Consequently, in the integration era, there have only been 5 batters to achieve as many as 3 seasons of 120 OPS+ & 500 PA from age 37 on:

Bonds
Edgar Martinez
Winfield
Mays
Williams

Only 11 more have had even two such seasons.

http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/b2Hy

This post really strikes a chord with me. I am not obsessed with our payroll other than to imagine all of the cool stuff we could do with the $XX million we have coming off of it. If I felt that our signings were aimed at guys that can contribute over and above what our backup types (D Young, Abreu, Stults) can give us, I would be all for them. I also like reasoned risk, but Colletti just needs to get better at scouting his choices. Our organization did a good job with Kuroda, Park, and Saito. We did a crummy job with Jones.

Here's hoping that our Major League scouts do as well scouring the market for hitting/fielding bargains as well as they scout for potential pitching bargains.

Sabathia at 6 years scares me. He has thrown 1,659 innings already, including just under 500 innings in the last 2 years alone. Your points are well taken however I am concerned that Sabathia could break down much sooner than people expect. So instead of 1 down year you can expect 2 or more.

I would be willing to do a 4 year deal with Manny expecting that 1 year was a down year for him.

I agree the Dodgers need to have a plan and maybe they do. Unfortunately I dont know what it is at this point and that is a major source of frustration.

2
That last sentence stinks...

Great posting, with lots of good points! However, the Dodgers haven't and will never announce their "plan" to any of us it seems. I'm assuming it's impossible to do so, as it would be like a poker player showing his hand, when sitting at a table with sharks like Boras. Instead, we have to read between the lines.
The Dodgers offer to Manny was obviously for nothing more than "show", to appease the fans...knowing full well, that a Boras client never takes a hometown discount, let alone 3-4 years less that the asking price.
The Dodgers have proven that they want to cultivate homegrown talent and fill in the gaps with veterans, and sign them to short-term contracts. Colletti got burned at the beginning of his tenure on Pierre and Schmidt, and I doubt McCourt will EVER let that happen again. I don't see the Dodgers in any of the big sweepstakes this offseason. In fact, I think we'll be lukcy to end up with any of the premiere pitchers, and would be lucky to even resign Lowe. I think we're looking at Dewitt at 3B and possibly a guy like Renteria or Cabrera at SS. I think they will even give Abreu or Hu the first shot at 2B before chasing a Hudson or anyone outside of the organization.

The Nationals unveiled their new uniforms for 2009, but they did it right. They had women modeling the jerseys rather than players.

http://tinyurl.com/5a4fgh

Although I doubt women would make the Oregon Ducks' uniforms look good.

Well, maybe Heidi Klum.

Man... I know it's just rumors at this point, but I'll be upset if Furcal ends up signing with the Giants (who are interested in him). If the Dodgers don't re-sign him, then I hope he goes either to the AL or to some team we don't see very often. A long term contract is likely a mistake with him but I feel like he's gonna do some damage in the short run.

5 I highly doubt that Lowe will be in Dodger blue next year.

I dont think anyone expects the Dodgers to announce their plan. It is just that some dont understand what the front office is doing. With previous GMs I had a solid grasp of what they were trying to do. With Colletti I dont.

Jon, did you write an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal today?

9
Jon is not a Jonathan.

9 - There's a Jonathan Weisman who writes for the WSJ, who is not Jon. As far as I know.

--

Sign that the Hot Stove Season is tepid at best right now: LaTroy Hawkins signing with the Astros today is the big story.

11
$3.75m seems an awful lot to pay for someone you would never want as your closer. I think the non-Saito bullpen Dodgers will top out at $2m or so (Broxton and/or Proctor), a far more palatable figure.

So where's that "Fan Response" communique Jon Heyman was talking about regarding the Dodgers' Manny offer? Is there a form online somewhere, or do I have to find the secret red phone to call them directly?

"Press two if you think the two year offer is adequate. Press three if you'd offer three instead. Press four if you think the Dodgers are cheap bastards... Press five if..."

3 So what kind of pitcher do you sign long term? You wouldn't give it to someone like Sheets because he hasn't thrown enough innings, can't give one to Lowe because he's too old, can't give one to Oliver Perez because he's unrelible, and so on.

Elite, young pitchers who throw exactly 200 innings a year without getting hurt don't become free agents. Sabathia is the safest long term gamble that's going to come for a long time.

12 Much of what the Astros' management does makes me appreciate the Dodgers by comparison.

13
That's not a half-bad idea! The Dodgers could have an American-idol style hotline, and charge 99¢ per call to let fans decide on key issues. Just think of the extra revenue! :)

Better yet, they should just designate the people of Dodger Thoughts as representatives and let us decide what management does. Not that we agree on everything, but we can be like the electoral college!

Or delegates.

18
I demand super delegate status!

In response to #14, the trend in baseball, with only a few exceptions, is to NOT sign pitchers to long term contracts. At least that's what I see from the successful teams. With the exception of Santana last year...look at the other recent long-term deals signed. Silva to the Mariners, Zito to the Giants, Schmidt to the Dodgers, etc. These contracts turn out to be albatrosses to the organizations.
What the Dodgers need to do, and seem to be leaning towards, is developing their own homegrown talent in the pitching dept, and signing free agents to short term contracts to fill in the gaps.
With that in mind, I actually think the Peavy trade would be preferable to a Sabathia signing, except for the fact that the Padres will ask a king's ransom, since we're in the same division.

17
Only members of this blog, though. Otherwise Nomar is your SS next year and Manny gets six years

Sabathia could also play left field on his days off.

20
I wouldn't consider Schmidt or Silva long term at three and four years respectively. The Silva deal was stupid because of the money they paid to a 4/5 starter just because the market stunk last year.

I have less to say about the Schmidt signing because I personally supported it at the time.

I stand corrected. I guess it would be better to point to the Kevin Brown and Darren Dreifort contracts, as Dodger deals with pitchers gone bad.

I stand corrected. I guess it would be better to point to the Kevin Brown and Darren Dreifort contracts, as Dodger deals with pitchers gone bad.

22 -- Hey, Jon, are you watching the US Life On Mars? Last night's episode was fantastic. By the way, I really wish you had kept Screen Jam going. Any chance it is just resting, as opposed to being an "ex-parrot?"

23 Barry Zito and Carlos Silva weren't top five pitchers.

If you sign a bad pitcher, it will blow up in your face, obviously, pitchers of Sabathia's caliber don't just implode.

21 Yep, as I said... members of Dodger Thoughts. It's elitist, but, hey, we know what's best for you, Dodger fans! {sniff}

Teams that don't hand out long term contracts and get patted on the back for their value signings end up winning 84 games usually.

20
Sabathia is closer to Santana than the others you mentioned.

Silva is not a good pitcher; that is why his contract is bad.

Zito was clearly in decline for a few years with the A's, and when he signed his contract he was 4 years removed from a season like the last three seasons by Sabathia.

Schmidt had injury problems/concerns prior to signing that Sabathia hasn't had.

Sabathia is the type of great pitcher that doesn't come around very often via free agency, especially at his age. He's exactly the type of pitcher to whom to give a long term contract.

29 I agree, Colletti's current game plan sets us up for mediocrity.

14 Personally I wouldn't sign any pitcher to a long term deal. Sabathia may be a safe bet in your eyes but I think there is more risk than people realize. He compares well to Johan Santana and Sabathia has thrown 100 more innings and he is 2 years younger.

In my opinion, pitchers break down and I don't think CC is the exception. I am not against signing CC. I wouldn't do a 6 year deal.

How many long term deals for pitchers have worked in the past?

25
Darren Dreifort was never, ever as good a pitcher (especially as a starter) as Sabathia has been.

Kevin Brown had 3.5 great seasons of his 5 in LA, but a 6-year contract for Sabathia would still make CC younger at the end of his contract than Brown was when he signed with the Dodgers.

32 Of CC's caliber? All of them for the most part.

I agree that Sabathia is an elite pitcher...no doubt about it.
But, I think McCourt has Colletti by the ba-ls, and any long-term contracts are out of the question. Just my opinion.
Case in point: 2 year offers so far to Manny and Furcal (2 key players this past year).

