MVP type year and no one is asking him about his relationship with Derek Jeter.

22. Wow that was some seriously bad spelling and more than a few typos. Sorry.

Not only is Colletti not a chemistry guy, he's responsible for the most noted point of tension on the team, that being Gonzo's playing time. Gonzalez would have been happy to re-sign with Arizona but they told him he would not be an every day player. He came to L.A. because he thought he would be the every day left fielder. When Colletti signed Gonzo I took that to mean that Ned didn't think Kemp was ready. But Kemp made the team. I'd rather see Kemp and Ethier every day but I also think Gonzo has a legitimate complaint. Basically, Colletti lied to him. Not much of a character guy. It's been discussed before but Colletti is just too cautious. This is evidenced by other moves as well. Having a backup plan is nice but sometimes a backup plan is just a straightjacket.

Bad chemestry? What about all the cute little stories on Dodgers.com. Why just yesterday Lugo brought in his human calculator friend. Surely that lifted everyone's spirits.

21 - this is entirely personal experience, but... I played team sports most of my life, even spent a few years coaching them (mainly water polo on both points). I've been on and around teams that had horrid chemistry that still managed to play fairly well together. I've also been around teams that got along great that simply didn't work out in the pool. As an example, I saw a team where there were literal fights in the locker room that ended up one goal away from winning a title.

My point is only that winning breeds chemistry only to a point, if guys don't like each other, it won't matter. And I think in other sports chemistry can breed winning in one regard - if guys get along they may spend a little extra time training together, and thus learning from each other. So maybe a lack of chatter around the batting cage could be hurting the Bums - but what do I know, I'm just a guy who gets to one or two games a year.

I think Ned just needs to understand that this isn't fantasy baseball, and he can't just focus on the numbers.

The club has never been stable in recent years. If I'm not mistaken, the longest tenured Dodger is Olmedo Saenz (2004).

All this tension and lack of chemistry (oh how I hate using that word to describe non-physicial science events) stems from the fact that this is a transition year that's also trying to be a contender. There are too many bodies in the clubhouse, too many platoons and 1-2year bridge deals. I remember reading somewhere that Kent/Gonzo et. al. resented the fact that the management didn't move the kids in a blockbuster trade that could boost their playoff chances.

On an semi-unrelated note, Gonzo seems to be a very entertaining/'nice' but passive aggressive fellow. Almost like a teenage girl. And Loaiza comes off as very standoffish and sour-grapey.

26. Colletti didn't lie to him. LuGo lost the job. Kemp and Ethier have earned the right to play most days. Lugo looked good the first third of the season and deserved his playing time but since then he has been marginal. He knew or should have known there were two very talented OFs waiting in the wings. He had no reasonable expection to believe he would play everyday if he was not the best player, even if Ned promised him a rose garden.

Assuming the story is accurate, the other irony is I think Ned has caused a lot of the bad chemestry. Imagine if you are DJ, Stultz or Hull. You think you are going to get your shot and Ned goes out and gets a fat 43 year old and broken Loaiza. I'd be bitter too.

When reading the article, only one name came to my head - Gonzo. He's the guy losing the most playing time to younger guys and also has enough of a track record to feel slighted at even the mention of "part-time player".

I don't necessarily blame Ned for his signing though, considering not only was Kemp still questionable in his ability to contribute at the major-league level but Ethier was coming off a poor September that only solidified the claims that he was only a 4th outfielder. The fact that both players proved to be ready should be a good problem to have - and will be for the upcoming years. It's not like this current roster was the last chance for the Dodgers to make the World Series, so I'm okay with having a little poor chemistry for now since I figure it will be better in the future now that more players will have defined roles.

30 That's pretty close to what I was trying to say here. While Gonzo seems like a personable guy, you can just sense the arrogance in his comments where he feels like he should play every day even though the numbers prove otherwise.

26 "I'd rather see Kemp and Ethier every day but I also think Gonzo has a legitimate complaint. Basically, Colletti lied to him."

I don't think any baseball contract (save perhaps that of Juan Pierre) comes with a guarantee that you'll keep an everyday job indefinitely regardless of your performance. Gonzo was handed the starting job. He held onto it for a while; then his performance became so bad that he lost the job. Even after that, he still got more starts than a player of his caliber merited. I think Gonzalez got more than a fair shake from Colletti, and I don't buy the notion that he was lied to.

