Regarding LaRoche: if he's still on the team come spring training, I'd guess his future with the franchise will depend heavily upon his spring performance.

1. If he performs well, he'll get to go to Las Vegas and look forward to being called up to platoon with Nomar once Management finally figures out that Nomar isn't very good anymore.

2. If he performs poorly, he's gone.

Good post. Now, lets get in our time machine and fast forward through the ARod/Torre/Kent Retirement/LaRoche/Kemp rumors craziness and enjoy our last season at Vero.

That about sums it up. I'm tired, wake me in a little over 2 weeks.

1
Dang it! I'm never first.

Anyway, I hope that if Colletti has any visions of trading LaRoche, he does it before they turn him into Lastings Milledge. A prospect who is outstanding but because of organizational badmouthing, his trade value is reduced.

I think that if Colletti listens to White, LaRoche will be allowed to earn a spot in March. Otherwise I expect Ned to trade him this offseason for someone like Joe Crede.

Jon, you've put your finger right on the button with this. To what extent will Ned let fear guide his decisions?

I'm starting to feel bad for Colletti, because choosing not to be stupid is also the risky option -- not for the team, but for him. If he signs A-Rod and the Dodgers fail to make the postseason -- which could happen -- the headline is, "Where did that $300 million get you?" and there's a possibility that Ned gets fired.

Doing nothing and putting the team in the hands of the kids -- the other right move -- is also risky. If the Dodgers fail to make the postseason, that headline is "Ned stands pat on fourth-place team," and he may get fired for that, too.

If he doesn't sign A-Rod, but instead (say) Mike Lowell, who goes back to being Mike Lowell next year, he can say, "Hey, I got the World Series MVP and a guy who hit like bonkers last year. Who knew? At least he didn't cost as much as A-Rod," and Colletti can keep his job.

Basing decisions on fear -- the worst-case scenario -- might not be the best for the team, but does Ned have a family to support and put kids through college? Will he put his job on the line to make the right decision for the club, knowing that he might be on a short leash if he does?

What's the line in "Jerry Maguire?" That's how you get great...

I think by now I'm more or less apathetic to what happens. If one of the stupid things happens, such as signing Mike Lowell, it'll be a good laugh. Otherwise, I'm resigned to watching and waiting.

By the way, I was glad to read the previous thread's comments and learn I'm not alone in hating this time of the season.

"I choose not being stupid. It's really not that hard."

Easy for a smart person to say!

If Ned Colletti could choose not to be stupid, a certain tiny-headed slap hitter with rabbit-like tendencies would not be installed in CF for the next four years.

The argument for getting A-Rod on the Dodgers comes down to this: For all that money you're getting a great player, and if we spend all that money on him, there will be little appetite to spend a lot of money on future Juan Pierres.

The argument for signing Torre, which I'm not as viscerally opposed to as some, is that he will be completely unafraid to go to Colletti and say, "Juan Pierre is killing us out there. I'm sitting him." Grady is a nice guy, he knew Ned liked Juan, and didn't want to cause a rumpus, even if he recognized that Pierre was a rally killer. As I've said many times, Grady's lineups were about clubhouse politics not winning games. That's really unacceptable. I don't know what else I want a manager to be, but he's got to be the boss. He's got to be willing to be the lightning rod for disappointed players and be willing to say to their face, "You're not playing because that's better for the team. Now be quiet."

I am fine with Laroche getting a legit shot, the Dodgers being smart and not stupid and them finding some pitching. I think the biggest problem last year was the Dodgers didn't have one decent starter the last month of the year except Billingsley. Figure out the pitching problem. I like that lineup and love seeing Delwyn Young in it. But I am not convinced that it needs Alex Rodriguez.

Distinguished talk show host and top notch baseball analyst Colin Cowheard had the following beauty on his talk show this morning. "It's obvious from watching the Rockies and Red Sox play in the World Series, that it's pitching and chemistry that win championships." - CC

Personally, I thought it was obvious that having your team name start with the letter "R" was what won championships.

vr, Xei

I'm perfectly willing to enter the season with LaRoche as the team's starting third baseman, but reality tells us that even if Rodriguez isn't signed, LaRoche won't have that status. He'll have to wait for someone to get hurt or earn it in that tedious way we've grown accustomed to.

