Excerpt from BPro's spring training preview, courtesy of SI.com:

Job battle to track: There are four outfielders for three spots, and it's excruciatingly clear to anyone familiar with baseball who ranks fourth among them. However, the likelihood that the Dodgers relegate Juan Pierre to a bench role is nil. Every PA he takes from Matt Kemp and Andre Ethier is a mistake.

One move to make: Trading Pierre for whatever he'll bring back, even if it means eating $10-15 million. Pierre would actually be a decent extra outfielder; it's just not likely that the Dodgers would do that, or that he would be all that happy in the role. Having Pierre around just increases the chance that he'll take time away from better players. There are people who don't like it when we say players aren't good, and saying this about a known nice guy like Pierre tends to fire up the opponents of performance analysis. Playing him regularly on a corner is just baseball malpractice, however, and the Dodgers have to avoid that temptation.

Ned Colletti has squandered a fair amount of scouting director Logan White's work in his time as the Dodgers' GM, but he avoided doing so this winter. Thanks to that, he heads into the spring with his best team, and with the best chance of having that team play. There remains the need to push Pierre and Nomar Garciaparra into supporting roles, the latter so that OBP machine Andy LaRoche can take over at third base. The "right" Dodger lineup can win 94 games and the division. How Joe Torre apportions playing time in a situation not dissimilar to the 1996 Yankees will determine whether the Dodgers fulfill their potential.

Would someone remind me what the '96 Yankees reference means?

Related to Kent in a way, according to Dylan Hernandez, Furcal wants to work out an extension, preferably ironed out before the season starts. It seems to me that being willing to negotiate after a pretty bad year is a sign of good faith.

But do people want the Dodgers to extend Furcal at this juncture? I personally wouldn't mind, as I am not confident that both Hu and Abreu will turn out to be better than average middle infielders, although I'm pretty sure at least one of them will be.

I hope Furcal realizes that he is not going to get a contract extension for 14M a year.

3 With a young team emerging, I think keeping a veteran who leads by example makes sense. I'd be very happy to lock up Raffy for another three years as long as we aren't totally overpaying him.

That makes Hu a bench player if Abreu takes over second in 09. It also puts a fire under both Abreu and Hu to work hard to win the job. Hu has been sought after by other clubs and could be a value part of a necessary future trade. Signing Furcal makes sense to me, 3 years for 39 mil again?

2 - Integrating PVLs with marginal talent and young guys with boatloads (of talent).

2 Not sure, but my guess is that he's referring to the fact that Torre made Jeter the shortstop and used Mariano Rivera for 100+ innings as a super set-up man/reliever. Pettite also passed 200 innings for the first time in his career in 1996.
I don't know what Torre's other options were in lieu of Jeter, Rivera and Pettite.

3 An emphatic NO to extending Furcal. Hu is the future, and he will be more than ready by opening day 2009.

7 '96 Yankees won the AL East and were 11-4 in the post-season beating the Braves in 6 in the WS. How much credit Torre should get is debatable but you can't complain about the results.

If we had originally signed Rafy to a 6 year deal for 80 million we'd have thought Ned was nuts so why would extending Furcal for 3 years after the original contract is up be a good idea? He had one great 2nd half in 2006. An injury plagued 1st half in 2006 and a lost season in 2007 to injury. Does that get you a 3 year extension when you might have the best fielding SS in baseball ready to play for peanuts over the next 3 years who can approximate Rafy's offense other then his stolen base totals? That money can be better spent elsewhere unless Hu can bring back something elite in a deal.

I have to agree with you ToyCannon.

I'm all for locking up Furcal for another 3-4 years provided the terms of the contract aren't ridiculous. He is a proven commodity and everybody knows what to expect from him when healthy. While I too like the potential of both Hu and Abreu, I just think having a known entity like Furcal around always makes a club better......when healthy of course. My only stipulation would be that they put some kind of "lying about health status" clause in his contract....would never happen but would be pretty cool.

I think that when we consider Furcal's future with the team, we need to think of the second base question as well. I am pretty sure I read that Hu had been playing or practicing some second base (not that i'm saying Hu would have to be the one to move). That's why having only one of Hu or Abreu succeed could be a reason to keep Furcal.

