Second place is the biggest loser.

Blasphemy!

That would be a pretty good goal, because once you get to the World Series, one team could get hot and win the series. It is only four wins.

I don't think that it will be tough to be the best team in the NL this year.

If the Dodgers win the NL Pennant in Aught Eight I will be ecstatic. But the dilemma is that I will be angry if they don't win the World Series, but not angry enough of course to write off the entire season.

Regarding the salary cap question that got LAT'd in the last post, I think that a salary cap works only if there is a floor also. Who cares how much the Yankees spend if the Marlins are only going to spend 15 million?

Wow, four posts in one hour. That is usualy a good month for this lurker.

It's not blasphemy. Atop which, it's not necessarily so that the "stronger" team wins the WS anyway. Witness '06, for pete's sake. If we can get there, our chances are as good as anyone's.

I'm growing increasingly amenable to the argument that the World Series is essentially joke, not so much because of "crapshoot" reasons (which have their own appeal), but because of the DH rule.

The American and National leagues are different. They play a different game. Not completely different, but different enough for me to think that one league might very well have a systematic advantage over the other. I don't claim to know exactly what that advantage is or its size, but I'm open to the idea that it exists.

6

I know. I was sort of kidding.

3 - Of course I'll be incredibly passionate about wanting the Dodgers to win the World Series if they're in it. It's just that up to that point, I think it would be gravy on the cake.

4

Good point.

Are there some good articles I can read up on about the salary cap issue, so I don't have to bother you all here?

6 - It's that crapshoot aspect that also influences my thinking.

Just make the playoffs and then roll the dice. No need to join the American Leagues arm race... or bat race. vr, Xei

Mmmmm... cake gravy.... ooooooohhh....

13 Dang it, I had that joke all teed up . . .

Making the playoffs is all I wish. It was painful watching the Rockies take seven from the Dodgers and roll into the postseason like they did.

7
I'm open to the idea that the AL has a DH advantage, but wouldn't some of the gain by having a better player as DH be offset by the fact that in NL parks one of the AL team's better hitters is on the bench?

If you ain't first, you're last!

Okay, this is just odd:
Peter Gammons learned that Darin Erstad could retire to coach University of Nebraska football if he doesn't find MLB interest suitable.

http://tinyurl.com/2n5nyv

Twins manager Ron Gardenhire on Lil' Davey Eckstein:

"I've always had a lot of respect for him," Gardenhire said. "He catches the ball. He knows how to play. He's a proven winner."

18 Special teams punting coach?

My goal for 2008 is just to win a playoff series. Its all I want. I also want to attend one of said playoff wins. I am a simple man.

18/19 - If Eckstein can't get a multi-year deal, perhaps there's an opening on Erstad's coaching staff?

The AL has always been winning the World Series more often.

A little part of me keeps thinking there is a chance the Marlins-Tigers deal falls apart, especially after reading the ESPN winter meetings blog about how it will take a while to finalize due to all the physicals that need to be done. At what point does a trade become "official"? I'm skeptical after seeing that Dodgers-Dbacks-Yankees trade fall apart a few years back.

19 Eckstein and Erstad posts in rapid succession. O.K., I'll complete the cycle . . . (wait for it)

Juan Pierre.

16. Yeah, the advantage is more pronounced in AL parks. Not too many (if any) NL teams have the extra bat on the bench to match the DH of the top AL teams (save the Angels when VLAD is in RF). vr, Xei

20
I'm not old enough to remember the Dodgers ever winning a playoff series. If the Dodgers win two playoff games, it will be the best season I've ever known.

There is power in low expectations.

The advantage that the NL could possibly leverage is having pitchers that could hit better than AL pitchers. I have no idea if that is the case or not. It's always been a pet peeve of mine that most pitchers can't hit a lick. There's a few that can, and to me that seems like an advantage... but probably not much of one. vr, Xei

26 No kidding. I had tickets to Game 4 of the NLDS in 2006. All they had to do was WIN ONE GAME and I could have lived the dream. But noooooooo.

I'm open to the idea that the AL has a DH advantage, but wouldn't some of the gain by having a better player as DH be offset by the fact that in NL parks one of the AL team's better hitters is on the bench?

I would think that the advantage the AL has in the AL park would exceed any advantage the NL would have in the NL park. In fact, I'm not sure the NL has any advantage in the NL park, beyond homefield considerations. It's not as if the extra pitcher they had on the roster all season is gonna be very good. He's gonna be a Carter/Hamulack/Tomko/Hendrickson type.

27
I guess that the NL hitting pitcher is an advantage, but probably less in magnitude than the AL DH advantage.

Plus, it's not as if pitchers only stay in one league. Plenty of NL pitchers in one year probably spent time in the AL (where they didn't hit), and vice versa.

29 - The advantage would be that potentially, removing the DH from the AL team in an NL park means removing its best hitter and/or forcing him to play out of position.

You'd perhaps be subbing Brad Penny's bat for Delwyn Young's vs. subbing Josh Beckett's bat for David Ortiz.

With the NL, you would know that your best hitter is built into your lineup. That could be an advantage in NL parks. I'm not saying it is.

I would think any advantage from having better hitting pitchers would be washed out by the AL teams having a better player coming off the bench to pinch hit.

Of course, it would also make sense that the NL teams would have more depth at pinch hitting, since I would think they would use them more.

If both leagues continue on the same path (DH in AL, not in NL), I'd like to see the DH in NL parks during interleague play and the World Series, and pitchers hitting in the AL parks. Kind of the whole "see what the other league is like" effect, although are there really that many fans exclusive to one league anymore?

29 "I would think that the advantage the AL has in the AL park would exceed any advantage the NL would have in the NL park. In fact, I'm not sure the NL has any advantage in the NL park, beyond homefield considerations."

I'm not so sure about that. First of all, I'm not convinced that the AL always has an advantage in AL parks. There are a lot of lousy DHs out there. What if the Dodgers had Delwyn Young as their DH, facing Seattle who had Jose Vidro as theirs? Or the Indians, who often use the DH as a way to put a light-hitting catcher in the lineup while still playing Victor Martinez?

Meanwhile, you had the Red Sox this year benching one of the best players in the American League because there was no room for him in the lineup. That kind of thing happens in the World Series more than you might think. Heck, in 1993 the Blue Jays were forced to bench the AL batting champ in the World Series because there was no place for him to play.

12 Isnt that conceding victory? We have a rotation spot available, and why wouldnt we join the arms race to get the best possible pitcher for that spot? WWXFD?

Does anybody know how many Series have been won by each league since the DH rule?

I couldn't care less about winning the world series unless we actually are playing in one. Until then, give me a competitive team who plays meaningful games in Sept with a team constructed of players who I like to root for, and I'll be a happy camper.

36 - We're in the race. It's just about what we would have to give up to get him.

36 , and why should just read why

The problem with a salary cap is that there is $6 billion flowing thru MLB right now, and why should the players get capped?

I think there needs to be an increase in revenue sharing, with those dollars earmarked for payroll - a use it or lose it scenario whereby if Florida gets $40 million in revenue sharing, but only spends $10 million, then the $30 million unspent goes back into the revenue pot for the following year.

They need to balance more of the ad revenue.

35 The Indians generally use the DH to put Travis Hafner in the lineup. You can blow things by not spending on a DH, but I don't know why you would.

I am a bit older so my take on the Dodgers differs from most people on this site. I would like to see the Dodgers put a stong team of mostly homegrown talent on the field. This morning I listened to the 5th inning of a 1978 Dodger/Giant game again for the umpteenth time since I first heard it a few months ago. The Garvey, Lopes, Russell, Cey, Baker, Monday and Smith team did not win it all, but they were sure fun to watch and hear thanks to Vin. Bring back a team like that (I think the Dodgers are close to that with Martin, Loney, LaRoche, Ethier, and Kemp) along with a radio broadcaster who can convey the excitement of an exciting team, and have Nancy B Hefly or her clone in the background rather than the amplified noise present at Dodger Stadium now, and I would be a happy Dodger fan. I would rather have all that than a World Series championship

Stan from Tacoma

People who are advocating getting a frontline pitcher seem to take it as a given that such a pitcher will singlehandedly win a World Series for you. But the reality is, even those kinds of pitchers don't do that sort of thing very often. It's far from a guarantee. For every Orel Hershiser in the 1988 World Series, there's a Fernando in the 1981 Series. A star pitcher coming up short.

Not only is there no guarantee that a Bedard would give us a huge advantage in the World Series, there's not even a guarantee he'd be better than Clayton Kershaw or Esteban Loaiza in a short series.

35
I would guess that usually teams with a bad DH don't make it to the World Series.

34 - Vin mentioned that once, and I thought it a great idea.

