Is it sad that I think you were way to generous with the Rangers? McCarthy, Gabbard and Wright could have easily been zeroes.

103 from the last thread: Don't you have it all?

LOL, not nearly, but I do seem to have everything I need - what more could I ask for? (I am accepting applications for anyone who would volunteer to take over my mortgage payments, college tuition payments, etc., etc.

The much-criticized Meche signing may have been over-criticized, but it's not as if he's some ace-in-hiding. Overall, the Royals figure to be overmatched by the other team's starting pitcher most of the time in 2008. I've left A-ball pitchers off the ratings, but could Daniel Cortes, 21 in March, make the leap?

What words are tattooed on Andruw Jones' fingers? I can only make out half of it.

http://tinyurl.com/ywbdu6

Do you think the NL has that many more above average pitchers than the AL or could better hitting in the AL have skewed the pitcher ratings?

More 4s in the AL, though.

http://www.flotsam-media.com/2007/12/flotsam-data-special-tangiblizing.html

I guess when you are in a division with two other teams that are at the top of your list and the Padres seem to win on the cheap and without a farm system, the big boy in the division is going to be judged more harshly.

But also seems that the September collapse plus all the bickering, true or untrue, that went on last year as given teams pause to wonder if the Dodgers were going to jettison some younger guys for vets. That hasn't happen so now two questions remain, will the Dodgers truly commit to their young players and can Joe Torre operate a cohesive clubhouse.

103-Nice, Toy! I share that general wish, too, as well as many of the other specific wishes (including your wish for Reg about LaRoche).

---
"Is there anything sadder than homeless robots at Xmas? Only drowning puppies, and there would have to be a lot of them." - Amy on Futurama

Another thing that makes me sad - discovering that one of my favorite football players has written a novel that sounds absolutely horrible (though it did get a favorable review from well-known literary critic Tony Dungy). Jason Elam, I know you're a kicker and have a lot of free time on your hands, but... geesh.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

It is great to get to share the ups and the downs of the Dodgers with all of you.

"Additionally, the ball looks gigantic to their tiny, elfin eyes..."

That was a fun read, with that line causing actual laughter.

Damn, damn, damn!

I would rather not cheat to be mediocre.

And since there is no where to go but down, once you have reached the top, trending down seems reasonable. I guess holding steady would be okay too.

So the Dodgers could still be among the better organizations but with their finish last year, it would be fair to say that they did not have a great 2007.

I am going to lift one quote from their membership-protected piece because I think it is what most of the outside baseball world thinks about the Dodgers right now and it will be up to Joe to get that addressed right away when Spring Training starts in February.

"Despite leading the division for much of the first half, the major league team crumbled in September, underscored by a clubhouse feud between the team's veterans and youth" .

That has to be it because its other low points for 2007 dealt with what happened to Eddie Murray and Bill Robinson and the only mention of the farm system was Scott Elbert's injury (and he appears to be back).

We are trending up, regardless of what the others say!

As for the bad drafts being the reason for the low rating: the 2005 draft had already tanked by last year, but the Dodgers were still named Organization of the Year. And 2006, well, most of it ain't that hot, but no draft that gets you Clayton Kershaw can be said to be a disaster.

Really, there's no reasonable way for any halfway intelligent person to argue that the Dodger organization is heading downward. There just isn't.

That is why San Diego is seen as a team trending up, their minor league system is getting better and they win at MLB level despite virtually no impact from their system but getting good value from moves that they make.

I think the Juan Pierre signing influenced some of this plus Jason Schmidt's injury.

Nate Silver says right now his NL picks is Arizona, Cubs and Dodgers (especially if Pierre is the 4th OF).

Is the major league club improving from 2007 -> 2008 -> 2009? Yes. So if that is all you mean, I agree it is undeniable.

The organization, however, is getting weaker. In 2005, we were positioned to suffer at most one more year and then 2007 should have been the start of a possible decade long run of excellence. With the trades and acquisitions and non-signings made in 2006 and 2007, we have both delayed and shortened that run and might not have it at all.

We will be a very good team for the next several years. Even our current front office would have difficulty making a complete mess of things. But our position today, for the future, is certainly weaker than it was 2 years ago.

This could be Kemp's balseball card.

If Kemp excells, the "Trash can" might become a cottage industry.

"I still think there will be a decent amount of trade activity," Daniels said. <<

I very much disagree.

In 2005, James Loney was an iffy prospect and Matt Kemp was a toolsy athlete whose baseball skills were undeveloped. Now they're both major league stars.

In 2005, Russell Martin was a pretty good, but not great, prospect, and it was being debated whether he was even the best catching prospect in his own organization. Now, he's the NL All-Star starter, Gold Glove and Silver Slugger winner.

In 2005, Clayton Kershaw was a 17-year-old kid none of us had ever heard of. Now the Dodgers possess baseball's best left-handed pitching prospect in a generation.