Yes on C.C.

If there is a time you sign a pitcher to a 6-year contract, it is this time. Of course there is an injury risk. But really, when was the last time a pitcher as good as C.C. was a free agent at a similar age as C.C.? Greg Maddux? I'm not saying C.C.'s as good as Maddux, but he's a top-5 pitcher.

34 Would you prefer to give CC a 6 year deal over a 3-4 year deal?

20 - You seemed to undercut your own logic at the end. Peavy is signed through 2012. You would be committing tons of long-term money to a pitcher with a worse health record than Sabathia - what makes that a better move (even putting aside the huge trade cost in getting Peavy)?

24 - Other than the fact the Dodgers bid against themselves, the Kevin Brown signing was a success. Doesn't belong in the same sentence with Dreifort.

I am now assuming they will get neither Raffy, CC or Manny So what will they do with the 30 mil they have to spend? Randy Johnson, Sheets, Ibanez?

37 I'd give him a 3 year deal if I could, heck, I'd never hand out more than a one year deal if that was an option, but that's not going to happen.

26 - I'm partway through #3 and am sort of borderline on it. The cases don't interest me at all, and Sam is just barely keeping be intrigued. His mystery is kind of interesting, but the guy himself isn't really.

I really don't know what to do about my TV blogging right now. I can't figure out a system I'm happy with. Screen Jam might or might not come back, or I might increase my TV blogging here - I just can't figure it out.

37 It doesn't matter. He's not getting a 3-4 year deal. He's an ELITE pitcher in his prime. Let's be realistic.

Its going to be difficult to build a great team without having superstar free agents as part of it.

And typically, superstar free agents require at least 4-5 yr deals.

40- Burrell, Dunn, Sheets may accept the short-term deals.

At the risk of repeating what I wrote in my post, I don't think it's fair to expect a free-agent pitcher to give you six consecutive good years, because that's just about literally impossible. No pitcher in baseball crosses the age-30 threshold without a hiccup.

The question you have to ask yourself is, what path will give you the most possible/highest quality good years of pitching. Is there any combination of short-term contracts that would give you any more of a guarantee than Sabathia?

For example, say you could sign Derek Lowe for three years and then another similar pitcher for three years. Is that any more risk-free than Sabathia?

As we've learned from the past three years, short-term contracts aren't necessarily safe. One bad year hurts their value terribly, two bad years just about sinks them - and then you find yourself back to square one.

Similar Pitchers through Age 27

Compare Stats
Dave McNally (939)
Greg Maddux (934)
Ken Holtzman (931)
Denny McLain (931)
Dennis Eckersley (931) *
Alex Fernandez (917)
Lefty Gomez (917) *
Milt Pappas (916)
Carlos Zambrano (914)
Steve Carlton (914) *

* Signifies Hall of Famer

http://tinyurl.com/5pfqsx

I don't think this list is helping my argument. It seems half these pitchers did well (some VERY well) after the age of 27 and the other half fizzled out quickly, with one TBD.

32
Let's look at long-term deals given to pitchers:

a) under 30
b) coming off a 150 ERA+ season
c) signing at least a 4-year deal

Maddux
1992 w/Chi: age 26, 166 ERA+, CYA
5/$28m w/Atl
ERA+ each year: 171, 271, 262, 162, 189 (3 CYA)

Pedro
1997 w/Mon: age 25, 219 ERA+, CYA
6/$75m w/Bos (after trade)
ERA+ each year: 163, 243, 291, 189, 202, 210 (2 CYA)
(did include one year -- 2001 -- with only 116.2 IP)

Clemens
1991 w/Bos: age 28, 164 ERA+, CYA
4/$21.52m w/Bos
ERA+ each year: 175, 104, 177, 116
Cumulative ERA+ of 138 was 7th best in MLB over that time
(did include on year -- 2005 -- with only 140 IP)

How many long term deals for pitchers have worked in the past?

The key is finding the great pitchers, a group in which Sabathia now sits.

47 B-Ref comps aren't that great since they make no attempt to adjust for era. Sabathia is a very unique player according to PECOTA, so it's hard to build a list.

At least Martin should finally earn more in 2009 then his crappy backups. That has to be frustrating to be catching 140 games and making nothing while your backups do nothing and make twice as much as you.

Kemp and Ethier will continue to look at Pierre and Jones with murder in their eyes.

Peavy costs talent we've refused to trade before, CC just money, and their numbers are much the same. Watching the Dodgers' feet--declining Penny, not talking to Furcal, an offer to Manny almost designed to fail except as PR--the team is maximizing funds to spend on somebody.

50 Speaking of crappy backups, who will be his next year? Ardoin again? AJ Ellis? (Who I think would be fine.) Some unnamed veteran?

Off topic, but today we are a full 17 years removed from the most shocking sports moment of my lifetime, and Magic Johnson is still alive and kicking.

This made me laugh. From MLBTR via the Baltimore Sun:

Danys Baez, who hasn't pitched since 2006, would like to prepare as a starter for 2008. Andy MacPhail is open to the idea; the Orioles have more open spots in their rotation than their bullpen. Baez is set to earn $5.5MM in '09, the last year of his deal. Starting is where the money's at, unless you get a chance to close.

If we let CC get away we will regret it. He wants to play in the NL, he has a house in So Cal, he evidently loves California, he would be the bomb in LA. I implore Ned and Frank to make the effort.

19 I actually found out that one of my coworkers is elector/delegate, representing one of California's 55 electoral votes for Obama. Regardless of your party, I thought that was pretty cool. He's headed up to Sacramento in December to officially cast his vote.

I think the Dodgers will be more aggressive in pursuing Sabathia than Ramirez.

Of all the free agents of the last few years, CC is the closest thing we've seen with the potential for a Maddux/Unit start with a new team (i.e. multiple CYA).

54 For my money, that Baez signing (3y/$19mil?) was one of the all-time puzzlers. It just made no sense on any level.

55
I, for one, can't wait for the press conference at Dodger Stadium, and while it is going on ESPNews will be showing the clip of his bomb at the Stadium in July.

47 - no, no, and maybe.

51 - yeah, they've obviously got a plan, the question is, what is it.

52 - gary bennent

53 - wow, 17 years? i still remember that being a gut punch.

Which will be cheaper?

C.C. + Burrell/Abreu

OR

Manny + Lowe/Sheets/Burnett

61 Tee hee. I think they're more likely to sign Elizabeth Bennett then re-sign Gary at this point.

50

I never thought about that. It would get frustrating.

Work got in the way of continuing this thread. It looks like the subject has changed.

I will vote yes on CC but I will go on record as saying that his workload at the age of 27 is higher than I would like and I feel he will break down. I am in rule 8 territory so I will leave it at that.

Yes on C.C.

Yes on Manny. Realizing that its likely going to be one or the other, or none at all.

And thinking hard on it... No on Furcal.

Dodgers have two ready made options in Hu and DeJesus. Might as well use them.

67.
Yes on C.C...4 of 5 or 5 of 6 solid years of pitching as opposed to maybe 2-3 Manny-ish year seems like a no-brainer to me..

The transparency of the initial "offer" to Manny shows that I think the Dodgers are leaning toward CC as well. There's negotiations, then there's Boras negotiations..

Diamond says we're looking for pitching prospects in India.

69.
Wonder if they're cricket pitchers (hurlers?) we're looking at..

Also from Diamond:

For all the minor criticisms of Martin (yes, they do exist) and especially the game-calling aspect

I don't really get why game-calling on the part of the catcher is important. Do pitchers really throw pitches that they don't want to throw instead of shaking off the sign until they get the pitch they want...?

The team that lands the former National League Cy Young winner could depend on which includes its top pitching prospect, according to the sources. The Padres have asked the Cubs for right-hander Jeff Samardzija as the headliner of a package that could include outfielder Felix Pie, pitcher Sean Marshall and infielder Ronny Cedeno. Other potential pieces, another source said, were pitcher Kevin Hart and minor-league pitcher Donnie Veal.