33
Of course, it would also make sense that the NL teams would have more depth at pinch hitting, since I would think they would use them more.

I looked up the numbers just to see how pronounced the difference in PH usage was between leagues. In 2007:

-AL pinch hitters had 1,223 PA, an average of 87 per team
-NL pinch hitters had 4,328 PA, an average of 271 per team

36. I am all for improving the team and I am all for the owner spending all of his money to do so. Reality is, it's a business and the owner will most likely spend enough money to make his team have a good shot at making the playoffs. We are not competing with teams from the AL (until the W.S. roll of the dice). I think if the Dodgers were in the American League, Dodger management would feel more pressure to do what it takes to get better players. Luckily in the NL the Dodgers and other teams can play/spend/manage their payroll down to the level of the quality of the league. If there were alot of really good NL teams, then the Dodger management would have to consider running the team differently.
vr, Xei

I hate revenue sharing, but of course I'm also a big proponent of allowing indiscriminant moving of teams until the markets are closer to balanced.

26 I was just a kid, then, but I remember the Dodgers team from the 60's: Willie and Tommy Davis, Maury Wills, John Roseboro, and of course Drysdale and Koufax. It was fun to be a Dodger fan then. The fun disappeared after that, even while Garvey, Cey, Russell and Lopes ruled the infield. I got the fun back this past year watching Loney, Kemp, Broxton, Billingsly, LaRoche, Hu and Ethier. I don't know, but something about this crop of Dodgers is special in the '60s Dodgers sort of way.

The home park DH rule for the World Series started in 1986.

12 AL wins
9 NL wins

47. and what were the OPS of those two groups? vr, Xei

51. So basically, very little if any statistical significance. vr, Xei

51

At last, an explanation for why the Cardinals home games had a DH in the 1982 World Series!

44

Just site Cleveland's star pitching against Boston this year.

44
Assuming you are already reasonably happy with our top 3 pitchers, than an argument can be made (Neyer wrote an interesting article on it) that additional good pitchers produce sharply decreasing marginal returns.

In a short series, generally only 3 pitchers start, so at that point the 4th and 5th players don't matter so much. So the incremental advantage of getting Bedard would be the difference between having Lowe and Bedard pitch.

55

cite, not site grrrrr

39 I am aware we are in the race, I was wondering why Xei Frank didnt want to be a part of the race. Obviously I am not saying do whatever it takes to get Bedard, I am just saying its looking like we need to upgrade our pitching to be competitive. Other teams in the NL are looking to get better also, if your saying you feel we are in a good spot to make the playoffs and win the NL right now I have to disagree.

OPS+ numbers are not available (at least not on BB-Ref), but NL pinch hitters OPSed .668 and AL pinch hitters .640.

56 That's a good point. While pitching could be improved, hitting is just a much more pressing need.

Of those world series since 1986:

One featured the "improbable" Dodgers
One featured the Cinderella (albeit wire to wire) Reds
One featured an overmatched Padres team
Two featured the "up and coming" Marlins
Two more featured "slipped in the back door" teams like the '06 Cards and the '07 Rockies

I can think of maybe a handful of World Series in that time where the NL team appeared to be dominant. Most of the ones the Braves were in, plus maybe the ones with the Mets and Phils.

56 You have a good point. I'd only point out that you still need four pitchers in a short series, unless you're starting guys on short rest (which is an awful, awful, awful idea). Usually the 4th guy has to start only once, though.

44
Probably because most of remember how Schilling and Johnson enabled a not very gifted Arizona team to beat a very very good Yankee team in 01. Or how Becket, Penney, and even Pavano enabled another not very gifted team to beat a very very very good Yankee team in 03 so it is fresh in our minds.
I would say that having Bedard and being in the world series might enhance our chances but I don't think getting Bedard and giving up Kemp would help us get into a world series.

58. You may be misunderstanding me. I don't feel it is necessary to pursue free agents (and players via trade) with the same vigor that the elite teams in the American League are. We only need to keep up with the Jones' and they live in the NL. :)
vr, Xei

58 - I'm not saying that the Dodgers don't need to improve to win the NL. But I think the difference between trying to be better than the other NL teams and trying to be better than the other AL teams is large.

63 Exactly. People remember the times when it works, and forget the times when it doesn't.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, to some extent. If the Yankees had won in 2003, people would be saying that you need dominant pitching like Clemens, Pettitte, and Mussina to win the World Series.

"I don't feel it is necessary to pursue free agents ... We only need to keep up with the Jones'"

But Jones IS a free agent!

From 1976 through 1985, the DH was used in all games in alternate years (even-numbered ones) in the World Series.

Of NL DHs in the World Series, the last one to hit a homer was Shawon Dunston in 2002.

The last one with two hits in a game was Erubiel Durazo in 2001.

Three NL DHs have had three hit games: Kurt Bevacqua, Dane Iorg, and Dan Driessen.

Ryan Klesko hit three homers as DH for the Braves in 1995.

Dodger WS DHs have been: Lee Lacy, Rick Monday, Vic Davalillo, Dave Anderson, Mike Davis, and Danny Heep.

44 So Bedard, one of the best pitchers in the game btw, would not be a better bet to get a lineup full of good hitters out over Loaiza? I am trying not to laugh.

Who is the class of the NL right now? Is it still the Mets?

I'm probably biased towards thinking the Dodgers are better than they are (I tend to be wrong about the Dodgers--I'm still trying to figure out how we've not won the West each of the past 4 seasons), but I don't really see anyone that is clearly better.

"Dave Anderson, Mike Davis, and Danny Heep."

That's sort of like hitting yourself over the head with a sledgehammer. Good thing we won the series anyway.

64 - I'd rather blow past the Jones' than just try to keep up with them. Let's build a team that can dominate the NL and then go from there.

If the Dodgers have the best team in the NL, then there is, in my mind, an even chance that they win the World Series - depending on the match up, of course.

70 - "I'm still trying to figure out how we've not won the West each of the past 4 seasons"

Answer: Peavy, Jake.

58
I would expect that Xiefrank realizes the cost for Bedard is Kemp and doesn't want to pay the price.

We have enough prospect talent that we should be able to get Bedard by letting the Orioles have Broxton and then pick through LaRoche, Meloan, Hu, Abreu, McDonald, Elbert, D Young on one level and Dewitt, Bell, DeJesus, Paul on another level.

If not, the answer has to be no. You cannot fill the hole you create in the offense by trading Kemp, and we just cannot trade Kershaw. We can't do it.

The idea that Broxton is untouchable is laughable to me. Heck Smiling Sammy should be the one on the block. Wonder what Melvin would give up for him?

The NL DHs, but ignore the Brewers who are listed who got in because they switched leagues.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/shareit/uFhE

69 Laugh all you want. You're misrepresenting my statement.

Sure, Bedard would be a better bet. But he's not guaranteed to win any World Series games, and Loaiza is not guaranteed to lose any. And given the tiny sample size that a World Series game represents, the advantage that Bedard has over a Loaiza or whoever may not even manifest itself in that particular game.

I'm making these numbers up, but let's say that Bedard has a 58% chance to win a World Series game, while Loaiza has a 40% chance to win one. Is that 18% chance, in one game, worth Matt Kemp?

68 Dave Anderson, Mike Davis, and Danny Heep

The Stuntmen!

69 - You're saying "better bet," but Eric is saying "guarantee." That's the difference.

66 Ummm.. Boston this year. St. Louis last year. The White Sox the year before that. Boston the year before that. When has having a good staff backfired? The Mets would love to believe you, but everyone knows you need pitching.

76 - The point is you don't pursue Erik Bedard to win a WS game - you pursue him to get you to the WS. And the question is, how much will getting him help you vs. what you give up to get him hurts you?

79 - St. Louis had a good staff last year? St. Louis' run was keyed in large part by Jeff Weaver getting hot at the right time.

No one's saying that having a good staff is a bad thing.

76
To my point earlier, I don't think we're comparing Bedard to Loaiza come playoff time. It would take a disaster for Loiza to be our best option in the playoffs, and if that happens, we won't be in the playoffs.

79

Dodgers 2003!

79
This probably goes without saying, but nearly all teams that make it to the World Series have a "good staff."

Winning pitchers for the Cardinals in the 2006 postseason
NLDS:
Chris Carpenter 2, Jeff Weaver
NLCS:
Josh Kinney, Jeff Suppan, Jeff Weaver, Randy Flores
WS:
Anthony Reyes, Chris Carpenter, Adam Wainwright, Jeff Weaver

Is anyone else praying that these Lincecum for Alex Rios rumors are true? That would be a horrible deal for the Gnats, I believe.

86 - Someone compared it to P4D.

79. St. Louis's staff last year was not apreciably better than the expected Dodger's staff year without Bedard.

520. from last post. You're quite welcome, Gen3Blue.