And this is why our management is completely and absolutely baffling. When really coming to terms with how they operate, it's just astounding.

let's just hope Nomar can hit above .230....

7
I used to like it before I came to LA and became a Dodger fan about 6 years ago. It was so much easier to laugh off the lunatics who gave out crazy money to players when I wasn't emotionally attached.

Now that I care, I despise November-February.

Kevin Malone was just too easy to make fun of. Now I put my winter mood in the hands of Colletti...now I'm the sucker.

9
I was talking about this with my brother (Cubs fan) and we determined that the Dodgers have no #1 starter, but we do have 3 #2s. Penny, as much as I like him, does not take over games more than 3-4 times per year. The other times, he simply goes out, does his job well, and wins his games. He strikes fear in the heart of no one.

Bills is a good, cheap, #2 and I am ecstatic with that. Lowe, also a 2-3 guy. How about a bona fide ace (Kershaw, Elbert, SANTANA).

Fix the staff, Ned.

0 1) adding Rodriguez's salary would put too many eggs in one basket by leaving the Dodgers vulnerable if he were injured

Hmm. The corollary to that would be that teams should sign less-talented players because they're easier to replace in case of injury.

If NedCo doesn't have the guts to do what he thinks is right without worry for what the media thinks, he shouldn't have taken the job.

11 Nomar is perfectly capable of hitting .280-.290.

The problem is him slugging the exact same numbers.

14 You mean, another set of LuGo, Pierre, and Nomar? I'd rather just have A-Rod.

I think that whatever teams signs A-Rod is going to have to have a PLAN, on a powerpoint or a big glossy folder, to convince him that they are going to win it all with him. The Texas experience had to sour him on being the only good player on a team. While I think the Dodgers are on the cusp, I could see A-Rod asking: "Why should I come to a team where the only players I have heard of are over the hill or oft injured?"

If you think selling Plaschke on the youth movement was tough, try Boras and his star client. I want A-Rod, but I do not want the philosophy that he will bring with him.

Cowherd also interviewed Boras, who must be making the rounds. It's pretty clear that his strategy is:

1) To get the Yankees to back down about negotiating with A-Rod, because

2) He needs the Yankees in the game to get the deal he wants for A-Rod.

He's also saying A-Rod's decision to opt out was designed to give him time to find out what happens with Rivera and Posada. Yeah, I believe that one.

I like this time of year, its interesting to see how things play out.

If you don't like it, I think it tends to fall into that fear catagory that Jon talked about above.

Look, making any move is a risk, a good free agent deal is more the exception than the rule or at least no better than a 50/50 shot.

But trades are not as plentiful as they once were and with the parity in baseball, a lot of teams think that only a few moves can make them contenders.

So, sure, if you want the Dodgers to just keep what they have and see what happens in the spring, then you have a long few months to go but for me, it will be fascinating to see how it plays out.

What it comes down to for me is watching a young team play. I want to watch them even when they are losing games. I would rather watch Laroche given the chance to fail. If he fails, it is because it is in the truest sense of what baseball is about for me. I like watching this young Dodger team play. I don't care either way about Rodriguez as a player.

15 If that's in reference to my post -- and it might not be -- I apologize, I should have been more clear. It isn't Colletti that would lack the guts to do what's right for the team, it's McCourt.

I'll know I should wait for the Torre rumors to be confirmed before saying this, but it certainly seems that McCourt is capricious in his tendency to fire people at the first sign of trouble. If Little is going to be replaced, I believe that it's the owner behind that decision.

22 - If Torre does come, I take that as a definite sign that Ned is in big trouble. And when Ned gets backed into the corner, I fear for the results.

But Torre coming on would certainly sway ARod away from coming to LA? They didn't have the greatest of relationships in NY.

22
And the owner should take questions behind the podium without Camille to run interference for him. Stand up. Take the criticism. Explain your plan/vision.