Er, Jeff Samardzija has a no trade clause. Good luck on getting him to waive it, Cubs and Padres.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-thegameface110708&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

If I were a player,I would have a very very hard time distinguishing a $18,000,000 salary from a $23,000,000 salary and with this kind of money involved, I would gladly take a three year salary and let those three years determine what my next three year salary would be.

There is no way I try to get 6 years just in case I get hurt and can't pitch (earn) those kind of dollars in years 4, 5, and 6 of a 6 year contract.

We really need to get much of the greed out of baseball, especially as it pertains to long-term contracts.

72 It's supposedly a limited NTC.

71 I thought that was referring Martin's constant visits to the mound. Seems everyone but the pitcher and catchers hates that.

67
No on Manny
No on Furcal
Yes on Renteria/Cabrera (Greene consideration would give me constipation and bloating)
YES YES on CC
Yes on Henry Blanco
Yes on Nomar as a 3x per week supersub.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-peavydeal110608&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Oops, wrong link.

76 renteria/Cabrera are both type-A FAs, although that would matter little if CC is signed.

Still, I wouldn't want to give multiple years to either of them.

72
I would think that getting Carlos Marmol from the Cubs would be better than Smardzijjiaazdjia. Marmol/Marshall/Vitters is the package I would request with Marshall being the negotiable piece.

73 So you would rather risk getting no money, than secure it in the future?

78
I am not too keen on it either, but having Hu as the only option going into the spring is less palatable to me. If we sign one of those two, that allows DeWitt to switch to third and Hu to battle with Abreu (if he's healthy). I'm just not quite sold on Hu as even a replacement level offensive player.

If I'm a player/agent trying to get a long-term contract from a team, I have to make the team think that I'm going to be healthy and productive. Otherwise, why should they sign me to a long-term contract?

But if I'm going to be healthy and productive, why should I sign a long-term contract instead of a short-term contract that would enable me to get a bigger raise after a few years than what would probably be written into the long-term contract?

If I'm a team and a player wants a long-term contract from me, I would essentially take that as an admission that the player ultimately has doubts about his long-term health and productivity.

71 I am reaching here but I would guess pitchers like Maddux, Lowe and probably Kuroda would have no problem shaking Martin off while McDonald, Billingsley and Kershaw would be more hesitant. Of course my analysis comes directly from Bull Durham, so anyone with a more intelligent opinion on this matter, feel free to waive me off.

81 We could always roll the dice on DeJesus and have him seriously compete for a starting job in Spring Training.

Dodgers should really try to get away from paying top dollar for mediocre talent and trust its own resources more. They did it with DeWitt because they had no choice, but it mostly paid off for them. And from all reports, DeJesus is miles ahead of DeWitt in development and talent.

Vote yes on DeJesus. Vote no on Renteria/Cabrera.

84 Especially if we're going to be cash conscious as we have been.

Instead of trading prospects such as Carlos Santana to make other teams pay for the salaries like Casey Blake, lets just use the low wage earning prospects in the first place.

So assuming we sign one of Manny or CC are we advocating a DeWitt, DeJesus, Hu, Loney infield?

83, sometimes it looked like Lowe was smirking at Martin's "Let's go baby!" and thinking "you're a sweet little dufus" in a sort of fed-up brotherly admiration.

There continues to be buzz about Robinson Cano going to the Dodgers, with Russell Martin or Matt Kemp being players of interest for the Yankees. But Yankee officials say it is much more likely Cano will remain their second baseman next year.

I'm going to be crude, and call Joel Sherman a ball faced liar.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11072008/sports/moresports/peavy_heading_for_____137538.htm?page=2

73
A friend of mine from high school is an NFL quarterback in the league who tried to explain to me how his mind worked when he signed his two deals after his rookie contract was up. He had a dollar amount he wanted to take home which led him to consider tax rates of the states he would be in and the yearly amount of the contract.

His agent sold him on the slightly lower contract the second time around because tax rates in that state were much lower and could offset the money he was giving up (Rosenhaus was not his agent). Of his total publicized yearly contract, he took home roughly 50%.

That extra $5M will pay a lot of taxes...

According to the San Diego Union Tribune, Jake Peavy and his agent have decided that they'd like Yunel Escobar to remain with the Braves if Peavy is traded to Atlanta.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2008/nov/06/padres-peavy-throws-curveball/?padres

Amazing. This is like the Kobe situation back in Summer 2007, with the Bulls.

Are there any Dodgers that Peavy and his agent have decided that they'd like to remain with the Dodgers if Peavy is traded to Los Angeles?

91 - Maybe there are certain Dodgers that he would like to see involved in the trade? Looking at you Juan and Andruw.

I understand the Dodger would never do this, but wouldn't it be smarter to try and get Burnett and Sheets both instead of just CC? It's very possible that either of them could be just as productive as CC and slightly possible that you get twice as much production as CC. Plus ya don't have to put all your eggs in one basket. You'd be spreading the risk and have a higher upside for your dollars. I think you might be able to get both for roughly the same amount CC's gonna cost.

There is one error in the column, and that's the one stating Samardzija has a "partial" no-trade clause in his contract. Fact is, Samardzija has a FULL no-trade in his deal. As one baseball guy put it to me, "Why would you give a guy with no big-league experience a partial no-trade? It doesn't make sense."

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/901

93 Because both are highly injury prone starters, who are likely to command salaries of over $16-18 million a year.

I rather just go ahead and pay a bit more for a healthy work horse like C.C.

88 I'm going to be crude, and call Joel Sherman a ball faced liar.

Usually one just goes with calling people bald faced liars, which isn't actually crude at all.

95 - Because of their injury history, I doubt that Sheets and Burnett get 16-18 annually (did you mean together or seperately?). Over the last 3 years Sheets and Burnett combined have about 150 starts, CC had about 90. Even if Sheets and Burnett get injured at about the same rate as they have been, I doubt that they have less starts than CC. And the terms of their contracts will be shorter.

The Padres have asked the Cubs for right-hander Jeff Samardzija as the headliner of a package that could include outfielder Felix Pie, pitcher Sean Marshall and infielder Ronny Cedeno

The Dodgers could for sure beat that offer. Samardzija as a headliner? Whats his upside?

Marshall/Cedeno are average players at best and Pie is all potential no results.

I'd be really surpised if the Padres settled for that mix of players.

Joel Sherman is frequently idiotic, making things up out of thin air, so it's not bold to call him a liar. I wish MLBTR would stop quoting from him so frequently, compared to all the other rumor mongers he's particularly bad.

94 The siren song of the NFL

Jeff Samardzija has very pedestrian minor league numbers:

His career minor league K/9 is 5.24.
His bb/9 is 3.60.
HR/9 is 0.92.

I dont see his value in any deal.

98 ... on the other hand, look how relatively cheaply the Cubs got Harden or the Mets got Santana. Again, teams ask the Dodgers for the moon and the stars, and then settle for some asteroids.

102 - The Bedard deal is really the lone pitching trade recently that has sent multiple, quality prospects (Adam Jones, Chris Tillman, and George Sherrill) in return.

Ask Bavasi if he'd do that trade again.

103
George Sherrill was 30 last year at the time of the deal.

I'll accept any well-reasoned failure over a safe waste of time.
Love that. I'm in total agreement that the Jones signing was not as bad as the Pierre signing because the Jones signing would have worked it if went as planned. The Pierre signing was a failure even if it went exactly as planned.

102 I absolutely agree! It seems the Dodgers always have to give up a ton, while others are not rumored to have to give as much.

Shouldn't a Broxton, Lambro, McDonald deal be able to fetch Peavy?

73 - after money comes off the top to your agent, your attorney, your ex-wife/wives, and whoever else needs to get paid, I can see the concern. Also, I'm with reg is I can get a guaranteed amount of money for years 4-6, knowing there's a half decent chance that i'll be on another team, then i absolutely take the longer deal.

also, i have no problem with guys trying to get as much as they can. we're talking about, arguably, the 750 best baseball players in the world. that's a very elite group of players that put in much more work than i ever did, in anything. they deserve to get paid. "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good."

Greed, for lack of a better word, is good

For whom...?

106 Yes, that would be pretty close to what the other teams are offering -- save for Lambo who imho is a better position prospect than most of the others being floated about. I wouldn't want to give him up, though for Peavy it would be tempting.