86 I can't figure out why the Jays would do this. They were in the bottom half of the AL in runs last year and didn't get much out of Lind or Reed Johnson. Is this Travis Snider kid ready?

86
The Giants lineup is pretty putrid and old. Rios will be 27 in 2008, has produced OPS+ of 120 & 122 the last two seasons, and is one of the best RF defensively according to Dewan's +/- system (+29 from 2005-2007, second only to Kearns in RF). Factor in the cavernous RF in SF and it's Rios is a good fit.

Granted, Lincecum looks like he could be great, but I think this is a fair trade for SF.

86 - I hope the Giants do it then they can sign Kyle Lohse to cover the hole in the rotation Lincecum leaves. But apart of me still longs for the Kershaw Vs. Licecum game.

The Giants acquiring Rios would ruin my dream of every starting Giants' position player to be below average offensively.

92 - Kershaw VS Cain works for me as long as we don't have to face Lincecum and his whirling dervish delivery follwed by a 98 mph fastball 5-6 times a year for the next 10 years.

91
Sounds like a decent trade, but wouldn't it be the same as us trading Kemp for Bedard? Where would Toronto make up the offense? Snider is going to be great but it won't be in 2008.

79 "When has having a good staff backfired?"

Detroit 2006. And lots of other times. If you want to talk LCS, then Cleveland 2007.

Look, nobody's saying not to compile a good pitching staff. But you should compile a good pitching staff because it will help you win during the regular season and GET to the World Series. Not because it's guaranteed to win you the World Series once you get there.

You seem to be doing everything possible to misunderstand the point. Yes, you can name lots of teams with good pitching staffs that won the World Series. That's because most teams that have won the World Series have had good pitching staffs. Thing is, most teams that have LOST the World Series have had good pitching staffs too. A good pitching staff is just a hallmark of good teams. But once you get to a short series, sample size often rears its head, and good pitchers can fail, or simply be out-pitched by better pitchers. Good starters are a nice thing to have in the World Series, but they aren't a miracle cure-all, any more than good hitters or a good defense or whatever.

Another thing is that it's often impossible to predict WHICH pitcher(s) will have dominant postseason series and win it for you singlehandedly. Sure, Schilling and Johnson were predictable, and so was Hershiser. But do you think people in 1955 were after Johnny Podres because they knew he'd be a World Series ace? Or Larry Sherry in 1959? Or Moe Drabowsky in 1966? Or the previously mediocre Josh Beckett in 2003? Derek Lowe in 2004?

Maybe the St.Louis staff wasnt comparable, but they dont get that chance to win it all without Chris Carpenter.

Let me just make it short and sweet I like our chances with Bedard much more than I like our chances with Kuroda.

I like Alex Rios alot too... but for Lincecum or Cain, I am not sure about that. The Giants offense is awful as it stands right now. They don't have much help in their minor league system either. Starting pitching is their strength and if they want to add a little balance to their team, aka - trading for Rios, then in all likeliehood they may have no other choice than to give up Lincecum or Cain. I would think they could get Rios and a good prospect for one of those two pitchers, not just Rios.

vr, Xei

The Johan Santana saga continues according to SI's Jon Heyman:

"[Boston] may still get Santana, but it doesn't appear to be a certainty anymore...the Mets have been aggressive in trying to get back into the mix...[t]he Angels say they aren't involved, and rumors that the Dodgers may jump in couldn't be confirmed. However, it is clear the Mets are still trying for Santana."

http://tinyurl.com/25hrw2

82 "I don't think we're comparing Bedard to Loaiza come playoff time. It would take a disaster for Loiza to be our best option in the playoffs, and if that happens, we won't be in the playoffs."

I think that's exactly what we're comparing, though. Taking for granted that we have 3 good postseason starters in Penny, Lowe, and Billingsley, basically we're looking to see who the fourth starter will be, a guy who'll start one game out of a seven-game series. It could be Loaiza, it could be Schmidt, it could be Kershaw, whoever. The question is whether Bedard is enough of an upgrade over those guys to be worth giving up Matt Kemp for.

98 - They tried to get Shawn Marcum, a decent young starter, along with Rios for Lincecum but were rebuffed. Allegedly.

95
I agree with you. I was responding more to the "why would the Giants do this" question from 86 .

97 "Let me just make it short and sweet I like our chances with Bedard much more than I like our chances with Kuroda."

Apples-oranges.

What you should have said -- because it's what you seem to have been saying during this thread -- is that you like our chances with:
Bedard-Meloan-Delwyn (or whoever)

better than our chances with:
Kuroda-Kemp-Broxton

100 - Isn't there an argument that Bedard in the regular season gives us a better chance of getting to the playoffs next year? We keep circling back to Bedard's impact IN the post-season, but what about just getting there?

97 Let me just make it short and sweet I like our chances with Bedard much more than I like our chances with Kuroda.

But, do you like Kuroda + Kemp + Broxton more than Bedard?

No one here doesn't want Bedard. It's that the cost is too high (Kemp especially) and it creates another hole.

104. Yeah, Jon mentioned that. But you have to keep #103 in mind. vr, Xei

103
Not only am I not the fastest poster, but not even the fastest Eric!

104 "Isn't there an argument that Bedard in the regular season gives us a better chance of getting to the playoffs next year?"

Sure, if you were getting Bedard for free. The answer to your question depends on one's opinion of the value of Matt Kemp and Jonathan Broxton.

The Dodgers drew 3.8 million fans last year, correct? Does anyone know what the Bums' overall revenue was, and how that stacks up relative to other clubs?

I dont understand our reluctance to add payroll when so many other large market clubs seem willing to do so -- the Cubs last year, the Yanks and Sox, the Angels. The Dodgers aren't the Oakland A's, yet the team seems to prefer mid-level (and risky) guys like Pierre, Garciapara, Gonzo --now maybe Rowand -- to the real stars.

And since star-quality players almost always get resigned (look at Peavy), don't you have to make a move to get players of this caliber, if only for the fans?

Stairway To Heavan ruined Led Zeppelin.

Edgy! Contrarian! Who could've published such a thing?

http://tinyurl.com/28mb64

110 I went to a Zed/Floyd laserium show as part of the LA Film Festival this year and when Stairway started up the audience let out a collective groan.

Maybe reading post 442 from the last thread would clear up how i felt about trading Matt in a Bedard deal. This entire Bedard thing I am speculating on pretty much rests on that package. If they want Matt I am not interested, I thought that was known.

109 The team under Colletti has shown a preference for famous names (Nomar, Luis Gonzalez, Maddux - who admittedly worked out well) over actual good players. They seem very much to be catering to the casual fan who has heard of Nomar Garciaparra but probably not Jake Peavy or Miguel Cabrera.

Thing is, I think those sorts of machinations are probably unnecessary in the Dodgers' case. L.A. fans have shown historically that they will attend games regardless of who's on the team. And, like the Cubs, perhaps that fan loyalty serves as a disincentive for ownership to spend money to put a truly great team on the field. The fans are coming regardless; why waste the extra dough?

109. We added 3/$47M, 5/$44M and 2/$18.5M last year and didn't get much if anything to show for it. Spending more money does not gaurantee success on the field. Spending it wisely, not that's another matter. Most of our best players don't make much money.
vr, Xei

109
The Dodgers had roughly a $120m payroll last year. Right now, without any additions, the 2008 payroll projects to about $90m.

I believe a lot of posters here, myself included, want the Dodgers to improve the team, but are wary of the non-monetary cost. Kuroda and/or Andruw Jones would be great, since the "only" cost money, rather than money plus players (Kemp, LaRoche, et al).

109
It's a lot harder to criticize a front office's moves from a financial standpoint than from a baseball standpoint, because we really don't see what the results are. I don't have any idea what the links are between on-field performance and profits, or star players and profits.

I would think that the financial side would be easier to predict, so most teams would be better at managing profits than performance.

110
Orson Welles would have been a great director if not for "Citizen Kane."

The New York Yankees aren't really the most successful franchise in baseball history. It's really the San Diego Padrs.

Everything in the world that you like is completely wrong to like and you should just crawl under a rock and die.

All this and more on Slate.com!

I went to a game this year [http://tinyurl.com/3d2ngs] and a supposed Dodger fan behind me tried to start a "Peavy Sucks" chant. For one, I detest the "xxxx sucks" chants. Also, I tried to explain to the fan in question that Peavy was in fact the exact opposite of suck.

118. Did he proceed to spill his beer on you?
vr, Xei

There is no place for Jones if Kemp isnt dealt. At this point hypothetically what gives us a better chance to win the next two-three years: Bedard, Jones, Broxton or Kuroda, Kemp, Broxton?

FYI, Ghost Tree got Peter Davi.