I thought the success of the 96 Yankee's was directly related to the clean shaven, no hair below the collar look. The Yankee's have taught us that only people who shave daily and cut their hair on a regular basis can play winning baseball. At least in the 90's they did. It may come as a shock to many who think Joe Torre is the messiah but in the 21st century, the combination of a genius manager, a 200 million budget, and those daily grooming guidlines have won squat when World Championships are the goal. Thank You Luis Gonzalez for that.

Congratulations to the Repkos. Thankfully a close encounter with Raffy is not likely while he's tending to his new baby.

In the past, one argument in favor of re-signing Furcal has been: "What else are we going to spend our money on?"

I think it should be clear by now that we need to be building a war chest for Martin, Bills, Broxton, Kemp, Loney, et al. They are going to be commanding real money before we know it, and we don't want any unnecessary contracts getting in the way.

16
Agreed. So what about a front loaded instead of back loaded contract extension for Furcal?

16 That's definitely been a gnawing thought at the back of my mind. Soon enough, these guys are gonna be commanding 8-figure salaries.

Speaking of Furcal-From the Sporting News today:
"Shortstop Rafael Furcal was able to make a statement upon reporting to spring training that he couldn't make at any time last season: He's completely healthy.

"I'm feeling good, I'm feeling 100 percent," Furcal said Tuesday before participating in his first workout with the Los Angeles Dodgers. "If I'm healthy, I can do anything."

3 more years of the 2003 - 2006 Furcal-Sign me up.
3 more years of the 2007 Furcal-Let's try someone else.

12
Rafy is a solid SS and I was happy when we signed him for his 28-30 year old seasons. I would not be as happy giving him the same money for his 31-33 year old seasons since his legs are a big part of his offense and they have been a big reason for his lack of production 9 out of the 12 months he's played for us. If we didn't have options it would change the equation but we do.

15
I thought the baby was just due, but not actually out and about yet.

14

TC, those are good points about the 21st Century Yankees.

The Yankees did win a Championship in 2000. Does that count?

I might sign Furcal for two years and move him to second in favor of Hu at short. Depends on whether Hu can hit in the major leagues.

I can see both sides of the sign/don't sign Furcal arguments. I was responding to the idea of signing him to an extension BEFORE the season starts.

My thought process includes that he's not going to command as much now as he will after a solid season. It stablizes an infield that should have Loney, Abreu/Hu, and LaRoche in '09 with one proven leader.

I like Hu's potential, he is a blue chip prospect. I agree that we need Abreu or Hu to take over second base in 09, we shouldn't extend Kent, he is near retirement and not worth what it would cost to pay him in addition to blocking the younger guys. Counting on a very young infield can pay off entirely by passing on Furcal, especially in terms of payroll. I just think we would be hedging a bit in a smart way, especially if we need free agent pitching in '09.

Furcal provides the type of leadoff bat we need. He has post season experience, he was our MVP in '06. Letting him walk because Hu is in the wings isn't the no brainer some around here think.

I would be very pleased to see Furcal stick around. I love the post game interviews with him. You can always count on him beginning an answer with "Yeah. Well, you know ..."

I'll never forget his first game in Dodger blue, he got on base five times.

17 If we extend Furcal, we are essentially turning Hu into a trade chip. I don't think we could expect to get fair value for him in that situation. I'm fully comfortable going into 2009 with Hu the full-time SS. He has made huge strides offensively, his defense has never been questioned, and moving him to 2b would be a mistake.

I just asked John Sickels who his breakout Dodger prospect for this year would be, and he said Ivan DeJesus. That means we have two top-notch defensive-minded SS prospects coming through the system.

I guess it all boils down to how much we all like Furcal. I'd much rather extend Penny or even Jones [when the time comes] than devote our resources to a player who may or may not even be needed next year. How about this?: We offer him arbitration, and if he accepts it, we ride him for one more year. If not, we get draft pick compensation. I like Furcal, but I'm truly excited about Hu's arrival.

Jeff Kent Day: like Training Day, only without the Oscar.

We had perfectly clear skies last night, and now today lots of clouds in advance of the lunar eclipse. Bummer.

With Lowe, Furcal, Nomar, Kent, and Loaiza off the payroll after next year we dump around 50M. Put Hu at short and Abreau at 2nd and use the money for a top drawer pitcher and to extend the young guys.

