Nice Torre quote in the new Gurnick article cited above:

"Right now, we're looking to see what we can do offensively," he said. "And any time you can add quality pitching to your staff, you do it. I don't know if there are any gaping holes from what I've heard. I'm more familiar with the names of our guys, the Kemps and [Andy] LaRoches and Loneys."

(Please forgive the guy the use of the plural names.)

Okay, I will step away except to say that no one was more surprised than me how good a movie Back to Future was when I first saw it over 20 years ago at the AVCO in Westwood.

Music to my ears. I love the case you're making. Even if he doesn't exist.

Never!

I would think incumbency would mean at least ever-so-slightly less to a new manager than to an incumbent skipper.

Ned might not be able to move from "5-year-contract, starts 162 games in centerfield" to "5th outfielder on the bench" in one swift effort. It might take him 3 or 4 demotions to get there, but it's the destination that's important, not the journey.

The other 3 are going to be 4 to 6 years, $13-15M per.

On a two-year deal, I could live with it.

Man, Jason Repko's gotta be checking out housing listings in other cities right about now...

You think Trashcangate has been trouble...

Actually I have to agree. As much as I hated the trade at the time, the Lakers are much better off the way they are now than they would be if Shaq was still a Laker.

Yes even as they are the Lakers are still better off. Big game vs the Pistons tonight!

I just think there's mystery about the move still, and I'm not sure the analogy tracks.

But yes, every little chink in the armor probably helps.

You're right, but we're not better off.

We managed to trade Shaq and get POUNDED by Grant's contract, and then Odom and Butler. Of course, then Butler was shipped for Kwame who might be the worst starting center in basketball.

NBA Gm's seem to not be able to work their own sport's salary cap. How do you trade a dominant (at the time) Shaq and not even get an all star back?

I'm not convinced. He's had numerous injury problems, conditioning problems, motivational problems, and a big mouth lately. I love Shaq like a brother, but to pay nearly 30 mil a year for an aging player...?

He's doing a fine job defensively - see Yao Mings shooting percentage from the other night - hence his starting role.

And yes, the Shaq trade was bad, mainly because I think Kupcheck panicked and took the first nominally decent trade he could get. The Butler trade was likely needed, the Lakers were overstocked at the 3, but Brown was a bad pick up. Though, I suspect most recognized that Shaq was about to fall off pretty quickly if he didn't change his approach.

To tie it into the Dodgers, it's bad player evaluation and dealing by the GM.

Jon, I think you mean not bench

Duncan had a bad game. It happens. I'm in no way attributing it to Kwame Brown.

The bottom line is that Kwame makes about 4 times what he should make. Do you realize if Mitch didn't pick up his option we would have had 9 million dollars to spend on a GOOD player?

That's the entire problem with the NBA. You make one dumb signing, and it completely hinders the ability to get more help...which is why we're having this kobe problem in the first place.

1. Wilt traded from San Francisco Warriors to Sixers, Sixers win title, Warrrior do win a title (10 years later) but mostly are not a challenger for the next 40 years.

2. Wilt traded from Sixers to Lakers, Lakers go to 4 finals in 5 years winning their first title in Los Angeles, in Wilt's last year with the Lakers, Sixers set all time wores regular season record.

3. Kareem traded from Bucks to Lakers, Lakers, though it takes a while do ultimately win 5 titles with a lot of help, Bucks have not made the Finals since the trade.

4. Shaq signed FA contract, Magic still has not recoverd, Lakers won 3 titles in a row.

5. Shaq dealt from Lakers to Heat, Heat win title, Lakers end up in lottery and two first round exits.

The requirements regarding salary matches in trades have made them even more difficult to get value since the team dealing the franchise player usually has to get back a lot guys to get close to the salary figure.

If the Celtics win a title with KG, will whatever Minnesota got for him be considered equal value?

That would be amazing. The fact that Colletti said they thought they had a deal and then went on to mention how he didn't want to give up 3 or 4 players leads me to believe the deal wasn't the catastrophic Kershaw, Laroche, Kemp, Loney type deal.

But we'll never really know.

That is a concept that is really hard for NBA GMs to consider which is why you see these apparent one-sided deals get made.

The requirements regarding salary matches in trades have made them even more difficult to get value since the team dealing the franchise player usually has to get back a lot guys to get close to the salary figure.

exactly. Since you can't get full value, you just get ALL expiring contracts so that you may be giving up a year, but you come back with a ton of cap room.