120
The answer, of course, is:

Kuroda-Broxton-Ethier-Jones-Kemp

over

Bedard-Meloan-Ethier-Jones-Pierre

i.e. the Dodgers have an OF to bench even if they don't trade Kemp.

113
I think good players in large markets tend to be more popular anyway. That is, bringing Miguel Cabrera (or keeping Matt Kemp) might not turn the casual fans' heads initially, but performing well in LA will certainly increase star power.

All else equal, I'd say homegrown talent is more popular, even with casual fans, than talent from outside the organization.

119
Luckily the home white uniform stayed dry!

If the Goal is truly the National League Pennant in 2008, the Dodgers need to improve via free agency or trade. Simply playing the kids -- at least one of whom will probably regress and lose trade value -- isn't getting it done.

The Dodgers will be better next year simply by virtue of not playing Tomko and Hendrickson all year long.

"yet the team seems to prefer mid-level (and risky) guys like Pierre, Garciapara, Gonzo --now maybe Rowand -- to the real stars."

That is not necessarily a function of payroll as much as stupidity.

125
At least one of the "kids" will probably improve as well.

122 Ah you are delving into uncharted territory, and taking the easy way out. Juan Pierre is not going from being our CF/2 hitter to the bench, as much as i would like to believe that. Andre Ethier's name hasnt been mentioned once this offseason.

125
I'm not sure the Dodgers are the class of the NL, but I don't know who else might be. I'm not impressed by the Rockies or the D'Backs. Padres could be pretty good, maybe the Mets, maybe the Phillies...But from my (probably biased) standpoint, none of those teams is clearly better than we are, even without any changes.

Of course, one of those teams will probably be better than the rest, but I don't think you can predict that.

125 Care to provide any evidence to support your assertion that playing the kids won't get it done? Kemp, Loney, Martin, Bills and Broxton each performed at all-star levels, and only figure to get better. Sure some kids won't work out, but to say it "isn't getting it done," implies that the playing kids approach has even been tried, which is also isn't true, as only one of the kids qualified for either the batting title or ERA title last year (and that was Martin).

125

We'll see about that. This is really only Kemp's second full year in the majors, and I believe Loney's second full year as well. Martin, he's well established, despite only being in his third year. Even if NedCo does nothing you have a large improvement by allowing Kemp and Ethier to play every day. Ethier is entering his third year also.

Honestly, this is a team you can really get excited about! If LaRoche somehow earns his third base job, oh baby :)

Baseball Reference B-Day thingy is free, under their frivolities:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/birthdays.shtml

127 Fair point.

130 With all the talent the D Backs have how could you not be impressed. I am not looking forward to Justin Upton blossoming in the NL West alongside all the other talent they have.

112 - No, I think it's been pretty clear that that wasn't known - especially because people kept mentioning the cost of getting Bedard.

I mean, without trading Kemp, how exactly are you getting Bedard?

133 - Jorge Orta, Jeff Torborg and Jay Howell. The four Js!

Why should the Dodgers have any loyalty to Pierre? He has only spent 1 mediocre with the team and has no fan base in LA. Why would he stop the Dodgers from signing a player that could help the team more than him? If Ethier - Jones -Kemp is better than Pierre - Jones - Kemp who in their right mind would chose the OF capable of less production. You could even substitute Rowand for Jones and the point still holds merit.

I deluded myself into giving Pierre a chance last year and after watching him for probably 150 games I cants takes no more. Sign Jones, sign Kuroda and break rule 8 are the things that need to be done this offseason.

There's so much youth in the NL, particularly the West. It makes sense that the AL is regarded as the monolith, considering they have all the established big name players on their side. Obviously, the talking heads don't have the inside track on the budding stars, so the NL will continue to hear it from the media until these stars become the big names.

Can we take a quick poll to see who is the percieved class of the NL west, and the NL?

I'm trying to be objective, but I think the Dodgers are the team to beat in the West, with the Padres close behind.

Tigers/Marlins trade is finalized.

If Florida plays its cards right, Maybin won't see the bigs until next September at the earliest.

136 I just speculated as to how long they were going to keep playing Melvin Mora at third, and suggested maybe they would be interested in Andy who is a prospect, rather than Matt who is fairly proven. Andy, Meloan, McDonald/Elbert, Hu/Abreu or say a lower level OF guy is a pretty strong package. Would you disagree without fully knowing what they are asking for?

129
I cheated a little there, of course, but to illustrate a point.

We are all asking the Dodgers to act rationally, to make good decisions, but are they only chasing their previous bad decisions?

The Juan Pierre was akin to going for a 2-point conversion in the first quarter. You spend the rest of the game trying to chase those points.

My horrible analogies aside, the Dodgers would be so much better just by benching Pierre. I know it is extremely unlikely, but since it's crazy rumor season I choose to cling to this one.

What about Jason Bay as a buy-low trade option? He could be had for less, has a decent contract, and has a pedigree not unlike A.Jones, given his horrid 2007.

139 That's one way to look at it. But the AL has almost as much young talent as the NL; you just see more of it in the NL, since the youngsters are not blocked by capable veterans. Either way you slice it, the AL is heads and shoulders above the NL.

118 - Not a fan of the chant, but the inimitable "Barry Sucks" chant can't be a true analysis of his statistical career, but it can embody what we fans think of him as a human being/cheater. (and 78% of us believe he cheated, according to the latest survey).

I for one, will (to a degree) miss B*nds, and the atmosphere he created at Dodger Stadium. The game I went to this year found Barry on the bench, and it was a lot less entertaining. For comparison, I was at the classic B*nds/Gagne match at PacBell Park, Gagne throwing, and Bonds expecting, nothing but straight 100mph gas. (Bonds won that battle, but Dodgers won the game).

140
I'd like to wait until spring training, since there are so many moves to be made, but right now I'd put the Dodgers at the front of a tightly bunched 4-team cluster in the west (sorry SF).

Thats not a crazy rumor, your just clinging to common sense. And expecting that from Ned makes me want to cling to my Mother.

136
That should be doable. We are not talking Johan Santana, Bedard has enough warts.
1. He has only pitched at an elite level for 1 1/2 years.
2. He is only under contract until 2009
3. His has a history of arm problems before his elite jump.
4. Even during his elite year he was shut down for the final month of the season due to arm issues.

Dan Haren might require Kemp, Bedard should not.

Eric, I don't think Colorado will be in the mix. I just have this feeling about it...

136. I think we are debating against a moving argument/target. :)
vr, Xei

They're practically giving it away...!

http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2598813

140 - I don't think there is a team that can be defined as the "class" of the NL West. Within the NL as a whole, it's also tough to say, probably the Phillies but not by much...

151 - With 6 months financing, it's a steal.

If Florida plays its cards right, Maybin won't see the bigs until next September at the earliest.

Just wondering, why is that?

vr, Xei

147 Maybe I should have said expecting Ned to exercise common sense frightens me to the point I want to cling to my Mother.

140. I'd like to wait on that one too.
vr, Xei

Bedard wasn't shut down due to arm issues. And, honestly, has Kemp been that much of a beast in the minors? I know he had a good cup of coffee in the majors, but Bedard just struck out 220 in 175 innings! This is one of the best young arms in baseball -- and proven at the major league level.

If Bedard doesn't require Kemp, I'm wondering what you'd accept in return for Penny?

Nate Silver wrote yesterday that Maybin is "probably ready to step into a major league lineup right now for a second-division club like the Marlins." FWIW.

154 He barely sniffed Double-A before being called-up. I believe that level is crucial to a young hitter's development.

151
But there are only 400 of them, so you've got to be quick.

The xxxxx sucks chant is the worse thing to happen at Dodger Stadium. Much worse then the beachballs, booing, drunken behavior, throwing back home run balls, or the wave. The chant teaches everything wrong. Nothing bugs me more then a six year old emulating his idiot father by screaming that chant. It is embarrassing to be getting whacked 6 - 2 and then hear the crowd chant Padres Suck.

A Bob Timmerman pox to all who chant it.

On the other hand, since the Marlins are almost guaranteed to trade Maybin for prospects once he becomes arb-eligible, they might want to delay starting his service time until he's super-ready. If you're only going to have him for four years, better that one of those is his age 25 season rather than his age 21 season.

150 That's ridiculous, how do I keep changing my stance Frank? I thought I made myself quite clear when stated last night I was pushing for Bedard without trading Kemp? Please clear that up for me.

151
Well at the very least, the shipping is free!

I share the same birthday (month/day only) as one hall-of-famer: Jim O'Rourke, born September 1, 1850.

I didn't recognize the name of a single player born on the same day as me.

141
Maybin could start right now for the Marlins. From a cost standpoint, Florida can wait until June or so to bring him up so his arbitration clock doesn't start too early. They don't need to wait until September (unless you were talking about a development standpoint).