23
You are right. That is the classic scenario of signing overpriced vets to backloaded deals to ensure that you win NOW and do not have to deal with the consequences after you are gone. Hendry did that with the Cubs and Soriano's contract.

I am also tired of inheriting other peoples has beens. Rodriguez, Torre, Girardi, Kent, Gonzo, Brown and their faded glory. I want the Dodgers to become the next Tigers, Rockies or Indians. I will be happy to watch them lose for a while. I am done talking Dodgers baseball for a while....at least for a while.

For better or worse, A-Rod doesn't strike me as someone to complain, while he is under contract, about the composition of the team.

22 I think what I said could just as easily work for McCourt being an owner. And it certainly seems like he's trigger happy with firing people at the first sign of trouble (where "trouble" is defined by the media's expectations and not his plan for the team).

27 - He's always seemed like a good teammate to me. If anything, that's part of the criticism against him - that he's too scripted and calculating, too fake. But he does get thrown under the bus a lot, and Torre let it all happen.

26 Umm, the Tigers have many millions invested in Ordonez, I-Rod, Kenny Rogers and Shef.

If Penny wasn't a number one last year then your definition of a number one is met by about 7 or 8 pitchers in the big leagues.

30 - And previous "has-been" Leyland.

Really nice read Jon, I just hope everything pans out well.

To what extent is sports fandom separate from the other entertianment we consume?

For example... I'll often stop going to movies that are made by past favorites. For example, take Rob Reiner. He made a bunch of great movies in a row. I went to see some more recent movies just because he directed them. I was a fan, and I was not rewarded. As a result, the situation changed -- now I don't go.

But let's say that the Dodgers give in to their stupidest tendencies this off-season. They sign Mike Lowell and trade LaRoche for pennies on the dollar. They sign Aaron Rowand and move Pierre to left and trade Andre Ethier for a middle reliever. They do not sign a starting pitcher.

Would I, or any of you, stop being Dodger fans? I doubt it. Could anything occur that would be a deal-breaker for you?

Is sports fandom different from other entertainment?

29 It appears to me that in general, fans are more forgiving to the loose cannon approach (Manny being Manny, Shaq) than the say the right thing (A-Rod, early Kobe) approach when it comes to how their superstars come off through the media.

I think one reason the Angels are successful in that way is that really when you think about them, you think of Mike Scioscia, partly becuase their biggest star doesn't really do a lot of media.

That would change with A-Rod, there is no way that Scioscia could stop that media train and I think that is one reason why the Angels will think long and hard about entering this circus.

By definition, a #1 starter is one of the 30 best starting pitchers in the majors. Going by that, we have two #1 starters, or possibly three.

36 - I've tried to make this point repeatedly in the past, to little avail.

Would I, or any of you, stop being Dodger fans?

Depends on what that means. Does it mean:

1. No longer listing Dodgers as official "favorite team"
2. Not caring (much) whether they win or lose
3. Actively rooting against them
4. Some combination of above

31
That is my point, actually. Just because you occupy the top spot in a rotation does not give you a dominant 1-type pitcher. Santana, Beckett, Halladay, Peavy. Those are true #1s. Every time we face San Diego in a three game series, I always think, "Maybe 2 of 3 would be good."

I know that it is semantics, but just like we would all love to have an ARod, Bonds, or Guerrero-type offensive player that causes pitcher sphincters to tighten, I would like to see the Dodgers get a guy like Santana who could do the same to opposing hitters.

Here's hoping that Kershaw/Elbert/McDonald develops into this and leaves us with about $18 million in change.

I don't really feel like signing A-Rod would be a betrayal of the youth movement, or "selling out" to our homegrown roots. The "Last Great Moment in Dodgers History™" was done by a free agent. We could still have Ethier (yeah A's whatever), Kemp, Hu, Abreu, Loney, Martin, Billingley, Broxton, Kershaw, etc., as long as we (the FO) want them anyway.

38 I mean #2.

I watched all or parts of about 100 games last year. I don't know that I could do that if the worst happens... and if the predicted results came to pass, I don't know that I'd do more than shake my head as I read the box score in the morning dog trainer.