And to pay part of Pierre's contract so we can dump him.

I don't know how hard Furcal is pushing to get this done before the season but it seems to me a great idea to wait a while.
I like Furc, but a half season could show where he really is at, and a bit more of what we have in Hu. If I thought he would really give us a better price to do this now, after a bad year, I would consider it.
But that's a joke!

i was in the camp that signing furcal after this year was a good idea, however, after thinking it over the only way you'd want to re-sign him is he has a good year. if he has a good year he'll want more than he is making now and that money will be better served spent elsewhere. if the dodgers have a good run and furcal truely does love playing here maybe he'll give us a hometown discount, but i think the #1 priority would be re-signing lowe at somewhat below or at his market value.

24
Were those the only times he got on base in April of 06?

24 You make a very good point regarding the leadoff issue. I've always thought we signed Furcal to be our leadoff hitter--his position just happened to be shortstop.

If we do go with Hu next year, who bats leadoff? Ethier, Pierre, Abreu? Does it even matter?

24 I feel basically the same way; that is, I kind of waver back and forth. I picture Furcal having a great year this year, too, which, as you said, means he'll command more later. I also don't like the idea of blocking Hu and Abreu, but on the other hand, as much as I like them I'm not convinced starting next season with both of them will give us the offense we need (the defense would be great, that's for certain). Losing Kent is one thing. I guess I'm just nervous that replacing Kent and Furcal would actually mean the Dodgers management would hand the keys over to both Hu and Abreu together for next season. In other words, I'd much rather have Furcal plus Hu/Abreu for the other spot, than (insert unknown veteran infielder here) and Hu/Abreu.

But I'm excited and hopeful about them both, too.

Either way, even if this is his last year with LA, I expect a real comeback from Furcal.

No on Lowe.

25 DeJesus? Really? Wow. Hrm. Well, that would certainly be nice to have another top shortstop, but I'm a little more skeptical.

There will be better options than Lowe for the money he will want.

Due to a light rain this morning and a hole in the plastic wrap, my L.A. Times was sopping wet this morning. Does anyone besides me still get their news fix the old fashion way? Anyways, it's a good thing I can get my daily dose of Dodger news here on Dodger Thoughts. Keep up the good work.

we've had this discussion before, i just can't believe the people who think it's not a good idea to sign lowe. he has been healthy his whole career, he's not a power pitcher so his numbers are less likely to decline and you can pencil him in for 200 innings and 3.50-3.75 era that is an extremely valuable pitcher.

34 I've heard mention [by a poster] of targeting Mark Ellis next offseason to be our 2b. I personally think Hu is more likely to be our SS next year than Abreu is to be our 2b. Abreu has versatility going for him, which often perpetuates itself into a career as a bench player.

C Martin
1st Loney
2nd Abreu
3rd LaRoche
SS Hu
LF Ethier
CF Jones
RF Kemp
I'd like to see this lineup in 2009.
Very good defense and lots of pop.

37 Who?

i guess how jason schmidt preforms has a big impact on the front office's decision on lowe

This is my thought process concerning the middle infield.

After this season, we basically have two spots opening up through probable retirement and free agency.

I wouldn't outright dismiss a contract extension for Furcal at this very moment because the two young players who have been groomed to become the Dodgers two middle infield fixtures both have that plate discipline issue that needs to be worked out.

I like Raffy a lot. I love the way he plays offensively and defensively. I'm not ready to kick him out to the pasture just yet but I also would not be willing to negotiate an extension before the season. We need to see how Hu and Abreu both play this season and if they both show signs of actually "getting it" when it comes to plate discipline.

But I also look forward to the 4 picks we are going to get from Lowe and Raffy.

39 2009 Rotation:

1. Penny [perhaps newly extended]
2. Bills
3. Kuroda
4. Schmidt
5. Kershaw

Honorable Mention: Kuo, McDonald, Meloan, ?

Lowe is heading into his late 30's and that is when pitchers start to decline rapidly without steroids. Lowe's hip is not going to get any better as he ages and I fear that the injury bug is going to catch up with him in the next two years.

AMGEN, The Tour of California is about to start stage 3 outside my office at the courthouse. Pretty cool. Lots of free swag to be had.