Waiting until June will give Maybin roughly 120 days of service time in 2008, meaning he probably won't qualify for arbitration until after 2011 (the completion of his 3rd full year), and free agency after 2014. If Maybin is in the top 17% of 2-3 years service time after 2010 (generally in the 130-140 day area) he would be eligible for arbitration after 2010, and for 4 years. (Dontrelle was a "super two" as well, and most likely Russell Martin and Andre Ethier will be as well).

162. How many major league at bats/games??? before service time kicks in?
vr, Xei

167 , meet 166 ;)

167. See 166. :)
vr, Xei

169. See 168. :)
vr, Xei

164
Which Super Bowl MVP didn't sign?

I hope it's not Dexter Jackson!

ToyCannon

If Bedard shouldn't require Kemp, what would you require in exchange for Brad Penny?

161, I agree and Kudos to Eric for standing up against it.

167 ,168 ,169 ,170 :)
Every day on the 25-man roster or major league DL counts as a day of service time. I think the maximum days of service time in a season is 171, but it might be 180.

Wow, a three way blockbuster between the A's, Twins, and Mets involving Reyes, Haren , and Santana. With Johan going to the Mets with Crosby and Dan Johnson, Reyes to Oakland, and Haren to the Twinkies. Yikes. Supposedly from a trusted NY sportswriter at MLBtraderumors.

157
My mistake, strained oblique.

I just don't think Bedard has enough history to justify Matt Kemp for our team. If we already had some offense in place then I would make the deal, but we don't. Counting on a 40 year old 2nd baseman to lead your offense is foolhardy.

I would open up Brad Penny to offers and see what comes forth. If Toronto wanted to give me Rios for him I'd do it. I value hitting over pitching. I was more then ready to trade Kemp as the centerpiece for Miggy.

Tim Charles Wallach and I (Gob Tobias Bluth)..........September 14th

I am 20 years younger and probably a better hitting coach to boot.

Non-tender deadline is next Wednesday. I think Hendrickson, Repko and Brazoban are gone.

173 Kudos to Eric for standing up against it

I don't know if I really stood up against it. It was more of a general conversation on my part.

I really hate that kind of behavior, and it sets a bad example. I explained that to the "Padres suck" guy as I stabbed him. :)

175 With the A's also getting Kevin Mulvey, and the Twins getting Hector Pellot.

175
What a cool trade if true.

So since football is brought up. I have a question that myself and a few friends have been kicking around since the TN vs KY game.

In that game there was a face mask penalty called in the second part of the OT when KY had the ball and the kick was blocked. I was always under the impression that the defense could in fact score at that point. But a former Nebraska player has told me that once the ball is no longer in the Offense's posession then that part of the OT is over.

In that same game they called a "dead ball" foul on Foster for "throwing" the football after he failed to score.

Is there anyone here that can shed any light on the apparent discrepancy. Or that know's for sure the OT is over once the offense looses possesion?

Does a Nomar for Inge trade work? Swapping one bad contract year for Inge's multi-year might entice Detroit.

Inge could fill the Colleti mandated ease-in for Laroche at 3B and then play 4 times a week at 3B/OF and even possibly backup catcher?

179
I would certainly stand behind you in support. I could keep you standing while your getting pummelled by the idiot masses.

175
That is the craziest trade I have ever heard and it would make me ecstatic.

I hate Crosby with a passion and to be able to replace him with Reyes would be utterly insane.

One bad contract for a worse longer contract, no thank you.

Johan to the Mets scares me.

I long for the day when every hot stove post from Jon is not laced with fear.

Not that it isn't warranted based on recent history, but the guy must have ulcers on top of ulcers.

187 If Johan goes to the Mets we can likely put a rest to the "who is the best team in the NL" conversation.

182
Once the defense gains possession on a try, the offense can't regain possession and try to score. But they can do things like advance a blocked kick from behind the line of scrimmage for two poitns.

But in the TN-KY game, the ball was live on the extra point in OT.

186-If Inge could actually act as the backup Catcher it might be money well spent considering he has some power and we will end up paying a backup catcher over a million year anyway. That is obviously a huge if.

I can't believe the Mets would even consider trading Reyes for anyone. He's one of the top offensive catalysts in all of baseball.

On the other hand, I feel like the phrase "trusted NY sportswriter" is as oxymoronic as "trusted LA sportswriter" these days, so... I don't trust it.

Three-way trades take up too many pictures.

188 - Is that how I come across? I feel like the calmest person in the room these days.

189 - although, to be fair, the Mets will have dropped Reyes to Crosby. Now you talk about injury risks, Crosby's been out for half a season the last two years. Consider also the following:

Crosby Warp1:
2006: .6
2007: .9

Reyes Warp1:
2006: 5.1
2007: 7.3

I'm pretty sure Minaya said he wasn't trading Reyes anyway.

A very wild trade if true. The Mets shameful exit may have increased their panic
about their starters. I like them with Johan, but breaking up that left side is a head scratcher. And what are the chances of a starter breaking down vs. a position player. This will be one to follow.

189 - What if the cost is Reyes, Wright and Beltran, with Beltran going to Dodgers and then Pierre going to Twins?

Ken Rosenthal reports that as a HOT deal.

I've got a roommate who's a Mets fan, and I expect to hear an endless stream of rule 1 violations if this is true.

197 - Then it just needs to read "Mets prospects Jose Reyes and David Wright." HA!

Actually, I have to think it is just a rumour, after more consideration.

190 Thanks, Bob. If that is true it seems wrong (although a given if true) that the offense (now defending against a possible return of a blocked kick) can get away with anything (facemask, block in the back, presumably a coach could come in and tackle) because the penalty is not enforced because once the play is over the OT is over. Does that make sense?

The way it seems to me if the play is indeed live after the offese loses possesion is that the other side would actually have an incentive to "foul".

161

I give Toycannon a "harumph" for that

Of course, it cannot be true.

Unless Billy Beane has been learning mind control techniques.

203
"Hey Omar, who's the best-looking GM in the game?"

All Experts was asked by one friend, and they basically punted the answer. Another friend says { that the director of SEC officials discussed the rule on the local radio. He can only say so much, but he did say that the rule should be changed by the rules committee because as he put it: "the safety of the players is the most important responsibility of the officials." } this is via emails.

That trade seems to hurt every one of them. The A's decimate their pitching, the Mets give up Jose Reyes for one year of Johan and dreck, and maybe the Twins go a little bit a head by getting Haren, but not much since they clearly aren't trying to win this year.

135 I think the D'backs should trade Upton for Bedard.

201
If the team attempting the try fouls against the defense trying to return a missed kick or fumble or interception, then the penalty is enforced on the succeeding kickoff (in regulation) or on the next series of downs (in overtime).

At least that's what I thought would happen.

The Hot Stove League is making me woozy.

I haven't heard a deal yet that makes me think surrendering five years of Matt Kemp (and others, to make it worse) for one to two years of someone else. There is some not insignificant probability that Kemp would outperform just about anyone shy of A-Rod or Pujols in 2008, let alone in 2010 when the Dodgers would be left with an expensive free agent to re-sign instead of an inexpensive pre-free-agent top-talent.

When do the meetings come to an end?

209 - Brent, are you familiar with the "gravy on the cake" expression?

When you start chanting Bonds Sucks.

209 I'm pretty positive Kemp won't be the third best player in baseball next year seeing as he still has huge plate discipline issues and hasn't hit more than 17 home runs in a full season outside of Vero.

209 There is some not insignificant probability that Kemp would outperform just about anyone shy of A-Rod or Pujols in 2008

Just to take a contrarian thought here, but are we perhaps over-valuing Kemp somewhat? His ZIPS projections for 2008 were nice, but not knockout. And certainly not anywhere near A-Rod or Pujols.

.303/.348/.483 with 18 HR, 77 RBI and 19 SB.

208 Well for a better explanation of what happened in that game see:

http://tennessee.scout.com/2/707049.html

perhaps its that the facemask happened at the end of the OT instead of in between offensive attempts.

211 - while the question was not addressed to me, I would like to add I have never heard the expression.

and now, here's who overpaid the most this offseason:

http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2007/11/scotland-overpa.html

205
From the NCAA Rulebook:

Fouls During a Try After a Change of Team Possession
ARTICLE 4. a. Distance penalties against either team are declined by rule
(Exception: Rule 8-3-3-d-2) (A.R. 8-3-4-I and II).

Heisman Finalists are going to be announced on sportscenter this afternoon. There's something I've always wondered, every past Heisman winner gets a vote, does that mean that Archie Griffin gets two votes since he won it twice?