104 - Yeah, I didn't word that right. He wasn't a "prospect" but pitched pretty well for them, and actually should've been used by Baltimore to fetch more prospects at the deadline this year.

Still, a "Jones and Tillman"-type package seems to be the exception rather than the norm these days.

I am not really feeling all of this Peavy talk. The best scenario for us is we sign CC and Peavy gets traded to the Braves. We get an elite pitcher and an elite pitcher that kills us will now be in another division. Win-win-win.

The only way I can see us trading for Peavy is if we don't get Sabathia, and Ned panics. He no doubt thinks we need an "ace", and doesn't consider Billingsley as such.

when it comes to trading prospects and signing free agents, i think we have to ask a very important question:

do we honestly believe that the Dodgers are a few outs/hits/runs away from being a championship contender? as a corollary, was last year a fluke or an indicator of future success?

i think if you believe the team is in a position to make a sustained run at multiple championships (or even multiple runs at a single championship), then trading prospects becomes more viable. that is the situation where you should be more willing to trade a prospect for some legit PVL to complement the core that is currently in place.

if you believe that last year was a fluke and that this team is going to be finishing somewhere between 2 and 4 in the NL West, then moving prospects becomes less viable.

111 - i would be quite happy with that result, also, if we could get the schedule makers to set it up so that in the 7 games against the braves next year, we don't see Peavy at all, i'm happier than a pig in mud.

Dayn Perry says we can turn to "Chin-hung Lu" to play SS.

115
Or Song-sung Blu. Everybody's knows one...

115 -- Dayn Perry, on the job.

113 - i think if you believe the team is in a position to make a sustained run at multiple championships (or even multiple runs at a single championship), then trading prospects becomes more viable. that is the situation where you should be more willing to trade a prospect for some legit PVL to complement the core that is currently in place.

This year wasn't exactly a fluke. Manny, as it turned out, was enough to push the Dodgers over the top, despite my own feelings on the matter. The problem is that this also depends on the relative weakness of the NL West. I don't know that Colorado, San Francisco, and Arizona will all be as bad next year.

113
Given the exciting entertainment we were provided from the middle of August on this past season - I would love to watch two more seasons of something similar.

If:

Manny were signed and performs to his career average (41 HR's)

Loney develops more power with more experience and strength as his body matures (20+ HR's?)

Kemp develops more power with more experience and strength as his body matures (20+ HR's?)

Ethier continues to enhance his skills (he developed his power this season) - (30+ HR's)

Martin contiues to mature in a like manner (15+ HR's)

DeWitt was showing some line drive power at the end of the season (15+ HR's)

The Dodgers add another infielder capable of hitting 15 - 20 HR's

The Dodgers add two more starting pitchers as good as Kiroda

Would a scenario such as this put the Dodgers in the WS hunt for the next two years?

6 Personally, I'm stunned that the Nationals need new uniforms already. The blue uniform (for patriotic occasions) is pretty wild.

Outstanding post Jon, but this is the one part I don't buy: "Jones offers a cautionary tale when it comes to Ramirez, just as Jason Schmidt or any number of pitchers offer a warning when it comes to Sabathia."

Sabathia and Ramirez are elite players, Hall of Fame-level talents. Jones and Schmidt were pretty good players with up-and-down careers. There's a huge difference between those things in terms of risk.

The chances of Sabathia hurting himself to the extent that Schmidt did are basically nil. A 28-year-old elite pitcher hurting himself to the extent that his career is over -- if that's ever happened in baseball history, I'm not aware of it. As we've discussed before, probably the worst-case scenario for Sabathia is what happened to Kevin Brown. And the Brown deal, even given all his injuries, was still a smashing success for the Dodgers. And Sabathia's a lot younger than Brown, too. The amount of risk involved in a Sabathia contract would be really tiny -- a lot less than most people think.

Same thing with Ramirez: He's an elite hitter and he's going to hit, period. He's old, but there seems to be very little chance that he falls off the table the way Jones did. He might get hurt, but he's not going to perform poorly. At least not for a few more years.

119

Add on-
How many years remain in Torre's managerial contract? (2?)

If six years is too long for the Dodgers to sign Manny, which team isn't it too long for?

121
Couldn't Ramirez have a knee blow out at any time?

Couldn't Sabatihia develop "Tommy John" elbow problem at any time?

Jus' say'in

119
I think if Manny is brought in, plus the inevitable addition of a frontline starter, I would not expect more than 20 HR combined from 2B/3B/SS. That is not to say those positions will be bad offensively, but just not home run threats.

121
Manny still has knee issues. While his bat speed may stay around for a few years there is always the concern his legs will take something away. Three years would a good contract for both parties. Four years would be great for Manny not great for us, two years would be great for us, not great for Manny. Let an AL team give him four or five years. I'm not really all that interested in Manny signing a 3 year deal with us and being unhappy about it.

124
Anyone can develop an elbow problem at any time. I don't think Sabathia is more likely than any other pitcher to develop this.

125
I really feel like that too.

My dream is to have 20+ hr's at the corners and each outfield position.

I gotta have a dream:)

If six years is too long for the Dodgers to sign Manny, which team isn't it too long for?

For starters, a given contract length is more problematic for an NL team than an AL team.

124 But that's the thing. Pitchers with CC's track record and age don't generally have Tommy John. And if they do, they're still good when they come back. Even if Sabathia missed a season to TJ, the Dodgers would still likely get their money's worth over the life of the contract.

And sure, Manny could get hurt at any time, just like I said in my post. But that doesn't mean Andruw Jones is a reason to be fearful of a Manny contract. What happened to Andruw -- forgetting how to hit -- has zero chance of happening to Ramirez.

I think for the most part, fans have misdirected their fear of multi-year contracts. They should be fearful of signing a Jason Schmidt or a Barry Zito or Nomar Garciaparra to a long-term contract. Signing an elite player, on the other hand, carries basically zero risk. It always, always works out.

Is there anything stopping the Yanks from signing Manny and having him DH as his career winds down?

Giambi's off the books & they'll need a DH.

Has anybody read Joe Sheehan's BP chat today?

"Kuroda/Billingsley/Kershaw/McDonald...I think there's definitely room for a signing. Doesn't need to be a high-upside guy as much as someone who will definitely make 32 starts."

That is setting the bar pretty low compared to most of us, and ironically, Ben Sheets may not clear that bar.

124 The bigger question for the Dodgers remains, will their young players continue to improve?

Short of a deal for Jake Peavy, the fate of the team will rest primarily on the no-longer prospect or rookie Dodgers(Martin, Loney, Kemp, Ethier, Billingsley, Kershaw, Broxton).

Sure, keeping Manny, Furcal, adding a pitcher or two, will play significant roles but unless a few of those players becomes someone who you can accurately forecast their season, this team will struggle again.

131
I think they also need a spot to play Matsui (at times) and Posada.

The only thing stopping them is themselves.

133
unless a few of those players becomes someone who you can accurately forecast their season, this team will struggle again

Agreed.

I was looking at CC's stats and wondered how he didnt win the AL ROY in 2001. Well, 2001 Ichiro won & CC finished 2nd.

Ichiro has 1,802 hits in the majors. Its unlikely he gets to 3,000, but even if he doesnt will he still make the MLB hall of fame?

The guy started his MLB career at age 27. Phenomenal to put up 1,800 hits in 8 seasons.

The bigger question for the Dodgers remains, will their young players continue to improve?

Rarely is the question asked, "Is our children improving?"

Boy, the Yankees and Red Sox both created pretty big catching crises for themselves, didn't they? Posada can't catch anymore and there's really nobody available to take his place. They do have Montero in the minors but he's a couple of years away. And the Sox don't have anybody of note on the horizon as far as I know.

Seems like either team could have avoided that problem with good long-term planning. They knew Posada and Varitek were getting old.

130
Thanks you make great points and they are well taken.

133
The young players like Loney and Kemp need to continue to progress and build on their games.

Are Ethier and Jason Werth two good examples of how power can develop after 26 years of age?

Loney and Kemp have all the tools necessary to develop into above average power hiiters.