It was clear a year ago, when Gonzalez spoke out against losing playing time in Arizona, that there was going to be a potential problem with him in Los Angeles. But he sure is nice to the press.

One of my pet peeves with the media is their constant extrapolation of a player's personality based on their own interactions with him. Luis Gonzalez is a nice guy to reporters; therefore, he's a nice guy to everybody. Barry Bonds is a jerk to reporters; therefore, he's a jerk to everybody. (OK, that one might actually be true.)

It's a reaction of human nature -- judging the whole of something based solely on the small portion you know about -- but the vehemence and certainty with which their judgments get handed down is kind of annoying.

32. The problem I have with Ganzo complaining is that he knew there were two semi-ready guys here and that it was a possibility that his playing time would get cut if they stepped up or he faltered. None of this should come as a suprise to him. Maybe he really believes JP should sit and Kemp should play center and Ethier RF :-p

I give Gonzo a lot of credit for his off the field commitments. He apparently gives away a ton of money and has really extended himself to the AZ community. But none of that should effect playing time.

So what the Dodgers really need, when it all comes down to it, is some much improved Gonzo journalism. Where is Hunter Thompson when we need him?

Fear, Loathing, Las Vegas: The Story of the 2007 Dodgers.

37 He can complain all he wants, but I doubt it affects the team as a whole. I hope Ned at least semi-foresaw this being a problem if he truly wants a harmonious clubhouse though.

I'm curious as to which Dodger players are speaking Cantonese in the clubhouse. I could see Mandarin or Taiwanese, but am curious as to who is speaking Cantonese.
vr, Xei

Regarding Jim Tracy losing to the Padres on purpose:

The irony is that his team would probably have a better chance of winning if he did try to lose. No more bunting, no more Ja(y)son Phillipses, etc.

The Dodgers's Prospectus playoff probability took a huge hit with yesterday's loss. Their 15.9% drop is the largest one-day change I've seen thus far.

In other news, it looks like the racists are after OJ again. The longer he stays in custody, the longer his search for The Real Killer™ gets delayed.

Dodgers lost to D-Backs 1-6, odds of making the playoffs down 12.3% to 11.8%
Today's Big Games
Games the Dodgers care about today.

Sports Club Stats dot com slash, has the Dodgers chances of making the playoffs down from 24.1% to 11.8%. They must have a slightly different methodology than BP. Today's games that effect the odds are...
vr, Xei

Monday 9/17
Padres -2.3 Pirates 2.3
Cardinals 1.1 Phillies -1.1
D-Backs -1.0 Giants 0.8

Chemistry is a three game winning streak away. Let's check back on Wednesday.

I'm not a pro-chemistry person--I guess I fall in line with most DT posters in that winning breeds chemistry. 70's A's and Yankees are pretty good examples.

But I also agree that if you're going to talk chemistry Colletti's gotten a huge pass. Having lived in the Bay Area for some time, I observed that Jeff Kent is a negative for team chemistry. I don't think Nomar is a bonus on this front either, nor is Wells.

It is debatable as to whether Ned is better than Depo as a GM (I think each has separate strengths and weaknesses), but Ned certainly is a better spinmeister and politician.

I don't fault Ned for signing LuGo to a low-risk short term deal, but if I gave a hoot about chemistry I might.

So I'm guessing that no one has made it through the second article about the borough of Brooklyn.

It's very interesting, although it is relatively lengthy. But I found it to be an interesting look at what Brooklyn is today, what people THOUGHT it was like in he past, and what it TRULY was in the past.

Diamond Leung seems to be disputing this "bad chemistry" article in his blog today.

http://www.beloblog.com/Pe_Blogs/baseball/dodgers/

Free agents will come to the team for one reason, money.

I agree.
But I remember one of the reasons given for DePo's firing, was that McCourt wanted "credibility" back. The critics said that free agents wouldnt sign with the Dodgers after the 2005 season unless a GM change took place. That was such ridiculousness.

Ironic how the bad chemistry articles are written about the Dodgers, and not the Padres---given how the "Milton Bradley will ruin the Padres clubhouse" vibe was sent out prior.