205
Also
Fouls During a Try After Team B Possession—ARTICLE 4
Approved Ruling 8-3-4
I. B15 intercepts Team A's legal forward pass (PAT attempt) and is
running at midfield when tackled by A19, who grasps B15's face
mask. RULING: The try is ended, and the penalty is declined by
rule.
II. B1 intercepts Team A's legal forward pass and runs it to midfield.
During the run of the interception, B2 clips in Team B's end zone.
RULING: The penalty is declined by rule.

219 I don't know. But I know it means Jordan Palmer received one vote last year. Long live nepotism.

212

I have witnessed Bonds hit home runs twice during the "Bonds Sucks" chant. We got our come uppance.

206
I think the trade is great for the A's. They definitely are thinking in the long term and they are not going to keep Haren. They sell high on Haren and get a superstar to build around. Mulvey is also a decent prospect and definitely fits the A's mold of pitchers.

In addition, fans will come out to see Reyes. They will not do it for Haren. I know. He lives in my town and I cannot even get people to go meet him at local bars.

216 - It was something our cross-country coach used to say. He used to blend, perhaps unwittingly, "The rest is gravy" with "That's icing on the cake."

209

I don't think it will happen. But since we're talking projections, there is a much larger possibility that Kemp will regress to essentially a league-average hitter -- say,a Milton Bradley -- with good pop but a frustrating lack of discipline.

These Panglossian projections are making people look downright foolish.

If you have an opportunity to get Johan Santana or Miguel Cabrera, you take it.

They sell high on Haren and get a superstar to build around

Is Reyes really a superstar? His numbers make him look like a rich man's Juan Pierre to me. Lots of steals, good but not great OBP, not good SLG.

214 I think there's little doubt that most of the posters on this site are guilty of over-valuing our young players to some degree or another, just as most of the GMs out there are undervaluing them. It's hard not to overvalue them from our perspective when you see them grow up and work through the ranks. We WANT them to be really good, and we have committed lots of time to following them, so the natural tendency is to be biased and overvalue any success they achieve.

226 He had 77 walks and 78 strikeouts last year, that's quite a bit better than JP. He also plays short stop, and slugged .480 the year before. He doesn't resemble Pierre in any way.

225 Milton Bradley is a pretty good hitter. And he has lots of plate discipline.

Still, we could have made a package for Cabrera just as good as the Tiger package or better. But maybe the Marlins were asking us for a lot lot more than what we wanted.

222
I get mine every morning when I wake up and my subconscious world dissipates into wisps of memory only to be supplanted by the real world.

I like Jose Reyes if only because he started without great plate discipline and gradually got better at it. As a big leaguer. Addressing it as a key component to being a great player and then being able to do it.

Juan Pierre hasn't done that.

225 I dont want to trade Matt Kemp for anyone. That doesnt mean I dont want to trade other prospects to win now.

For some people there is just no middle ground I guess.

227 I agree entirely, and it is completely natural, but I am beyond sentimentality -- I demand a winner, now. I've waited far too long.

I commend the Detroit Tigers. Yeah, Miller is a stud, but they realize that they've only got a certain window with Sheff/Ordonez and the gang. They made a bold move.

Know what? Fortune favors the bold.

I could live with Kemp becoming 2007 Padre Milton. 2007 Padre Milton was gooooooooood

Without looking didnt Jose Reyes just completely disappear in August and September this year? I had him on a fantasy team and remember him just sucking.

225 Do you have anything to back up that opinion? Is there something about Kemp in particular that you think is likely to make him a non-star? Because the majority of people who have turned in the caliber of season Kemp just had at age 22 have gone on to become either perennial all-stars or Hall of Famers.

And are you kidding with Bradley? He's a well above league average hitter and has very good plate discipline. The last time he had an OPS+ below 108 was 2002.

In the last quarter century, only 14 hitters have posted a 125 OPS+ at age 22. What is there about Matt Kemp that leads you to believe he'll become the worst of this bunch? (Along with Kearns and Hall.)

1 David Wright 139 657 2005 22
2 B.J. Upton 136 548 2007 22
3 Darryl Strawberry 127 602 1984 22
4 Alex Rodriguez 136 748 1998 22
5 Cal Ripken 144 726 1983 22
6 Albert Pujols 151 675 2002 22
7 Brian McCann 143 492 2006 22
8 Matt Kemp 125 311 2007 22
9 Austin Kearns 134 435 2002 22
10 Mel Hall 128 458 1983 22
11 Vladimir Guerrero 150 677 1998 22
12 Ken Griffey 149 617 1992 22
13 Juan Gonzalez 133 632 1992 22
14 Miguel Cabrera 151 685 2005 22

In the entire history of baseball, there are 91 players who have had such a season. 34 of them went on to the Hall of Fame, and almost all the others became perennial all-stars. Why should Kemp be any different?

227 Of course many of us overvalue our young players, because there is much more value to most D fans of a home grown player like R. Martin than to fielding a fantasy team. But the fact remains that we have a chance to develop a core of home grown from a handful of talented youngsters. Will as many progress as we hope---probably not, but it seems right to find out. We may be saying the same thing?

233 Couldn't agree with you more with your first sentence.

Kemp will be very good, but that 120 OPS+ was fueled in only half a season with a fluky (to some extent) batting average.

237 Your point is well taken, but I just wanted to point out that Russell Martin, as a catcher who hits homers and steals bases, has even more value in fantasy baseball than he does in real life.

Heisman Finalists:

Colt Brennan
Chase Daniel
Darren McFadden
Tim Tebow

240 I LOLed at that.

Thanks, Bob. That makes it clear that the rules aren't so great.

233 " I demand a winner, now. I've waited far too long."

Look, most of us want to win now. But when you let your transactions be controlled by these irrational emotions, instead of by rational thinking, that's how you end up with short-sighted trades and albatross free agent signings.

Not to mention which, there's significant reason to believe that the likeliest path to "winning now" is to keep the young players and actually play them.

I see your point Jon, and agree with you mostly. But imagin if we got to the world series with our exact team and lost a bunch of close games. Would we be happy about our future prospects and the gamble that "we have a good chance coming back next year" or would be kicking ourselves for not making a move that would have pushed us over the edge. It took us 20 years to get there, getting back would be no guarantee.

234 - Especially since I don't think Joe Torre will tackle him and take him out.

224 - Sounds like Dilbert Newsletter fodder. Or maybe your coach was also supposed to help with dieting - somehow gravy with cake doesn't sound appetizing.

233 238 That line could very well be the reason why we havent won anything the last 20 years.

If you drop 40 points off Kemp's 2007 batting average, what happens to his OPS+?

237 I agree with you that the idea of building a winner from our farm to see them win together for years to come is the ideal scenario. However, I think what I am saying, and the2pin seems to be saying, and alot of other dodger fans seem to be saying, is that at some point enough is enough, and we need to stop "hoping" for a brighter future and taking more action to win at all costs NOW. It's been way too long since this city has sniffed a championship, and there should be more urgency in some of the moves we make. I'm not saying that Ned shouldn't have rejected some of the asking prices that I've been reading about, but when I hear people saying Kemp is going to be Manny, or not trading Kershaw straight up for Johan, I get frustrated. It's ok to highly value the homegrown players, so long as it doesn't cloud judgment and let it interfere with realistic opportunities to make this club a better one now, and in in the future. Again, if the Dodgers have won ANYTHING in the past 10 years, I would be all aboard to ride the Jackson 5 express train through 2010. I have to admit that there's alot of validity to the argument of "we've been waiting for 15 years now, what's another 1 or 2." It's just getting harder every year.

Matt Kemp hit: .342/.373/.521, 125 OPS+

Adrian Beltre hit: .276/.319/.482, 112 OPS+

Beltre's OBP is ~50 points lower than Kemp's. And his SLG is ~40 points lower than Kemp's. So I'd guess if Kemp's average dropped by 40 points, he'd turn into Adrian Beltre,
though Beltre's higher isoP probably makes him more valuable.

Does OPS+ take into account batting average? Or is it just a normalized version of OPS?

249 - Depends on what hits were dropped. Is that all singles, so just a straight .040 off slugging?

"we have a good chance coming back next year" or would be kicking ourselves for not making a move that would have pushed us over the edge. It took us 20 years to get there, getting back would be no guarantee."

I guess I'm going to repeat myself here, but the flaw in that thinking is that there is no guarantee that the moves you make to push you over the edge will ACTUALLY push you over the edge.

In fact, only a very small percentage of these "win now" deals actually work out to help the teams win now. Look at all the deadline trades that have been made in the last decade. How many of them have actually pushed that team "over the edge," helped them win the World Series? Not a whole lot. Teixeira sure didn't. Gagne's team won the WS, but Gagne had nothing to do with it. Carlos Lee didn't help the Rangers win the WS. On and on and on. How often do these trades actually WORK? Almost never. Beckett helped the Red Sox win the WS, but that's about it. And even so, the Red Sox may have gotten the short end of the stick, considering they gave up the best offensive player in the National League, plus other players.

