I don't really care for Kent's comments-whatever they are meant to convey but I am happy to have him back next year. While, as someone here said, he has the range of an Easy Bake over, he does still have power on an team that does not have much (although developing more) and he generally produces. So in my view, bring him back, let platton with Abrau, who may or may not be ready to play everyday, release Lucille, and ignore Kent's complaints about PVL and such. Who cares if Jeff's "happy" with the make up of the team. If he comes back it will be for one of two reasons. Money or a last shot at the WS. If its the former who cares what he thinks. If its the latter, he will be playing as hard as he can and that's all that matters. The issue is not Jeff shooting off his mouth its whether anyone upstairs will listen or care.

Against my better judgment, I broke my Plaschke Embargo and read this one. This jumped out at me:

"When... there was nobody who could play third base, it became clear the Dodgers would have to trade a prospect to contend for a championship.

"At that point, at the end of July, Ned Colletti made the decision that old-fashioned Dodgers general managers used to make.

He decided to keep the kids even if it meant losing the championship. He committed to developing a team capable not only of sudden impact, but staying power."

Except that he didn't do that. He panic-traded the team's best power hitter and third baseman -- who is young and capable of both sudden impact and staying power -- for a dadgummed middle reliever.

The rest of it is similarly ridiculous and meandering, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

It is a very confusing column, but then I haven't read Plaschke in over a year. It reads to me as if Plaschke wants the Dodgers to crack down on the vets -- to tell them straight out that the kids will be playing and they will need to get used to their new role. I think this is what the final "they'd better be" means -- they better be hearing the grousing and realize they need to squelch the complaining, tell the veterans their new role, and use a consistent lineup. It's time to stop mixing-and-matching and just play the kids because they're clearly playing better.

If this is what he means (because it really is hard to tell), I'm all for it. Mostly, I don't care, because I don't listen to Plaschke and I hope the Dodger front office doesn't either. Back to my self-imposed Plaschke ban.

1 Right, but the question is what are they supposed to listen to or do about it? Plashcke doesn't even seem to know. He wants it both ways - and isn't even clear what those ways are! It's fine and even understandable if Kent isn't happy with the results this season; it's just the finger pointing, as if his finger were a gun and he was randomly firing it, mostly at his younger teammates, in anger.

Anyway, Plaschke's continual presence in the Times makes me sad, given all the fine writers who came before him there.

There is going to be serious trouble in the LAT house tonight. My youngest daughter ate every last marshmellow out of whole box of Lucky Charms. Now its just a box of cereal with no luck and no charm.

5 - I always hated when the charms were gone and all that was left were the luckys.

It seems to me that Plaschke is saying, "Youth movements are great. Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full. So long, of course, as it's a youth movement that wins divisions."

Plaschke wants the excitement a youth movement brings, but he could do without those pesky growing pains.

Whatever, pal. Go have your cake. Just don't eat it where I can see you.

Good post, Jon. It's a tough job, scruting the inscrutable.

Plaschke was projecting his angst about his own situation, working in a newsroom where most of the PVL has taken the buyout, the remaining veterans are sullen and paranoid about losing their jobs, a bunch of new kids are coming in who understand the google but aren't much good as journalists, and the ownership and management are both clueless and indecisive.

Like Jeff Kent, Plaschke sees all this and isn't sure who to blame, so he rambles incoherently and gives everyone the wrong impression.

I really do like that final "They'd better be." As Jon noted, its meaning is so nebulous as to be nonsensical, like Jon's "You do the math."

Has somebody sent this to the guys at FJM yet? They should be excited at the comedic gold mine that is this column.

They'd better be.

4. Mangement hopefully isnt listening to Kent at all. Hopefully management has a plan for the kids and the message to Jeff is "you can rant but we are staying the course. Are you in or out?"

Also, a few comments from Kent and an article by Plaschke is the tip of the iceberg. When the season is over there will be articles from every corner of baseball media about how the Dodgers were the bigggest failure of 2007. We are going to finsh fourth in the division after being picked to go to the WS by many. Baseball Tonight, Jeff Passan, SI. These guys are going to have a field day. Its an easy story and people are going to jump on it. Ned and Grady will survive but the kitchen hasn't even begun to get hot.

Plaschke's colunmn was inscrutable, tangy, baffling, hurtful, and enigmatic all at the same time.