I don't want to interrupt Chemistry Thoughts, but the Sam Anderson piece is worth a comment. It's an outstanding article, even though he still dips into sentimentality while he's trying to rip into the legend of the Heart and Soul™ of Old Brooklyn. I rode my bike around Crown Heights earlier this summer, and tried to get a sense of what it was like in that neighborhood 50 years ago. I even took the same photo that appears on p. 2 of the article. The picture is taken from the parking lot of a McDonald's, btw.

Anderson nails a lot of points though, especially on the Atlantic Yards project. It's using the legend of Old Brooklyn to justify its existence, when in reality it's sole purpose is to be a profit engine for developers. The Brooklyn Nets will cater to the displaced Manhattan-ites that are gentrifying the borough, and will in no way bond the community together like the Dodgers did. They'll be the New York Knicks South.

I wish he touched more on something that's been annoying me somewhat, which is the way the Mets have been appropriating the Brooklyn Dodgers history and legacy as their own. Their new park, Citi Field, is basically a modern remake of Ebbets Field, right down to the "Jackie Robinson Rotunda." Ten years later, it still irritates me that the Dodgers allowed the celebration of the 50th anniversary of Jackie's first game to occur at Shea Stadium. It should have been at Dodger Stadium, hosted by the team that he came up with. The Mets have no more claim to Jackie's legacy than the White Sox or Mariners or Astros.

Anyway, sorry for the long post. Thanks for the link, Jon. That was terrific reading.

50. Yeah, he caught the same error that I did. vr, Xei

50 - Thanks.

As someone who has spent time in half the clubhouses in MLB this year, I respectfully disagree with the bad chemistry tag. In fact, I really don't see anything here except a columnist trying to write something to get attention, which worked.

If he wants to talk surly, he should spend some time in the St. Louis Cardinals locker room. Those guys make the Dodgers look like merry little elves.

It would be nice to have a Raul Ibanez or a Mark Sweeney to provide excellent, supportive, and friendly leadership to younger players, but the Dodgers benefit from not having to deal with enigmatic, prickly stars like Bonds, Griffey Jr, Randy Johnson, Manny "I'm not talking to media this year" Ramirez, Mike "I have no problems throwing my teammates under the bus" Mussina, and Alex "Guys don't like me because I'm just so pretty" Rodriguez. Shoot, Carlos Delgado often pouts after losses and refuses to talk to the press, leaving that burden on Wright and Lo Duca.

Of course, winning is the cure for all that ails...

Ha. I meant Mike Sweeney not Mark!

55
The Dodgers have the advantage over the Cardinals of playing better, having fewer teammates die, and fewer people with substance abuse problems.

The Cardinals?

Didn't these guys win the World Series last year?

The SF Chronicle reports that Bonds will miss at least a week with his toe injury.

This leads me to believe that he just may sit out all the remaining games of the year except for a last hurrah at home.

59
The Cardinals honeymoon with the fans in St. Louis lasted about 10 minutes after the first pitch of the season.

Does this look like a team with clubhouse chemistry issues??

http://www.sonsofstevegarvey.com/2007/09/found-pictures-of-dodgers-rookie-hazing.html

I'm with you, 55.

But I'm not sure it was written just for attention. It reads to me like a columnist spent all day Friday and Saturday in Lincoln, Nebraska, and had to crank something out for Monday's paper.

It's pretty thin, with no one on the record and only a hint that he might have talked with a beat writer (obviously not Diamond) about this supposed lack of chemistry.

I've spent lots of time in both the Angels and Dodgers clubhouses and it's comparing apples and oranges. The Angels clubhouse is spacious and inviting, with couches and tables in the middle of the room, allowing guys to kick back and socialize in comfort. The Dodgers clubhouse is a "cell block" by design. It's cramped, hot and uncomfortable. The players have no choice but to hide in their locker or retreat to the training room or dining lounge (where no media is allowed, FWIW).

There are certainly issues just because of the makeup of this team -- a majority of guys either at the beginning or end of their career. But I have a hard time believing chemistry issues are more significant on this team than on any other.

If someone knows best, it's the Dodger beat writer, not the general columnist. I'