249 113, assuming you only lose singles.

But I think what many of us are saying is that the Dodgers HAVE tried the other course for almost 20 years - signing free agents, paying a lot of money, trading youth - and that's pained out with two less world series than the Florida Marlins. So by "staying the course" we're actually trying something different. The other course has gotten us shipwrecked for nearly 20 years.

Whereas the homegrown prospect route worked pretty well for the Dodgers in the 70s and early 80s (and sure, those teams added some players from outside the organization, too, but in moderation)).

Or, what Eric said.

I commend the Detroit Tigers. Yeah, Miller is a stud, but they realize that they've only got a certain window with Sheff/Ordonez and the gang. They made a bold move.

The Tigers also traded a stud prospect for Doyle Alexander. How'd that turn out?

254 - how do you calculate OPS+?

I like my Freudian slip: "pained out" instead of "panned out." Either way, sums it up.

Does anyone else fear that Loney, Kent, Billingsley, Broxton, Kershaw and Laroche could all meet every reasonable expectation placed on them in the next 3 years, and we still may not be able to compete with the Yanks, Red Sox and Tigers?

258 100*((OBP/*lgOBP)+(SLG/*lgSLG)-1)

260 But we don't have to compete with the Yanks, Red Sox, and Tigers. We have to compete with the DBacks, Rockies, Padres, and, if we're lucky, the Mets.

If we find ourselves in a series against the Yanks, Sox, or Tigers, it'll be a seven-game crapshoot in which any outcome is possible, as moribund Cardinals and Marlins teams have recently proven.

257 So because a mistake has been made at some point in history, a team should sit on its haunches and stand pat?

240 That is good also. No problem.

Oh no... not again

http://tinyurl.com/2usqs3

260
No, because in 3 years all 3 of those teams will have an old and aging offense that will be in decline, while if ours all meet expectations they will be hitting their primes.
Manny/Ortiz/Jd/Varitek/Lowell - Useless in 3 years
Posada/Matusi/Abreu/Jeter/Damon/Giambi - Useless in 3 years
Maggy/Sheffield/Guillen/Pudge/Polanco/Renteria - Useless in 3 years.

261 - oh, ok. Thanks

Posada still catching in 3 years - hilarious

262 So your fine with us being moribund? You seem to want to refrain from giving the AL the obvious advantage in that so called crapshoot as well.

262 - why just compete with the teams in the West? Why not build a team - be it by free agency, the farm, or trades that buries those teams?

260 - we still may not be able to compete with the Yanks, Red Sox and Tigers

Or the Marlins!

263 - Isn't that what you're suggesting? Because the Dodgers made the mistake of standing pat at some point in history, they should get off their haunches and deal?

I accept that there is an argument that the Dodgers should be willing to trade every non-integral (for 2008) piece of their organization in order to win in 2008. Giving the Twins any four from the BA top-10 list and getting Santana in return, or having done the same thing with the Marlins for Cabrera. I don't begrudge that argument. But the other argument shouldn't be begrudged either. It's not insane to think that the Dodgers have good reason to use that core to try to build a perennial titlist instead of taking an all-or-nothing shot.

Pure hypothetical for everyone: Let's say the gods promise a 2008 NL pennant for the Dodgers. You are then given the opportunity to trade Clayton Kershaw, James McDonald, Matt Kemp and Chin-Lung Hu for the exact player who will convert that NL title into a 2008 World Series title. If you don't make that trade, the Dodgers lose the World Series. What do you do?

266

THANK YOU, TC. It's important to account for Age when making these projections. As it is, the Tigers, Yanks, and Sox appear to be old teams. Old GREAT teams, yes, but old nonetheless.

On the other hand, we can't rule out that either of the above can reload. By then Florida will have more All Stars to get rid of.

262 Isn't the idea to field the most statistically favorable team you can reasonably field, given your resources, to put yourself in the best position to win the ultimate prize available in the sport each year? Or is the idea to conserve resources to field a promising, but cheap, team that can be competitive in a weak division to manipulate yourself into position to hope to "outluck" the opponent? This didn't work for the 98' Padres or the 07' Rockies.

ToyCannon

Some of the players you list will be "useless in 3 years," but they will have given their fans three exciting years, and almost certainly a championship.

And then those teams will reload, and do it again.

The problem with the Dodgers is a lack of organizational cunning and guts.

Among Dodgers with at least 500 ABs last season: unless I am mistaken, Jeff Kent led the team with an OPS+ of 121. Russell Martin's was 113. Loney and Kemp, who had ~300 ABs, were in the 125-130 range, and both had tremendous September streaks to bouy their numbers.

Miguel Cabrera's OPS+ for the past three seasons: 150, 159, 151.

When you can get a player of his caliber - or Santana, maybe Bedard - you have to make a move. Even if it turns out that the players you gave up were excellent, you know you're getting an excellent player.

272

I still don't make that trade, Jon. Even if it means sacrificing a one time title, I learned the hard way, shooting the moon can often backfire. The 2004 Lakers are a great example.

The '07 Celtics? We'll see ;)

272 I'd trade 'em in a heartbeat for a guaranteed win.

272
Let's say the gods promise a 2008 NL pennant for the Dodgers. You are then given the opportunity to trade Clayton Kershaw, James McDonald, Matt Kemp and Chin-Lung Hu for the exact player who will convert that NL title into a 2008 World Series title

Depends on which God is doing the promise. Not all of them can be trusted. But if a trusting God gives me that option I take the deal. Not that the season would be much fun since I would know a head of time how it turns out.

266 There's no way the management for those teams don't already know that and are prepared to spend every last dollar to rectify it.

Additional Question for you all:

Anyone here on this board a Celtics fan?

It seems impossible to root for the Dodgers and the Celtics at the same time.

274 The "prudence" argument also involves having homegrown talent to root for (baseball is a business, but it's also a kid's game) as well as building a sustained winner and not sacrificing the future.

272 Easy, pull a Red Sox and make the trade and win the WS and then strengthen through FA and the draft like the Tigers.

Eric, I just ordered `In a Sunburned Country' for my cousin's Xmas present. Knucklehead rode his bike across Australia some 25 years ago. Thanks.

272 No question. Deal. If the Dodgers win a world series, I'm on a high for 5 years straight. In that time, we can rebuild.

Great post 274

And Jon, I take the victory and reload.

Prospects come up every year; some will get hurt; others will lose focus; a few will far exceed expectations. When the baseball Gods give you a chance to grab victory by the neck, you go for the kill.

It seems impossible to root for the Dodgers and the Celtics at the same time

My Dad is a lifetime Dodger/Celtics fan. So was one of my friends from high school.

I grew up believing you "had" to root for teams from the same city.

272 I'd settle for the goal: the National League Pennant.

286

Me too. Since LA doesn't have an NFL team, I defaulted to the Pittsburgh Steelers, my only exception.

272 If we can make the WS with the young core, you don't disrupt that. I'd rather have repeat WS visits (even without a win) than never make it again for 20 years.

No way I'd make that deal. Call me Greedy. I want a chance to win every year.

278 - After you make the trade, Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones erase your memory of making it.

The quick fixes didn't work last year. LuGo is gone now, but we are saddled with Nomar's,Pierre's, and Schmidt's contract. Schmidt and Nomar still have an upside, Pierre did exactly what was expected of him.

I think standing pat at the meetings and letting the kids take the lead now is the way to go and it seems we are finding out that Ned, Torre, and McCourt might just agree.

The Snakes and the Rocks showed that once you get a core group of young players winning their jobs, you can then tweak around them some crafty vets to balance it out.

I'm not concerned about lining up with the Yanks, Tigers, Angels, Red Sox. Not even the Mets. I want to win the division.

Once in the playoffs, you only have to go 11-8 and you are world series champions. It is gettting to the playoffs that we need to be concerned about.

I'm tired of the "Dodgers have only won one playoff game since '88" nonsense. We've gotten to the playoffs quite a few times. Consistency and stability is what I desire, probablity and experience will help us win in the post season.

You can't steal first base and you can't win a championship without competing in your division first.

What I want for X Mas now that I can't have ARod is:

1. A starter that doesn't break the bank or saddle us with years of bad salary (maybe Clayton or James?)
2. Some bullpen depth (a guy to pitch like Seanez did until he tired out)
3. A power bat that breaks through(LaRoche, Kemp).

I would love a Santana or Bedard, but not at the price they are asking for in talent. I'd be inclined to sign Johan in 09 if he is available, that is only a few draft picks.

D4P, how'd your Dad become a Celtics fan? Was he originally from Boston?