136 Assuming Ichiro lasts long enough to get one at-bat in 2010 (thus making him eligible), he's a slam-dunk Hall of Famer. We can debate whether it's deserved, but he will get in easily.

136
I think Ichiro gets in as long as hits the minimum 10-seasons mark. There will be enough support for him I think even if he doesn't get to 3,000 hits.

138 Well, their plan obviously was to start planting stories in the baseball media that the Dodgers were disenchanted with Russell Martin, kind of a drip drip drip that would eventually cause his agent to say to Colletti, "hey, if he's not wanted, why don't we work out an exit?" His value thus diminished, the two ESPN teams each would think they could get him for a Julio Lugo-level player.

Some voters may give him a certain amount of credit for his Japanese seasons too, even though technically they aren't supposed to do that.

I would vote for him. You have the MVP season, you have the hits record, consistently outstanding play, the Gold Gloves, plus there's his not-inconsiderable historical significance and impact on the game. That's enough to make up for a short career.

140- Thats interesting point bc if CC was to retire after 2010, I dont think he'd even be in a hall of fame discussion.

Seems pitchers have to have more longevity than hitters to get hall of fame recogntion. And I dont think CC & Ichiro are that far off in terms of impact during the 2000's.

144
Sometimes a couple of Cy Young awards and a WS MVP Trophy can help to mitigate the issue of longevity?

144
Ichiro has some points in his favor in terms of electability:

1) First truly great offensive player from Japan
2) Massive, unprecedented hit totals
3) A unique style of hitting/play
4) His legendary AS game speeches :)

In terms of value, Ichiro might not make the cut. But he's got the aesthetic appeal that makes him stand out.

Just screams "Marty" doesn't it?

http://tinyurl.com/6nea3b

Sigh. The Broncos' running backs this season have become like an Agatha Christie novel. "And Then There Were None." I'm thinking of heading to Colorado to try out.

139, I was gonna say Werth was helped by being at Citizens, but I checked the Home/Away and its 11/13. Wouldn't you rather have had him than Pierre or Jones? Looking over the past moves there doesn't seem to be a well thought out plan (or at least one that takes reality into account {see: Pierre, Juan}).

138 - you mean, like trading Dioner Navarro for Randy Johnson?

It really amazes me how long the Yankees have gone without being able to bring up any difference-makers, and when they do find one, he slips out of their fingers.

149 Keep in mind Werth had a serious wrist injury when they had to make a decision on keeping him around when he was out of options. Its not like the Dodgers saw 20+ HR potential for the next year and decided to throw him in a trash can.

Whether it was a better bet to keep Repko over Werth is another question...

144 - Sandy Koufax.

126 - That's the second time you've mentioned Manny's knees. I don't recall hearing a word about them since he became a Dodger. Did I just miss the boat on that?

121 - Sabathia and Ramirez are elite players, Hall of Fame-level talents. Jones and Schmidt were pretty good players with up-and-down careers. There's a huge difference between those things in terms of risk.

But weren't people talking about Jones as being a borderline HoFer had he stayed on his early-career trajectory? The tell was in the declining numbers.

CC update, courtesy MLBTR:

According to Tom Haudricourt of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, the Brewers GM Doug Melvin expects a counteroffer from C.C. Sabathia's agents. The Brewers have already reportedly offered five years and $100MM, so their ceiling must be a bit higher. Melvin doesn't expect the counteroffer until Sabathia receives bids from other teams.

153 - if you believe the east coast media, Manny's knees function, or don't, according to geography.

Ichiro doesn't have a better resume than Tim Raines (who isn't in yet), but he benefits from the way the BBRAA votes. He has 8 Gold Gloves, 7 All-Star appearances and a .331 AVG in his 8 year career.

I know it's not a popular view around here, but I'm not sold on Sabathia coming to LA. What the Brewers did to him this past year is unforgivable. How many CG did he toss? People haven't pitched like that since the 80's. Gooden, Hershiser and other great pitchers during that era significantly shortened the span of their "elite" status by pitching the way CC did this past season. I think his shoulder is going to go out on him (from the insane workload) which is worse than Tommy John and he'll never quite be the same. If we can get Peavy for anything less than Kershaw, Bills, or Kemp I think we need to do it.

147 Yo know, I would probably try that (but not at $38.00 a box).

At chocolate cover pickles, though, I draw the line. I cant imagine the most seriously pregnant women in the world scarfing those down.

158 - "I know it's not a popular view around here,"

My sense is there is no consensus on Sabathia.

160 How do you feel about it Jon? The Brewers really pushed to the limit this past season.

2b Abreu / DeJesus
c Martin
1b Loney
cf Kemp
rf Ethier
3b DeWitt
ss Hu
lf Pierre

Billingsley, Kuroda, Kershaw, MacDonald, Schmidt/Stultz/Elbert

I can live with this team through 2009. In fact, I would enjoy pulling for this team.

161 - I haven't studied it enough to form a determined opinion yet.

158 - personally, i'd prefer to have a pitcher that can give the bullpen a night off once a week. one of the reasons i'm a fan of Roy Halladay.

161 I guess what I'm trying to say is that as soon as next year Sabathia could be a huge injury risk. I'm sure that those short-rest, max-effort performances were unprecedented for him personally.

158
Noted little guy Pedro Martinez pitched 13 CG for Montreal in 1997, and then went on to have arguably the greatest 6-year run in history. He averaged 194.1 IP from 1998-2003 with a 211 ERA+.

CC threw 241 IP in 2007.
Then 253 IP in 2008.

He's listed at 6'7 290#.

I'm wondering if there's been any studies as to how pitchers that big maintain their success as they go into their 9th+ year of their MLB careers.

I'd rather deal for Peavy as well. Or give Burnett a shorter term deal. Payroll flexiblity is going to be key with all the Dodger youngsters getting arbitration age and having to be paid fairly well.

167 - Add in the 15 innings in the '07 playoffs and the 3 innings in '08, and he was at 256 innings both years.

164
The first guy I thought of after reading 158 was Halladay. He's a horse! I love that guy.

Unfortunately for me, I have an unprintable nickname for him since one of my friends had him in his fantasy league in 2000 (one of the worst seasons ever with 50+ IP). :)

166- True.

But Pedro after 1997 was 26yrs old and had logged 910 career innings.

CC after 2008 was going to be 28yrs old and having logged 1,660 innings.

Its so hard to speculate what he'll be able to do since there are few comparables and presumably no PEDs.

162 That's a 75 win team, at best, right there.

I don't remember ever hearing of the Monty Hall Problem before reading Rob Neyer's blog today. Very interesting.

171- If thats true & the Dodgers dont sign CC or Manny, what other players are out that that could provide a boost for that 75 win team?

162 is basically what the team has currently with no big free agent signings.

173
Probably Sheets, Furcal, and a short-term deal for a 3B or OF is my guess.

171 It looks to me like a 75-win team at worst. Maybe 85 wins at best. But you're right that it's not a contender.

I'd enjoy rooting for those guys, though.

172. Love that book and that problem! If you were ever to go to dinner with me, there is a 50% chance I would bring it up. So that that into consideration before, ya know, choosing to go out to dinner with me.

One guy I haven't heard much about lately is Darvish. Is he going to be posted or what?

Just saw this on the minorleagueball blog. Not sure if anyone else mentioned, and though its not a big deal, I was definitely a little dissapointed:

Ivan DeJesus, SS, Los Angeles Dodgers: Came into Arizona with a reputation for strong defense and a promising bat, but he has looked awful this fall. He has played very sloppy defensively, making frequent mistakes that he normally does not make, and scouts are now questioning his work ethic. He is too young for this to hurt his status badly right now, but he needs to get his head back on straight before spring training.

I think Sheets is getting lost in the shuffle of free agent talks. He's got nasty stuff, and is a legit #1...when healthy. He might be a nice risk/reward pickup at a 2 year contract for a reasonable cost.

177

Probably not this year. If he does, teams will definitely go kookoo for coco puffs for him.

Randy Wolf is available as well. If healthy, he's a nice addition for a reasonable cost.

179 I agree with you except I think he'll get offers much longer than two years. Particularly from the Brewers who likely are going to lose CC.