10 - It is! It's a poor man's "You do the math!"

"Has somebody sent this to the guys at FJM yet? They should be excited at the comedic gold mine that is this column.

They'd better be."

Brilliant!

Plaschke's column made me bitter, perplexed and angry.

Reading the papers and then all of the comments is actually pretty amusing. Kent's comments are so vague he's sent us into 400 comments of trying to figure out what the heck he meant. Is he mad about the youth? The manager? The front office? OJ? And Plaschke's reaction was equally uninterpretable. What does he agree with and disagree with? I know there's a lot of emotion, I'm just not sure what the subject is.

Plaschke's column made me stupider by about 4 IQ points.

Off topic but some good news for once:
http://www.presstelegram.com/sports/ci_6954613

Kevin Everett may be walking again, and sooner than anyone would have predicted.

I will say it. Plachke's article was awful. It was poorly written, and it is impossible to really understand what he was saying. If you have to read a newspaper article 3 or more times to get the gist of it, then it is probally not a good article. Nice try but definitely a swing and a miss of Plachke.

the reason why it's not clear is because plaschke is waffling. which is weird because plaschke usually doesn't hesitate to slam someone when he wants to.

Obviously my expectations are so low for Plaschke that I actually found myself not minding this column, despite how confusing it was. In the old days I would have expected Plaschke to just write, "Kent is right. They should have played the veterans. You can't measure the value of experience, period." That would have been clearer, but it also would have been wrong. I think Plaschke is right that Little had a tough job but also didn't do it well. I think there's a way to juggle lineups while still giving your players a degree of certainty, or at least some logic they can point to so they understand why they played yesterday, but aren't playing today. Little didn't do that.

5 I like the metaphor for what I think about the Dodgers right now. Although, we really have what you'll have in a couple days, no charm and stale luckys.

11

I go back to Opening Day. Schmidt was on the mound, Kemp was in right field. I had just seen Schmidt match Maddux in that great game the previous August that was decided by Martin's walk-off homer, and expected to see more of the same, just in a different uniform.

Instead, Schmidt was ineffective and Kemp smashed his shoulder against the new out-of-town scoreboard/advertising vehicle. There's your alibi right there. Add Wolf, Furcal, Kuo, Tsao, Brazoban and the indecision about 3B, plus Pierre's early season "slump," and you've got all the excuses you'd need.

However, the writers who picked LA to finish first and go to the World Series were mostly from national media anyway. They were charmed by Nomar's resurgence in 2006 and didn't notice that it ended at mid-season. Resigning him was clearly Colletti's worst decision -- worse than Pierre, even -- because Nomar had nothing, and Loney was rotting away in LV.

The genuine surprise in the NL West is Arizona. San Diego in retrospect is the clear class of this division, and it would've been a bigger surprise if they'd tanked (which they still might.)

So since Kent's option vested, can he be traded to a mediocre AL team with poor playoff chances?

Maybe Cleveland will get rid of the Josh Barfield experiment and would be willing to take Kent. Do they have anything shiny we could get in return?

I am guessing most of this is obvious, and think one of Kent's points is that it is more than just the stats (the veteran little things) but 2nd half (since we were in first place) OPS and ERAs. One vet I wish we had for whole season is Jason Schmidt and his 15+ wins because tough to put consistent winning together with the compete for 3 roll the dice for 2 rotation the Dodgers have had all season.

Martin 832
Loney 844
Kent 963
Furcal 677
Garciaparra 808
Gonzalez 681
Ethier 854
Pierre 735
Kemp 898
Saenz 490
Martinez 515
Lieberthal 566
Penny 3.65
Lowe 5.51
Billingsley 2.85
Hendrickson 7.82
Beimel 3.95
Hernandez 5.40
Broxton 3.18
Saito 1.52
Seanez 4.83

23
The Indians are playing Asdrubal Cabrera at second base now. Barfield is just a pinch runner/defensive replacement now.

i'm tempted to write plaschke asking him to take a position.

10- His original ending was "Don't tase me, bro!" But he thought it was too soon to joke about.

26 - I agree with 19, and I would advise you not to encourage Plaschke to take a position. We're probably safer if he waffles. I'd rather see him struggle with this stuff than take the easy way out. It's almost as if we're watching a leopard in mid-attempted-spot-change.