I could go on, but you get the point. Our future is a lot more secure now than it was in 2005 because the players have transformed from chancy prospects into relatively sure things.

1. Sign Andruw Jones (check)
2. Sign Kuroda (check)
3. Trade Juan Pierre to Texas even if we have to eat a year or 2 of the salary (please, please, please!!!)

In any event, the point is, even if we accept your glowing review, all you are doing is listing the guys that made it. Statistically, in 2005, having something like this claimable in 2008 was a near certainty. So again, sure, the short term health of the major league team looks good. There is no denying that.

The front office, however, has really cost us over the last two years and we are weaker for the future. The obvious problems are the Two 2006 Devil Rays trades and the failure to sign Hochevar and Blair.

"The front office, however, has really cost us over the last two years and we are weaker for the future. The obvious problems are the Two 2006 Devil Rays trades and the failure to sign Hochevar and Blair."

The front office has cost us, perhaps, but the Devil Rays trades have nothing to do with it, as we gave up nothing that is likely to end up being of great value, unless you think Ruggiano's going to be a star. It would be nice to have Navarro as a backup catcher, certainly, but nothing about those trades is going to kill us. Note that I'm not saying they were good trades; they weren't, but we managed to get away with it. The front office hurt the team a lot more by signing Pierre, Nomar, and Schmidt (although I thought the latter was a good signing at the time).

Agreed on Blair. However, as noted in 56 , the failure to sign Hochevar actually benefited the organization greatly, albeit unintentionally.

However, it must again be pointed out that still even if some of those guys were still here, their placement on the Dodgers depth chart would certainly put them not on the immediate path to Chavez Ravine.

The Hochevar deal (which falls between 2 administrations) has been documented and its not as if he was not getting a big deal, just not as big as he eventually got going number 1.

Kyle Blair, I guess we'll know in 3 years how that will turn out but would I rather have him, sure.

That is a good point. I wouldn't go quite as far as saying he'd be one of the best 4th outfielders in baseball. But he'd be an acceptable 4th outfielder. However, (a) if he remains on the team, I don't trust management to bench him, and (b) he seems preoccupied with his streak and complains whenever he doesn't start a game, and we probably don't need any more Luis Gonzalez-type problem children in 2008.

Admittedly, both of those fears are completely speculative.

Additionally, the case still remains that at the time of the trades, what we gave away was worth far far more than what we got. Thus, those trades hurt our organization, as a whole, as measured by lost opportunity, regardless of how the individual players given up are performing today.

As I said at the time of the trades, moves like that will kill a franchise in the long run. That we escaped any lasting damage from those particular moves is just luck.

True. However, if they work out, as this one did, then they do not "really cost us" and make us "weaker for the future" as you claim in 58 the Hochevar non-signing did.

http://tinyurl.com/2vbx89

But it's cool nonetheless.

Additionally, if we stay consistent with your reasoning on things (always taking present day value of past moves), then Kershaw is worth very little. We'll need to wait and see if he works out. I don't agree with that reasoning, but it seems you are mixing things around a bit much - choosing to point out what happened after the fact in some cases and choosing to value Kershaw based solely on potential.

Anyway, the Hochevar thing has been gone over before, so I hesitate to keep talking about it, but I think the effect it had on the 2006 draft is very much quantifiable. It's simple, really. Kershaw was Detroit's second target, after Andrew Miller. The Royals were trying to decide between Miller and Hochevar, and obviously took Hochevar. If Hochevar isn't there, then the Royals take Miller #1 and the Tigers take Kershaw #6. There really was no disagreement among draft insiders that that's what would have happened. And Logan White specifically said that if Kershaw had been gone, he'd have taken Bryan Morris 7th and Preston Mattingly in the Morris spot.

So basically, in that situation, we would have ended up with the same things we got, plus a #39 pick, instead of Kershaw.

Doesn't that comment merit discussion? Or, is it now assumed that Ethier will not be traded? I certainly hope so!

So far we have heard that the Dodgers are lucky that Kershaw is better then Hochevar, and that the Dodgers are lucky that all the players they traded to Tampa were terrible.

To me, that all adds up to the Dodgers being lucky! But it sure doesn't paint a picture that says they are worse now then they were in 2005.

I don't think they are. Did you reference the wrong comment?

He certainly has much more value then a middle reliever. Much more!

Whomever they would acquire is not going to start for the Dodgers infield in 2008. He's not going to fetch a "better" outfielder.

And, he certainly is not going to fetch a starting pitcher that the Dodgers could use for 2008.

At best he could fetch some prospects, and not the most highly rated ones either.

His best value is with LA!

Let it be known that though you did not reference the wrong comment, my question asking if you referenced the wrong comment actually did reference the wrong comment. Whoops!