39 I still think by that notion that Penny was an "ace," at least for much of the season. Unless you're just referring to the player's reputation and not their current performance. But then Peavy's had his off-years hasn't he?

34 That's my point. I watch the Dodgers because they are the Dodgers and I live and grew up in Los Angeles. What happens is I get excited for some guy like A-Rod when he is signed, the Dodgers don't win it all and I am frustrated.
I watch the young guys play and I end up liking the team. I enjoy the game being played and I don't have to worry about some guy like A-Rod. I guess part of it is, I just don't like A-Rod. That is probably foolish. But maybe if the Dodgers sign him, I will proved wrong which is fine with me.

36
By strict definition, I would agree with you, but my point is really about semantics and frustration (and emotion). We are the Dodgers and should have at lease one of the following: A superstar hitter or a superstar pitcher.

It is not a god-given right, but I feel that we deserve it given that Eric Gagne's Cy Young and Beltre's MVP-type season are a couple of years in the rear-view mirror.

I will say that if the Dodgers were to screw up their current youthful core, I'm at a point in my life where I would seriously consider letting go.

34
Sure, I stopped following the Dodgers for several years after they traded Piazza and made Sheffield the man and I had a hard time rooting for a team owned by Fox.

I've given up 38 years of being a Laker fan until Kobe is gone.

It is not about being vindictive, I just lost interest.

I don't understand how this is even a question. If we don't get A-Rod and stay the path, thats one thing. But I think we are underestimating just how badly Ned wants to spend money to meet his quota every year (Pierre, Schmidt, Gonzalez). If we don't get a player of his caliber we have more signings like this to look forward to. Spend 30 million on a guy who is worth it, and can break records while on the squad creating a marketers dream in the process. As far as LaRoche goes, comparing him to the situation with the dodgers 35+ years ago seems a stretch considering how different the offensive side of the game was back then. Obviously the leash wont be as long, because the playing field offensively has risen considerably.

38--#2 is actually really easy, but I think that comes with just getting older.

NedCourt inspires apathy bc its like watching a re-run of 89-03 all over again.

"PVL" is a good remedy for insomnia.

34 I think the Dodgers are sort of like part of the family. Sure there are times when I get so angry at the stupidity of their actions, and times when I get detached, but I've never really stopped loving them. At least yet.

45 Question: how do you define "screw up?" Would that have to go farther than what I outlined (sign Lowell and Rowand, trade LaRoche and Ethier, Pierre plays left, no substantial changes to starting pitching)?

I've given up 38 years of being a Laker fan until Kobe is gone.

I've given up 26 years of being a Laker fan until Kupchak/Buss are gone.

39 - There is no such thing as a "true" number one. There are aces and there are superaces, but by definition a number one is one of the top 30 pitchers in baseball. Billingsley was certainly that down the stretch (3.12 ERA in the second half) and Penny was definitely that before he got tired or whatever (2.39 ERA in the first half).

38
Signing Bonds would do it for me until he was off the team...

I still have hope for the Lakers and Kobe and Jerry Buss. Less so for Kupchack and Jim Buss. I'm probably in the minority here.

50 - I'm not looking to define it. I'll know an obscenity when I see it.

Forget A-Rod, Torre, and Colletti. Jon has awakened long-dead demons of my youth. Was Rick Monday that much more helpful in the end than Buckner? Or Messersmith for Valentine? Statistically, I have no idea, but I hated, hated those deals at the time. No wonder I still hate moving our kids even today.

I also remember having the least hope in Garvey due to his arm. Hat's off to you Jon, the LaRoche comparison is a good one.

30 I don't think there is anything wrong with signing a good veteran here and there especially when it comes to pitching. Except for Sheff, those other Tigers are all team oriented kind of guys.

Obviously, this is an unlikely scenario, but ... why couldn't we sign A-Rod, keep LaRoche in Las Vegas (or coming off the bench) for a season, not re-sign Furcal the next year, and move A-Rod to shortstop the next season?