Kent's comments are water off a duck's back assuming he:

1. goes out there next year and hits .280 with 20 homeruns, and catches everything hit to him within a 3-foot radius.

2. doesn't become Ned's assistant GM this offseason.

As for Plaschke, it seems there's a solid 10% of legitimate insight in that column. Nice work, Bill - now take the rest of the offseason off! Or switch to Kobe-related observations.

24 - I looked up OPS in September (Kent considers that the time for experience to shine). I can't figure out who gets the fingers pointed in their direction, other than Furcal, who really stunk it up. Was it about pitching and Broxton??

Loney: 1.153
Kemp: .978
Gonzo: .867
Pierre: .818 (?????)
Kent: .817
Nomar: .810
Ethier: .798
Martin: .762 (tired?)
LaRoche: .715
RMart: .583
Abreu: .494
Furcal: .489

I mentioned in a post last week that Gonzo had a complaint about the way things were. I know he is at least as unhappy as Kent and I know that at least one veteran pitcher agrees as well. My guess is they've been talking to each other and getting pretty worked up. Kent's reactions might be like when you're talking loudly in a loud room and then it gets quiet all of a sudden. People wonder why you're talking so loudly.
What exactly that they're upset about? Probably a false sense of entitlement mixed with the fact that there is no camaraderie (creating an "us against them" feeling). And the young players these days don't listen to the vets like the vets did when they were young players. And the young players don't have the work ethic that the vets (or coaches) did when they were young players.

Make no mistake Kent is a red ass. He is also a frustrated player in the twilight of a HOF career. His obstinacy is part of what has made him great. Kent - like most - was raised on the same baseball mythology that kept a "proven veteran" like Garciaparra in the line up while James Loney stagnated in Las Vegas. This is endemic to baseball.

Plaschke - as always - adds nothing to the conversation. This guy changes his opinion with the breeze. He is a caricature of himself. No opinion seeking sports fan gives him or Simers a serious look.

As to the fire Grady Little talk that's starting to percolate, I'm indifferent. If he and Colletti go together, I'm all for it. But for those that are so gung ho to fire Little, please remember that our last manager used a line up that often featured Jason Phillips – at first base. Most of these guys are terrible. God love Scioscia, but if he still had Darin Erstad and Adam Kennedy they'd be playing everyday.

Little has a genuine problem with more talented youngsters than veterans. His situation is unenviable. He is saddled with Juan Pierre in the first year of a five-year deal, and Garciaparra in the first year of a two-year deal. Luis Gonzalez was signed with the assurance of a starting job. The push-pull of management, fans, players and media is enough to strangle anyone.

30 Somewhere, Joe Morgan is smiling and caressing his mustache.

The column started off okay in my opinion, pointing to the lack of flexibility by the veterans, but the way he ends it is just as vague as the comments made by Kent.

I agree with dzzrtRatt's comment in 300 from the last thread. I think Kent chose a poor time to vent, when it couldn't possibly help the situation. I do wish this had happened earlier in the season to get it out in the open and to force the management to be up front with everyone. If anything, I see this as an exposure of the lineup management gave and the constant juggling made by Little. I think Grady and Ned are the true targets of Kent's comments.

Prior to logging on the computer to read DT, I read Plaschke's column. My initial reaction was "?" I could not figure out what he was saying. He was all over the place. I thought, maybe it was me.

But then I read Jon's post and felt much better. It wasn't me. It was Plaschke.

This article makes no sense at all. It was really four articles condensed into one article.

The best that I can interpret at the end of the article is that because there is a $9Million contract vested for Kent next year, he will certainly not walk away from that kind of money. So.......

The Dodger Brass must deal with a returning Kent and the youth movement (one year removed)for the 2008 season. That is why he concludes that the Dodgers better be listening or they will have the same type of issues lingering on.

Does that mean that Plasche (and Kent for that matter) feels that only a new manager can keep both Kent/Garciaparra (under contract) and the kids on the same page?? I don't know.

What do you think?

31. Just a quick follow up... I guess as a fan I find that frustrating but bottom line is performance and most of the youngsters have performed. I'm not sure many people who aren't Dodger vets feel like the youth got too much playing time this year.

I only hope that nothing bad comes out of Plaschke's article.