170 I went down that road earlier. See 3 and 32 .

I think the consensus is that Sabathia is an elite pitcher (similar to Pedro, Maddux, Clemens, etc) and worth the risk. Others have stated that he is less likely to get injured due to his track record.

Do the marginal players that get labeled Type A free agents get their bargaining power hurt?

Who's going to give up a 1st rounder for?

Jaime Moyer
Juan Cruz
Darren Oliver
Russ Springer

184 Russ Springer and Jamie Moyer have a good chance of being resigned with their old team. Angels are likely to decline arbitration to Darren Oliver.

D'Backs did say they'll offer arbitration to Juan Cruz, but he's a good enough pitcher that some team will bite on him.

178 I wouldn't take so much stock into it. If he starts screwing up in spring training when Dodgers coaches are glaring at him is when I'd be concerned.

http://tinyurl.com/5tofdd

This was probably already linked but its Heyman's piece yesterday at SI saying the Dodgers & Manny were far apart.

A couple of friends of mine came up with a good Hot Stove time-killer.

http://charlesapril.com/

Using one person (and only one) from each of the 30 teams, put together the team that would have the best chance of winning in 2009. Name a 25-man roster plus a manager, hitting coach, pitching coach, GM, and owner, so that exactly one person from each of the 30 teams is used.

188 - That sounds cool. Funny that it's almost likely you might end up with a hitting coach from the worst hitting team in baseball, though.

I know one thing -- Manny Acta is my manager.

153
Knee problems (patellar tendinitis in 2006 and 2008), hamstrings (2008), obliques (2007), he's 36 and been playing a long time. It was just a year ago he only hit 20 home runs while missing 24 games because of oblique problems. After playing in 152 games in 2004 and 2005 he only played in 130 in 2006 and 133 in 2007. Great for a catcher, not so much for your 25 Million Dollar left fielder.

We all love what Manny did for us, but we should also all know that he didn't do it for us, he did it for his last big contract. This is not a match I want to pursue, the minor injuries will take a toll.

Boras points to Bonds, who was knee deep in PED's at that point. How silly is that? Does anyone really think Manny is going to be amassing 500 at bats playing LF everyday in the NL at the age of 37-39? Not me, I expect he will give us what Frank Robinson gave the Angels. Good stuff but not worth killing us in 2011.

191 - Pretty compelling comment.

172 There is a reference to this problem in the 21 Blackjack movie that came out last year.

For any math geeks here, I like this site a lot

http://www.mathproblems.info/

Here's a problem you guys can answer for me

A box contains two coins. One coin is heads on both sides and the other is heads on one side and tails on the other. One coin is selected from the box at random and the face of one side is observed. If the face is heads what is the probability that the other side is heads?

194 I'll bite. 50%?

194 I'm lousy at these things but it seems to me like it should be 66.6 percent.

195 , 196 One of you guys has the correct answer.. I'll wait a few minutes and see if someone else wants to answer it.

194 50%

okay, I'll say 50% because only 1 of the 2 coins has a heads on the other side. Mathematically speaking their are 4 possibilities for the first pull H,H,H,T. One of the Heads has to be removed because you have already pulled it leaving H,H,T. Another one of the heads has to be removed because it is exclusive of another heads. Leaving H,T or 50%.

194.
66.7%

The answer is 2/3 or 66.6%.

Instinctively, most people pick 50%. And amazingly some people still believe the answer to be 50% no matter how you can explain it to them.

For an explanation of the solution, read this link. There is an awesome correspondence at the bottom of the page from a biology professor. I love his story with this problem.

http://www.mathproblems.info/prob16s.htm

188 Here's my roster. Using most recent team played for.

C Mauer, MIN
1B Pujols, STL
2B Pedroia, BOS
3B Wright, NYM
SS Ramirez, FLA
LF Ramirez, LAD
CF Sizemore, CLE
RF Holliday, COL

C Soto, CHC
1B/3B Cabrera, DET
1B/OF Berkman, HOU
OF Upton, TBR
OF Markakis, BAL
OF Ichiro, SEA
UTIL Kinsler, TEX

P Sabathia, MIL
P Lincecum, SFG
P Webb, ARZ
P Halladay, TOR
P Peavy, SD

P Jenks, CWS
P Chamberlain, NYY
P Volquez, CIN
P Soria, KC
P Lidge, PHI

MGR Acta, WAS
HITTING Pendleton, ATL
PITCHING Kerrigan, PIT
GM Beane, OAK
OWNER Moreno, LAA

199 You almost had it until "one of the heads has to be removed". It doesn't. The three remaining solutions are H, H, T. Heads on the other side is twice as likely as tails on the other side.

202 I like it.. the first thing that jumped out at me though is I would rather have A-Rod + Santana than Wright + Chamberlain. Then, instead of Halladay, you can have Ryan in the bullpen.

203 I get it. With a coin (HH) you have 2 different ways of pulling a heads, therefore creating 2 different ways to see heads on the other side.

204 You have 2 coins both of which have a head on one side. One of the coins has a head on the other side, and one has a tail on the other side.

Now, since you pull one coin and know it has a head, then the other side can only be one of 2 things, a head or a tail.

The answer wouldn't seem to be 66.6% because you know you have a head on one side, and there are not 3 possibilities for the other side, only 2. It can either be a head making it the HH coin, or it will be a tail making it the HT coin. Where is the 3rd possibility?

The chance the other side is a tail is 50% because there is only 1 coin that is HH and only 1 coin that is HT.

You say my answer is wrong, so I don't doubt you, but explain the error in my logic. Does it not make sense?

172 - care to provide a link? I was looking at the Wikipedia page regarding this problem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

There are four coin sides. Three of them are heads. Therefore, there is a 1/3 chance that you have pulled any one heads side.

Two of those heads sides are on the two-headed coin. Therefore there's a 2/3 probability that you've pulled the two-headed coin.

115 "Dayn Perry says we can turn to "Chin-hung Lu" to play SS."

116 "Or Song-sung Blu. Everybody's knows one..."

Or Him Hung Lo?

202 Utley + Paps > Lidge + Dusty, I think as well. Otherwise pretty solid.

208 Eric, you have 2 coins. Either you pull the 2 headed coin, or you don't.

206 Now, since you pull one coin and know it has a head, then the other side can only be one of 2 things, a head or a tail.

This is the tangent in your explanation. The question should be how likely is it a head or a tail. Because the odds of a head on the other side are higher. Let me ask another question that might explain the answer to this one... if there were 5 coins, and 4 of them had heads on both sides, and one of them was a regular coin (with heads and tails). Now you pull one coin at random and see a head face up. what is the probability that the other side is heads? The other side is a heads or a tails, but obviously it is far more likely that you have a coin that has heads on the other side than a tails on the other side. The answer will not be 50/50. Hope that makes sense. Similarly, if there is a higher chance that you picked a two-headed coin in our question, then there is a higher chance that the other side is head as well.

211 It ain't that simple.

The question isn't what is the probability of pulling the two-headed coin. It is, what's the probability that you've pulled the two-headed coin once you already know that the side you've seen is heads.

207 And the Monty Hall problem doesn't make sense either.

You have 3 doors, and Monty is going to open 1 of the doors that is a goat which leaves 1 door that is a car, and one that is a goat. 50%

Switching can't improve your probability, because either you were right the first time, or you were not right. 50%

211 The question is not whether you pulled the 2 headed coin or not. Let me phrase it this way. If you are looking at a head on the coin, what is the probability that you picked the two headed coin? Since you know one coin has one head and the other one has two, you're twice as likely to have picked the two headed coin.

214 Since you don't seem to be accepting the mathematical explanation, this scenario is easy enough to enact in real life. Get a couple of pennies, mark one of them so that the tails side becomes heads, and do the experiment 100 times. You'll get closer to 67 than you will to 50. (Remember that you have to get heads 100 times. Discard the result whenever the first side that comes up is tails.)

116 was my favorite D4P comment of all time.