Not only do we keep LaRoche, but we'd also clear ourselves of the 13 mil a year Furcal is raking in ... that would make whatever ungodly sum Rodriguez will be paid seem less harsh.

I think back to win Manny took all that crap about his HR and then said he dosen't care if they win the WS because there is always next season. What an amazing bout of leadership without even really trying to be a leader most likely. The press and fans were all over Manny. He took alot of heat off the rest of the team with his comments. Everyone was talking about it...He basically was saying it's just a game, relax and try as hard as you can, other than that, what can you do?

I don't miss Sheffleld, but miss having someone in our lineup like him and I think A-rod around the rest of our young emerging talent gives us a much better chance at winning. We need a bat in the middle of the order that other teams have to game plan around. Lowell looks great when he has Manny and Ortiz in front of him and Drew behind him..

A-rod is that guy right now and will be that guy until Kemp and others are that guy.

If it were up to me (i'll live in Jon's second world) I would package Furcal with others for something special via trade for the OF or pitching help..move A-rod back to short and go with LaNomar at 3b.

57 - How did signing a good vet like Schmidt work out this year? There is plenty wrong with overspending for past performance when a player is in the decline phase of his career.

57 - Ordonez, Pudge, and Kenny Rogers are team-oriented players now? Winning sure helps mend reputations.

Two things:

Kurkjian thinks he'll be a Dodger (speculation, but interesting).
The guy was worth 13 wins this year.

Just because you have 28 teams doesn't mean you have 28 number one's. Being a number one pitcher for KC does not qualify you as a number one pitcher. When scouts say that a pitcher as number one stuff , they aren't saying he's got Gil Meche stuff, they are saying he has Peavy stuff.
My own opinion is that baseball has < 10 number one pitchers. The hope is that Kershaw will develop into one of those.

You can disagree with me but you'd be disagreeing with people a lot smarter then me who have made the argument that I'm just parroting.

60 I am not saying to sign a veteran like Schmidt to a huge contract or just any guy who comes along.
I am talking about a guy like Kenny Lofton who killed for the Indians this year and the Dodgers instead got Pierre who is Kenny Lofton Light with more years and more money owed to him.

45

... I feel the same way, especially after last season. If the Colletti/Little regime continues to stifle this youth movement, it will be only too easy to turn them off and focus on other things.

51

"I've given up 26 years of being a Laker fan until Kupchak/Buss are gone."

... Amen to that. I've been a Laker fan for about the same amount of time as you have, btw. If only West could have stayed on, and Chick would have stayed with us. The organization has never recovered from losing those two.

63
What kind of absolute standard do you use to identify a "Number One" pitcher...?

58
Good point. We don't have to trade LaRoche just because we sign Arod. I'd be fairly tickled with an infield of Loney, Hu, Arod, LaRoche. Hu could be our cheap version of the O'Dog.

52
By your definition Brad Penny was our ace (again, not slamming our workhorse in any way) and the only player we had ranked in the top 30. His 1.31 WHIP and 1.8:1 K/BB ratio does not tell me that he is dominant in any way other than ERA.

Typing it all out, what I guess I would like more than anything is a franchise hitter/pitcher. I do not want an Ace. I want a guy that makes my ticket worth the extra money McCourt will be charging me next season.

Your definition is correct, by the way. I just am itching for the Dodger cornerstone to come along and am too impatient as a relatively new fan to want to wait for Kemp/Loney/Martin/Kershaw to become that guy.

63 = That's not our point. One team can have more than one No. 1 starter.

People can disagree, but to me a No. 1 starter is someone who is good enough to be the top starter on a major league baseball team. To me, that means there are 30 of them. That they are unevenly distributed among the teams is beside the point.

There is another scenario that could exist if AROD is signed other than the one that has Ned doing things that appear to him are win now things.

Ned will not have the money he now has without AROD if he signs AROD. Ned might think he has to sign somebody like Schmidt because he thinks he can win now but he might not have the money to do it.

Signing AROD could take away the stupid veteran signings that keep reducing Dodgers ability to move forward and keep them repeating two decades of status quo.

65 I am amaz