274 Well, it sort of worked for the '07 Rockies, as they achieved the goal listed at the top of this page.

I've got absolutely nothing against building a great team. I've got a lot against the idea that we should sentence ourselves to years of future mediocrity in order to build a great team for one or two years -- a team which, even if it wins 125 regular season games, has at best a 30-40% chance of winning the World Series.

And frankly, even if we hypothesize that 2008 is the only season that matters, I see no trade we could realistically make that is likely to improve the Dodgers for 2008. I don't think Billingsley, Kemp, Loney, and LaRoche for Cabrera would have improved the team, even in the short run. I don't think Kemp, Billingsley, and Broxton (or whoever) for Santana would improve the team in 2008. I don't think LaRoche, Hu, and Billingsley for Blanton would improve the team in 2008. And I don't think Kemp and Broxton for Bedard would improve the team in 2008.

The Celtics are a great example of what I'm talking about. They had to give up a ton of young talent - Al Jefferson, for example, is a beast -- but now they've got a chance to be a World Champion.

That can't be underestimated, and it has far reaching effects: the fans are excited and extremely happy, players want to go play there and may even take a discount, expectations are high, et al.

I'm out the door. Good discussion, all. Here's hoping we make a move.

"If the Dodgers win a world series, I'm on a high for 5 years straight"

Somehow, I don't think Dodger fans in 1992 were still on a high.

I'm tempted to make the hypothetical trade, but ultimately I don't, because I think if I learned that the Dodgers were good enough to win the NL in 2008, their chances of winning the World Series in 2009 will be good enough for me.

272 Say no.

Reason: Even if 80 percent of the Dodgers' prospects pan out to the top of their projected upsides, the 2008-2015 Dodgers will probably only win one World Series in that span, two if we're very lucky. It's just not that common of an occurence even for great teams. One of the best teams I ever saw was the 1980 Yankees (I was living in NJ then and friends took me to a few games.) But the 1980 World Series winner was the Phillies. The great A's team of the late 80s/early 90s won one WS. The Atlanta Braves, of course. One ring in all those years of supreme excellence.

So if I'm going to get my WS memories, I'd rather take the chance of getting them with a team that includes players I saw develop into stars, rather than players who other cities got to watch. As a fan, I go back to pre-FA days when player mobility was much less, and blockbuster trades stood out because they were relatively rare. Imagine how many teams a guy like Harmon Killebrew would've played for if the 60s were like the 00s. I'd love to see Billingsley and Kershaw become grizzled veterans for the Dodgers, and for Kemp and Loney to fight it out for MVP into their 30s. I want to see Russell Martin go into the HOF, with no doubt about what uniform he'd be wearing.

If our prospects were all "might-be" stars, I wouldn't feel this way. But I'm believing what the experts say, plus what I can see, and I think this team could be great eventually. Next year? Don't know. But soon.

295
But their young players are not as good as the Dodgers, plus McHale was more willing to help out his old franchise than he was others.

The only good player that they got in the deal is Jefferson and they do not even play Green.

272- Jon, I would keep the kids. I have heard that in 1960 Bavasi had a deal lined up with the Cubs that would have brought Ernie Banks to the Dodgers for Duke Snider and Johnny Podres. The Cubs at the last minute wanted to substitute Koufax for Podres, and Bavasi said no. I have not seen Kershaw and it is way too much to even dare think he could be a Sandy Koufax, but if he has success in MLB it should be for the Dodgers.

Stan from Tacoma

The problem with the Celtics is they should have Durant or Oden right now, but got screwed by some independent-minded ping-pong balls.

To add onto 298 , getting one player back for multiple players means more in the NBA than it does in baseball.

I think if I learned that the Dodgers were good enough to win the NL in 2008, their chances of winning the World Series in 2009 will be good enough for me.

--

exactly! Out of the guys you listed (Clayton Kershaw, James McDonald, Matt Kemp and Chin-Lung Hu ) will any of them even be in their prime years yet? (27-33) Without looking I say No.

I have been patient for 20 years, what's another few?

Somehow, I don't think Dodger fans in 1992 were still on a high.

The Sod Squad™ brought me joy with every loss.

300 pff, whatever

D4P, how'd your Dad become a Celtics fan? Was he originally from Boston?

He grew up in California. I think he became a Celtics fan because John Havlicek was his favorite player. Or maybe it was vice versa. I'm not sure.

289 Would you rather have 20 WS appearances in the next 20 years with no victories or 3 WS victories in the next 20 years and not getting past the NLCS once in the other 17?

I thought I already posted this but I can't find it.

I think Sam Coleridge actually wrote about JP. And to think for years I've been pooh-poohing prognosticaters like Nostradamus.

306 Shorter version: Would you rather be the Braves or the Marlins?

296 True, but the reason I'm spending 4 hours a day on THIS blog (instead of billing clients) is because of 1988. In many ways, I'm still riding that high. I'm like a heroin addict who ran out of his stash 19 years ago but still smelling the stash box.

I wonder how the Braves fans would weigh in on this topic.

306 - I would rather be the Braves than the Marlins.

306 I'll take the 20 pennants in a row. Completely dominating one's league is a huge accomplishment.

308 The Braves. We don't know the future. The playoffs are such a huge crapshoot. Sure the best team wins fairly often, but not consistently. In another universe, the Braves would have 5 WS and the Marlins 2 flash-in-the-pan playoff appearances.

"Right now, San Diego's rotation consists of Jake Peavy, Chris Young, Greg Maddux and Randy Wolf in the top four spots -- with Justin Germano, Jack Cassel and Wil Ledezma competing for the fifth spot."

Does that rotation scare anyone?

311 It's not quite true but almost: Any team could win the World Series, especially now in the Wild Card era. But you have to be at least a pretty good team to win your division.

Going into '03, did anyone pick Florida to be world champs? No, because it wasn't thought they could win their division. And they didn't.

313 The Padres somehow always manage to be much better than they look on paper.

315 - Generally. I think they might have been about on target last year, though.

306

I am thinking along those lines. I would rather have our team competing every year for the pennant than having one or two years of the World Series. For me it is all about the ride of the season with a team that can consistently be a threat in their own division. Even though the loss hurt in 2006, I loved every minute of that game against the Mets.

313 - Peavy scares me, no one else does. It has the makings of a solid rotation though, but, yeah, on paper, not what I'd call scary.

Peavy - scary
Young - was scary, not so sure now. He struggled down the stretch.
Maddux - slowly fading but still dangerous
Wolf - a total unknown at this point

= medium scary. Dodgers are 1-3 scary, 4-5 hard to know. That's why I would do a deal for Bedard if the price wasn't so high.

New question:

"I think the team will be good, if not great."

When you read this sentence, do you interpret it to mean a) the team will be good at best, or b) that it might well be great?

313

Who were the #4 and #5 starters last year? I know Wells was one of them.

From Jerry Crasnick: "(agent) Clifton and partner Terry Bross said they've talked to Texas, Minnesota, San Francisco, Tampa Bay and the Chicago White Sox about Luis Gonzalez."

311 The thought of zero world series titles in the next 20 years (39 total) sits ok with such a hardcore dodger fan as yourself?

310 I'd also rather be the Braves than the Marlins. But I'd rather have 3 WS titles in 20 years (with no division titles) rather than 0, but a shelf full of division titles.

320 b

From MLBTradeumors blogger: "Billy Beane, who rarely comments on trade rumors, actually went out of his way to call mine below a "total fabrication." I guess I should be proud, right? It sounds like I was the victim of an elaborate hoax/impersonated sportswriter. If so I apologize - not sure why someone would go to such lengths, but lesson learned."

Color me extremely unsurprised.

321 Hensley.

320 I think it depends on the tone (especially with "if not") and context. It could be either way. I try to be optimistic when I can so I'll say "b."

320 - The usage of the word "will" implies little doubt (in your mind) that the team is going to be good. And it's a short journey from "good" to "great", with just a few overachievers. I'll go with (b).

Now, if it was:

"I think the team should or could be good, if not great."

Now I'm thinking "good" is a ceiling.

320 - I have to say, I've used the "if not" both ways, depending on what's convenient for me.

New post up top.

What would happen to this kid today?

"9/18/27: The Bombers sweep two from Chicago‚ winning 2-1 and 5-1. In the second game‚ Ruth unloads his [single-season record-tying] 54th and Gehrig connects for his third grand slam of the season. A 10-year-old runs on to the field with Ruth's home run ball and the Babe obligingly signs it for him."

323 I've never seen the Dodgers win the National League Championship (became a fan in 1989), so yes, I'd be fine with winning "just" the pennant for the next 20 years.

325 U-Dawg, I am glad to join you at that unsurprised spot. I made a few speculative posts before I thought, wait a minute, that sounds really foolish