213 But how does that change things? Once you know it is a head, the other side is either a head or a tail.

The problem I see is that you can call one side of the 2 headed coin A1 and the other side A2 and then the head on the other coin A3. Then you can say that if you pull a head it is A1 or A2 or A3 to give you your 3 possibilities, when in reality A1 and A2 are the same coin. By saying you have picked A1 and therfore A2 is on the other side or you picked A2 and A1 is on the other side is 2 possibilities to me doesn't make sense when you know they are the same coin.

I just quizzed my staff on the coin question. One refuses to believe it's not 50%.

188
I'm basically throwing away the management positions because I think with this team who needs em.
C McCann Atlanta
1b Pujols St. Louis
2b Utley Phillies
3b Arod NY
SS Ramirez Florida
LF Ramirez Dodgers
CF Hamilton Texas
RF Sizemore Indians

C Mauer Twins
1st/3rd Longoria Tampa
1st Teixeira Angels
OF Granderson Detroit
OF Quentin WhiteSox
OF Berkman Houston
Utl Brandon Philips Reds

P Santana Mets
P Lincecum Giants
P Webb Arizona
P Sabbathia Brewers
P Peavy Padres

P Papelbon RedSox
P Marmol Cubs
P Halladay Toronto
P Soria KC
P Fuentes Col

Manager Acta Washington
GM Billy Beane OAK
BC Baltimore
PC Seattle
Owner Pitt

214 For the Monty Hall problem: There is a 67% chance you picked a goat to start with and a 33% chance you picked the car. After Monty shows you a goat, those odds didn't change, so now there is a 67% chance you switch from a goat to a car and only 33% chance you switch from a car to a goat.

But how does that change things? Once you know it is a head, the other side is either a head or a tail.

Yes, one side is a head or a tail, but that's not the question. The question is what's the odds of it being a head. And you have two out of three possibilities that it's a head.

218 Okay, let me try to explain it another way.

Let's call the heads-heads coin "Coin A" and the regular coin "Coin B." These two coins have a total of four sides. We'll call them sides 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Side 1: Coin A, obverse (Heads)
Side 2: Coin A, reverse (Heads)
Side 3: Coin B, obverse (Heads)
Side 4: Coin B, reverse (Tails)

Now, the probability that you will pull either coin out of the hat is 50%. So the probability of pulling one particular side is 25%. With me so far?

Say you do this 1,000 times. You'll get:
Side 1: 250 times
Side 2: 250 times
Side 3: 250 times
Side 4: 250 times

Except the question specifies that the side you pull out first is heads. Therefore you know with certainty that you're not looking at Side 4.

There is still an equal chance that you're looking at any of the other three sides. So the odds become 33% that you're looking at Side 1, 33% that you're looking at Side 2, and 33% that you're looking at Side 3.

Since the question wants to know what the odds are that you've pulled the two-headed coin, you add the odds for Side 1 and 2 together. Therefore the answer is 66%.

218 , 219 This is one of my favorite problems to ask, because intuitively most poeple do at first think that the answer must be 50%. These people include my wife, my family and a lot of other people I have asked. I think the mind reads the question as what is the probablility that you are holding the two-headed coin instead of the probability that the other side is a head.

ChicagoDodger, I think you are really close to an answer, but still fixated on the coin is either two-headed or not. That is irrelevant to the question of the probablility of there being a head on the other side of the coin. Let's say the first coin has two heads and you call the two sides A1 and A2. The other coin has one head which is B1 and the tail which is B2. Now, you have a coin that is showing a head... that means you are looking at A1, A2 or B1. If you are looking at

A1 - there is a head on the other side
A2 - there is a head on the other side
B1 - there is a tail on the other side

So, if you are looking at A1, A2 or B1, 2 out of 3 times there is a head on the other side. That is the easiest explanation I can think of. Hope it shows you how to come up with the answer.

223 I didn't read that when I posted 224 but we basically have the same explanation.

225 Or what I said in 205 in layman's terms.

226 Yeah, you got it.

ok let me look at the problem this way (191 ).

For me a one time experience with Patellar tendinitis means about a 95% chance that "roids" have been used.

Two times and it's lock.

Always makes me think about the Marble Statue in the anti-steroids commercial

220 , 202 I agree about the management positions; those are the teams you don't choose players from. And you're both smart to have a sixth starter in the bullpen - with those starters one hardly needs for than four real relievers. But Eric, you don't think you need a lefty in the pen (maybe not with that offense)?

There are some persuasive folk on this site. 191 has me seriously doubting Manny in blue. And others' impassioned pleas for C.C. have me leaning that way. Now what should I be thinking about Joe Crede again?

217
Could you at least go in and delete the inadvertent apostrophe s...?

230 Say no on Joe Crede. Boras is going to take the Jason Veritek route with him and demand something like 4 years/50 million just to complete the mass delusion he thinks everyone is on.

http://tinyurl.com/63bmpw

The above URL is a funny piece with Bill Lee going into the Red Sox Hall of Fame and his take on Manny. Given all the comments today it makes you think about the need for the Dodgers to sign him.

After reading all the comments I can't see the Dodgers going for 5 or 6 years on Manny which is what Boras seems to be insisting on. If he can get the Yankees or Angels to bite, the Dodgers don't get Manny. Best the Dodgers can do is 3-4 years with a significantly higher annual salary 25-30 million per year

I'd be willing to go four years on Manny and six on CC.

I'll be willing to go seven years on C.C.

By the end of that contact, he'd be 34 years old.

Yeah, I could see that, I guess. Maybe a mutual option or something.

I hate bad beat stories in poker, I don't even think this qualifies one. I ended up profiting $200 in the hand was only about a 3-2 favorite on the flop. It's just the craziest poker hand I've ever played so I'm sharing and it will probably the last hand I ever talk about on this site.

I just got back from the Bike playing the $200 NL game, long story short 4 way action. JJ vs. 88 vs. 22 vs. 10-9.

Board J-8-2-3-7, rainbow board on the turn.

235 ... and in his second year with the Yankees. ;)

I also finally got around to reading Moneyball for the 1st time. Great book, one question though. The chapter about the pitcher having little to no control over BABIP (which I believe is true, too much eveidence not to). DePodesta brings up an interesting point, he believes a pitcher has no can control BABIP but he can control XBH's. Two questions, has a study on IsoPBIP (isolated power balls in play) been done to see if this is acutally true? Second, if Paul is right wouldn't IsoPBIP be a much more useful tool than BABIP?

I keep waiting for Anton Chigurh to log into this conversation.

"It's been traveling twenty-two years to get here. And now it's here. And it's either heads or tails. And you have to say. Call it."

I've been meaning to mention a rather extraordinary thing that's been going on at the Times and I really don't mean this as a rule 5 violation.

Since Wednesday morning people have been lining up in our lobby and out onto the sidewalk to buy a copy of the paper with the election results on it. There's been about a 75-person deep line from morning until night since. We've sold over 350,000 extra copies of the paper and replica printing plates of the front page. We are going to staff people all through the weekend to handle the lines as well. It's just been an amazing phenomenon. I've never seen anything like it in my 32 year career. I understand the same thing is going on at the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times.

Newspapers may be dying, but they ain't dead yet.

230

Is Furcal's lower back in better shape than Crede's?

241 While I'm glad to hear that, the pessimistic view is that nobody's buying them to read; they're buying them as souvenirs so they can explain to their grandchildren what newspapers were.

Yeah, you can always spin a pessimistic view of anything. But it had nothing to do with what a newspaper was. It was all about what was on it. I'm told they sold a lot of subscriptions too.

Copies of Wednesday's NY Times are selling for anywhere from $10 to $75 on eBay.

245 Now that's interesting. I really didn't think there there was any re-sale value.

Apparently a couple of days ago they were $300 and up, but then I guess people realized how many copies are actually out there.

Yeah, with our regular 700-800k run plus the extra 3-500k we will sell, that's a lot of copies.