That was the problem with the Shaq trade. If they couldn't get a bonafide all star, they should have dealt him for the scrap pile of expiring contracts so that we could build around Kobe. Instead, they made an extremely poor move that has ruined the cap until this day...

I've played with one guy who made it to AA and had double vision. He lead my Culver City team to several championships before moving back home. He played HS football with Roger Craig of 49r fame. He was incredible, easily the best hitter in the league and he didn't get past AA.

I played two games with this guy
http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hernaje02.shtml
He was only a pitcher and in two games he probably hit 6 home runs and had the best arm I ever played catch with.

Some of you probably fancy yourself good ballplayers. The difference between being a good HS player and a major league players is night and day, even one with a poor arm. To say you wouldn't put Juan Pierre in LF on a softball team is about the most ignorant statement I've ever read here.

Loney played like he always had been, and i think if Nomar had played well they would have kept putting loney in th OF regardless of the terrible 3B play.

I don't think any GM has managed to master the system yet.

The Lakers have the additional problem of having a GM who might be in over his head.

I only approve if it means the end of Pierre in L.A.....other than that, I would rather the Giants take him...

One might phrase this differently as, "A fanatic is one who starts Juan Pierre in left field."

18
and they support players around shaq/wade was way better than what was around shaq/kobe. thats where the championship came in.
and the lakers are in the same boat.
recent championships i mean.

UCLA will get to face Brady Leaf, who plays like his big brother did in the NFL.

There was no danger of us turning a double-play in that millenium, so we thought he could help us most right there.

We were pretty much right.

I'd take Pierre over anyone we had in the outfield, including good ol' Ralph the satcom guy, who had an absolute cannon in right field.

Personally, the first tip off would have been the fact that she played shortstop but always in that first at-bat, the outfield would creep in and bang a homer, bang another homer.

I think Jon mixed-up Kemp crashing into the wall on opening day and Loney doing the same thing in June.

http://tinyurl.com/yvxyj

http://beatblogging.typepad.com/

Offer Andruw one year at $20 million. He'll probably bounce back and return an OPS-plus of 110-125. That's in line with what he usually does. You're buying 25-35 more home runs than you got from your CF last year. You're buying a CF whose throwing arm is far more of a deterrent than your CF last year. You're getting a 30-year-old whose overall defense led all CFs in 2007, according to the Fielding Bible. Dodgers pitchers would be very, very happy. And you don't have to give up a draft pick to get him.

Even if Andruw is no better than he was last year, he'd sill be considerably better than what the Dodgers got out of the position last year. And i has a big year and Boras wants a billion for him, you can let him go and get two draft picks for him.

Why would Andruw say yes to a one-year deal? The market for CFs probably won't be as crowded next year. So if he has his typical season, his leverage should be very strong. He'd also get to stay in the NL, and Dodger Stadium certainly is a fair ballpark for a power hitter.

Wonder if Furcal and he are buds, and if Furcal is selling the Dodgers/Andruw on a move West.

Plan B in CF would be a one-year offer to Cameron for $11 million. Pierre could hold the job until Cameron's suspension ends. If Pierre miraculously shows he can get on base at a .370 clip, then he slides to LF.

In case you were scoring at home.

are you serious? Those Laker teams were built REALLY well...I think you're forgetting about guys like Fisher, Ron Harper, Horry, etc.

keep up

I'll take it as a sign that we've been around the block too many times on the Pierre issue that anyone could think that I actually meant that. Tongue was in cheek.

I just re-read what you wrote in 48, and it still makes no sense.

It's really not a bad idea of Jones would go for it. If he stinks up the joint, you're off the hook. If he's great, we get two picks for him and we aren't giving picks up to get him.

The offense would really really offset Slappy.

Didn't you hear? We're in denial about that.

I don't think my love could survive it.

I'm okay with it if they feel like giving up Lincecum and Cain.

I'm sure neither Lincecum nor Cain is going anywhere except for Santana, Cabrera etc. Pity. Really the Giants are going to stink either way, so it's nothing to get riled about.

Ethier-Rowand-Kemp?

In my mind it's A.Jones or bust. Anything else is just bad IMO.

82 - Regardless of whether it's true in the case of Kemp, make no mistake - these rumors can be completely invented. Really important that this is understood.