Plaschke's column is a mess. It's obviously a rush job on a story that broke late yesterday afternoon by a writer that wasn't there.

I've said it before: when it comes to touchy-feely, human-interest stories, Plaschke is the best. When it comes to giving a take, he's awful.

34- That it didn't happen earlier in the season seems to argue for the "Chemistry is a residue of winning" theory. Everybody's shorts got twisted the week the season died. Could be a coincidence, I guess.

31 - "And the young players these days don't listen to the vets like the vets did when they were young players. And the young players don't have the work ethic that the vets (or coaches) did when they were young players."

Are you stating this as fact or saying it's probably what's put the bug in K(v)ent's and Luis's and Lowe's collective saggy veteran butt?

Remember the confident Frank McCourt on DT Day? "Everyone's on the same page," which is easy to say when you're in first place.

I wonder what he thinks now, and what he's going to do.

Now might be a good time for someone (DT?) to educate McCourt on the slow but interesting course of Dodger history from the 1968 draft to the 1981 World Championship. Youth movements don't translate into instant success. But when fans feel like it's "their" team -- rather than a shifting case of veterans who made their reputations elsewhere -- they'll be a lot more patient.

28 It's almost as if we're watching a leopard in mid-attempted-spot-change.

Jon, this is an absolutely brilliant line. I wish I had thought of it.

I kind of like the idea that Plaschke is so confused that he couldn't just quite figure out what to say. I have an image of him spluttering while at the keyboard -- "Veterans have experience ... but the kids are the ones playing well ... but the vets came to the park early ... but Kemp is really exciting ... but Gonzo and Nomar are really nice to me ... aaaagh!" Then his head explodes, the resulting smoke forms the words "Depo sucks!", and then it wafts away and we are left with a new day for the LA Times sports section.

40. I'm stating this as a position I've heard so many times from so many vets that I believe it to be fact.

41 shifting cast not case.

39 - The convergence of Kent's option vesting and the Dodgers' performance in Colorado formed a perfect storm for Kent to start whining. And the young players have probably been bugging Kent all year, what with their rap music and their MySpace pages and their stealing of the playing time.

43 But that's how older people always feel, isn't it?

That's how older colleagues felt about me when I was an ingenue/boy wonder, and that's how I feel about a lot of the talented but empty-headed kids I've had to train. Not to mention me vs. my Dad and now me vs. my son.

43 Every generation of old players thinks the young whippersnappers don't have the work ethic the old guys do. And they're always wrong. Fifteen years ago, when Kent and Gonzo were new, it was guys like Nolan Ryan and George Brett saying that these young guys today, they just don't understand. It's just the cycle of baseball. And yet somehow the level of dedication and professionalism in the game seems to increase over time, not decrease.

Basically, I think Kent's upset that he didn't get his ring kissed subserviently enough, and now that the season's over and his option's vested he's taking the opportunity to rant nonsensically.

47 - Basically, I think Kent's upset that he didn't get his ring kissed subserviently enough, and now that the season's over and his option's vested he's taking the opportunity to rant nonsensically.

What's Plashke's excuse?

Reading that column, and getting massively crapped on by a crow/blackbird... my Friday's off to a great start.

Bob with the music quotes on the Griddle!

Or is that Yeats?

45 - I'm thinking the same thing. As I said yesterday, Kent doesn't seem the time to air dirty laundry in public, so if he's saying this stuff now, he's probably been saying a lot more for a good part of the season.

I'm just glad I'm not the only one confused by Plaschke's latest. My concern is that he seems to be the barometer of public opinion for McCourt. And you can read this column as a call to dump the kids and go with PVL.

46. I hear you and I'm sure that's part of it. But things are definitely different in an MLB clubhouse now. If you were a rookie in say 1977 or even 1992 and a coach or veteran told you to do something, you did it without question. And teammates hung out together as well. Now, guys are out the door and with their agents 30 minutes after the last out. And they show up for early BP if they feel like it. And they take advice as a suggestion. That's not to say none of them work hard. It's just a different sense of entitlement than existed say 15 years ago and back. Of that I am sure.

28 well, i don't like plaschke's work at all, but i actually wouldn't mind politely pointing him in the right direction when he writes about the dodgers. my email isn't confrontational and asking him to choose a side. i'm basically lobbying on behalf of the kids. i haven't sent it yet, though.