I know the weaknesses of similarity scores, but someone posted Sabathia's, which made me realize they've been updated on B-R for 2008. Just for grins:

Matt Kemp - Similar Batters through Age 23:
1. Nick Markakis (975)
2. Enos Slaughter (967) *
3. Garry Maddox (965)
4. Johnny Groth (964)
5. Ellis Burks (963)
6. Heinie Manush (957) *
7. Gary Matthews (956)
8. Bug Holliday (953)
9. Bruce Campbell (951)
10. Jim Rice (950)

James Loney - Similar Batters through Age 24:
1. Babe Herman (971)
2. Sean Casey (968)
3. Joe Hauser (965)
4. Ron Blomberg (959)
5. Alvin Davis (953)
6. Chick Hafey (952) *
7. Carlos Lee (948)
8. Jeff Bagwell (946)
9. Adrian Gonzalez (946)
10. Greg Walker (942)

Chad Billingsley - Similar Pitchers through Age 23:
1. Ray Culp (977)
2. Andy Benes (974)
3. Carlos Zambrano (972)
4. Jake Peavy (972)
5. Jim Palmer (968) *
6. Sid Fernandez (967)
7. Bill Stafford (967)
8. Chuck Estrada (965)
9. Mark Prior (964)
10. Britt Burns (962)

249 So, on the optimistic side, a Rice/Maddox hybrid, a left-handed Bagwell, and Jim Palmer is a good start.

63 - The answer is: CC + Monds!

136 - Another question may be: will Ichiro be the first HoFer to wear a Mariner hat or will (for some reason) Griffey instead?

158 , rumors were that Ned Yost lost his job because he refused to do that to Sabathia and because Sveum would...but perhaps because ownership knew they didn't have as much invested in CC as his next team would?

173 , I can think of a free agent LFer with even more career homers than Manny...

251 Sit C.C. down? After throwing 7 or so innings?

241 I went here:

http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/default_archive.asp?fpArchive=110508

and downloaded the PDF of the front page of the NY Times, LA Times, and various other papers.

251
Old school people come to the public library and steal the newspaper.

Sounds like somebody needs more of those wooden newspaper sticks.

255
LAPL hasn't used those sticks since Clayton Kershaw was born.

Or maybe before.

Nikola Dragovic is now a criminal.

At my local public library you don't have to steal the paper because there's a box at the front door where everybody who wants one can get a free copy. (It's sponsored by local businesses.)

That is almost assuredly the only way in which my library is superior to the LAPL.

confession time. There might be a few Dodger and Laker SI covers missing from magazines in the library at BYU. Glad I got that off my chest. I'm pretty sure a re-paid them in parking tickets so I think they'll let me keep my degree.

I'm a huge fan of 1A and I'm glad it passed.

Although, I really hope this doesn't end up like that Monorail episode of "The Simpsons."

By the way, I still have no answers from anybody about where the proposed train will go.

Will it make a stop in Santa Barbara? Man I hope so. That would be great!

260
North Haverbrook will be one of the stops.

260 My g/f made that Monorail reference when we briefly argued about that proposition, because she was worried about the same thing. I eventually swayed her on it. But no, it won't stop in SB, alas, because it's got to cut through the Central Valley for it to be a top speed train, much easier to scoot up that way. The lovely ol' Coast Starlight will continue to chug up the coast through SB I'm sure. I would assume there would be some kind of connecting bus at least to the high speed train. If we're all still alive when it's finally completed.

And perhaps Leonard Nimoy will be on its inaugural voyage.

(And yes I was in favor of it as well. I'm just impatient.)

Hopefully it will be built before everyone is in cars that drive themselves.

262 - http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/map.htm

I voted no on all the bond measures. I'm not sure how this one passed because I thought bond measures were supposed to pass by something other than a simple majority.

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/59.htm

241 - amazing.

262

Has anyone had a ride on the Coast Starlight? I'd much rather take a train from SB to San Jose, instead of a plane. It's easier to get on a train, cheaper, and takes just as long (when you factor in the flight delays and the security screening).

I've read some reviews and many of them are favorable. I hear the views are great!

I just paid over $300 dollars including shipping for the new DSi.

I'm addicted.

265
Statewide bond issues just need a simple majority. School district bond measures require a 55% majority. I believe that all other municipalities (cities and counties) require a 2/3 majority.

Why?

I'll tell you.

I don't know.

Tradition!

Shaquelle Evans seems determined to commit to all the schools I hate.

I'll take CC.

We need a big bat in the lineup.

Enough of the Missionary conundrum.
It is usually better to go with the flow.
We have as prospects only middle infielders.
Best to play them for cheap and enlarge an already cheap core. Spend money on a starter and/or a slugger.
The reason are farm seems to have gone is that most of them are MLers. Could be worse.

272 our--Doohh!

267 I've taken that train quite a few times, from Bay Area from/to SB. I'll say it's generally pretty pleasant and the views, especially along the Vandenberg AFB/Pt Conception coast and north of Salinas, are lovely. Going north is more reliable than southbound, if you're catching from SB, because you're closer to the pt of origin. And there are more reasons for delay from the north with the great distance and occasional snowy weather in the NW, etc. But I've done it both directions and have enjoyed it -- as long as you don't mind the length of time it takes. Not for those in a big hurry, as it's not high speed rail.

274
I had no idea that even existed.

237

I imagine the guy with the 10-9 had great pot odds to stay in after the turn, the betting had to be heavy.

The real question is...was the betting heavy pre-flop, and did he make a bad move staying in and then got very lucky.

269 Because Tevye runs the State Controler's Office. You should have seen the bond issues for Anatevka before the pogroms.

260 just did a round trip on the Pacific Surfliner last Saturday to Santa Barbara. I was supposed to return on the Coast Starlight and hit the dining car, but that train was 2 hrs late. Fun trip & for $27 round trip with AAA discount, a bargain.

Dodgers won't get a bargain with Manny, but Sabbathia probably would be... get them both and let Nomar back up the kids & Ross back up Martin and we're good.

http://www.angryalien.com/1205/starwarsbuns.asp

"Boras: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Manny"

that is absolutely the best title to any post i've ever read!

276 Ya, I don't remember the exact amounts everyone started the hand with but it went...

88 check, 10-9 bet 30, 22 call, I raise to 210, 88 call, 10-9 call (all-in), 22 call (all-in). Turn 3, 88 bet 430 (all-in) than I called.

281 I raised it pre-flop to $25 and there was 7 callers. It was a wild game.

That is a loose table, but if the 10/9 was short stacked, he had no choice but to go all in at that point. Were they suited?

My guess is the Angels wind up getting Manny, Teixeira and Lowe go east, Blake returns to Indians, Furcal becomes an ex-Dodger, and CC becomes a Dodger.

My crystal ball also shows Nomar playing first for the Angels.

284
I just can't see a scenario where the Yankees do not sign CC. If the Dodgers go 6/120, the Yankees will go to 7/150.

284 286 6/120 might do it if CC really would rather live in SoCal than New York, New York.

Manny as an Angel must be McCourt's nightmare--and Moreno knows it.

287

That's on McCourt, frankly. He only has himself to blame if he allows that to happen. Honestly, McCourt and Ned have to do better than a measley 45 mil for 2 years. Give me a break! 3 for 90, 3 for even 80 would be reasonable. Not 2/45.

---

Good lord, I just read about Bullfighting. I had no idea that bullfighting was so brutal. That is unbelievable! How was this sport allowed for hundreds of years?

288
I can't talk about bullfighting without breaking Rule 1, Rule 5, and quite possibly Rule 9.

However, when I tell some people I dislike it, they react in the same way as when I say I dislike Notre Dame.

What a massive win for the Gunners without Adebayor and Van Persie. Too much Nasri, Zak.

289
Are there really people who feel strongly positive about it? I would think that it would be met with the same indifference in the US as cricket.

291
I know a lot of people who enjoy bullfighting.

None of them are named Ernest Hemingway however.

I don't think any of them are named Toro either.

289 Sure, bullfighting is fun to watch, but comparing it to Notre Dame? That may be a little bit of a stretch.

Joe Christensen has an update on the Twins' search for help on the left side of the infield. Minnesota is one of seven teams interested in Casey Blake, according to Blake's agent Jim McDowell.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

TYPE-B COMP COMING RIGHT UP

NPUT

294
The 2007 Jimmy Clausen was very much like the bull in a bullfight.

I'm surprised someone from USC isn't carrying around his ears as a trophy.