47 - This is a question for Branch: What's the comparison between Kent and Eddie Murray?

By reptuation, true or not, Eddie waited for younger players to approach him. Kent seems to be saying the same thing (or, that he went to the young players but was ignored), although his past reputation is that he likes to be left alone with his thoughts or magazines, that he's not someone who likes to linger before or after a game.

What's your take?

52 - Okay. I trust you :)

Would Ned listen to Buster Olney?

A-rod a perfect fit for the Dodgers

http://tinyurl.com/2yhcjb

Tony Jackson's take in the Daily News seemed much better, at least to me. It appeared to me to be a case, in his view, of Kent's frustration, almost sour grapes, about the season falling apart.

Then again, what do I know.

I bet Jeff Kent would shut up and play if we signed A-Rod.

I bet we actually enter the ARod sweepstakes if Kent opts out.

49 You were correct with song, it's "Eve of Destruction," and the most famous version is Barry McGuire's.

But would A-Rod and Kent get along? I guess they would if the team was winning, but doesn't A-Rod have a rep (fair or not, and who cares) for being aloof or self-oriented? I wonder what kind of fit the two of those guys would be, but maybe they'd be a perfect fit - especially, again, if they won.

59
You didn't know who Abe Vigoda was, but you knew about Barry McGuire?

I can tell you (and I think you'll see the humor in this) that Murray sees Kent exactly as we do, surly and unapproachable. And it's a particularly interesting question you ask because Kent played his first couple of years as a teammate of a veteran Murray. I think Kent was influenced by Murrays approach to the game. Preparation, hard work, no showiness, respect for the game, respect for elders of the game, these are things that are important to both. They certainly didn't hang out this year but I think both would tell you they respect the others approach to the game and miss it in the younger players.

So essentially, Kent is Andy Rooney.

55 wow, i agree with buster olney about something.

63
Both men hate baseball.

from a kent bio:

Jeff approached spring camp as a learning experience. He confidently sidled up to veterans stars like Joe Carter, Dave Winfield and Jack Morris and picked their brains. They thought Jeff was a riot. None could remember a rookie looking so at home in a major league uniform, or acting so much like a part of a team he had yet to make! But whenever manager Cito Gaston put him in games, he got the job done.

but then of course there's this:

Despite his hard-nosed play, Jeff was not a favorite of Green's. The manager chided Jeff about his propensity for striking out, and complained about his fielding, which produced a league-high 18 errors in '93. At one point, during a series against the Cubs, Green benched him for three games. Jeff was so furious that it took a visit from his wife, Dana, to calm him down. During the All-Star break the couple went house-hunting in Austin, Texas, and later purchased a home there.

in '93 Kent was 25 and was in his 2nd year.

http://tinyurl.com/74w2x

58 There's no opt out, the option vested.

65 - And everyone younger than them.

Anyone want to bet that Kent either demands a trade or retires?

69 no way.

69 - I'm pretty sure he'll be back.

this is a fitting ending to a wasted year. bad offseason, worse season, and now strife in the clubhouse. at least we signed kyle bla--

53

And Kent was the guy saying that these players are not his friends, so I wonder if this is just a different type of respect for the game. Did Kent want the young guys to come running over to his locker looking for advice? Or was he really offering it to deaf ears? Kent does not strike me as the type you could go and shoot the breeze with or ask about your game.

71 - He'd better be.

(This is so fun.)

67 sorry, I meant to say retired or demand a trade...same thing

69

I would be perfectly happy with that. It might be best for Kent and the team.

Just as a thought exercise, how would you feel if what Branch Rickey says in 51 and 62 was absolutely true...that, talented as Kemp, Loney, Martin, Ethier, LaRoche and Abreu might be, they avoid rather than embrace "Preparation, hard work, no showiness, respect for the game, respect for elders of the game," and instead have "a sense of entitlement."

I would find it hard to believe this about most of them. Especially Martin. But what if it was true? What can Colletti/Little do about it?

66 - Also the player Kent was benched in favor of was Chico Walker who was 34 at the time and had bounced around the league for 13 years. 1993 was his final year in MLB.

73 unless your name happens to be Harley Davidson

77 I thought "acting like you should already be there" was c