Toycannon pointed out that Furcal might only have a speed advantage over Hu. I think that is right on the money. Why sign Furcal to an extension when he played on a bum ankle the whole year? His speed is going to be in sharp decline pretty soon here, Hu is the better option 2009 forward. That doesnt mean Ned thinks that, we know how much he loves PVL's. It's hard to imagine Ned fielding a LaRoche, Hu, Abreu, Loney infield.

I don't really understand that logic that the Dodgers should only re-sign Furcal if he has a good year this year. The only thing a good year this year would tell us that we don't know for sure right now is that last year's injury is behind him, and he's healthy. A new contract would be for the years AFTER this year. They should re-sign him only if they think that during THOSE years he would out-perform Hu AND the value of whatever player(s) Furcal-like money could afford. That he has a good 2008 would be very nice, but it shouldn't affect the net present value calculation for the next contract. 2008 is already paid for.

Old Dodger Fan,
Extend Penny.

Hypothetical...re-sign Lowe and Raffy at their current rates or show CC Sabathia the scrilla?

47 hip is a valid point, but look at pitchers that are sinker-ball pitchers very rarely do they have arm trouble, he is extremely reliable.

but like i said if schmidt shows he's not finished that will have a big influence on what to do with lowe, also kershaw needs to show improvement with his control this year in the minors or i don't know if he'll be ready for '09

Furcal is not going to want to take a pay cut. He is not a 14M year player.

20
I agree about the money. No way we pay him the same premium in any new deal. I think a big part of why he received the deal he did at the time was to not only entice him to come to LA, but for Colleti to make a bit of a splash and show other "premier" (I hate that term) free agents that LA is not the place for proven (I hate that term too) guys to come and die anymore, ala Brian Jordan, Robin Ventura, Fred McGriff and so on.
We also have to take into account injuries. Freak injuries are known to happen all the time, just look at the current state of Hunter Pence for an instant example, so I like the idea of having depth by extending Furcal. Maybe Abreu becomes the next great utility guy and Hu is the stud, or vice versa, or maybe neither of the two can hit for an extended period of time in the majors. Maybe they both just absolutely kill it and we have a plethora of talented middle infielders. There are too many what if's to even contemplate. For fear of the unknown, and Furcal's track record, extending him 2-3 years isn't a bad idea I don't think in the long run. And if doesn't pan out, we can always trade him.

What's playing out right now is the very reason the Dodgers and Furcal agreed to a 3-year deal.

Furcal knew he'd be close enough to his prime to demand another long-term deal. The Dodgers knew they'd have a capable replacement waiting the wings and be in a strong position to bargain.

If Raffy wants another year, go for it. But that won't cut it. To lock him up, you probably need a 4-year deal. That's what he'll get in free agency.

I don't see how the Dodgers can do that right now, unless they simply don't think Hu has the goods.

31
Nothing against Lowe who has been very consistent as a Dodger but if I'm going to spend money on pitching, I'd rather spend it on CC then Lowe.

49 Conversely, I think that the best case scenario for Hu right now is a decent Furcal year like .280/.345/.405, albeit with less isolated patience.

57 CC is going to want a a multi year deal for at least 18 million a year. he is overweight and yet to have arm trouble, seeing how we've been burned in the past with long term pitching deals, don't you think it'd be safer and maybe a better option to sign lowe to a 2 year deal for less anually?

50
Bingo

James Loney has lobbied that the Dodgers do not turn Furcal into a 2nd baseman. He can't find a sponge strong enough to protect his fingers from the howitzer throws of Rafy from that short distance.

56
That seems to be right on the money. I hadn't considered all that but I think you are indeed correct.

No thanks on Lowe. We have Kershaw ready next year, and I'm betting Sabathia finishes his career as a Dodger. Can you imagine going from no leftys in the rotation to those leftys?

Sabathia
Penny
Bills
Kershaw
Kuroda/Schmidt

I like Natepurcell's idea. Go after CC with the Furcal/Lowe money.

59
Maybe, but Lowe has said repeatedly how he misses East Coast baseball. I'll be surprised if he doesn't take his sportscaster and head back East.

Are you holding it against CC that he hasn't had arm trouble yet? Talk to Mickey Lolich and David Wells about LH pitchers with weight problems.

59 If you have the budget for it, you should always sign the best player available. Derek Lowe's age 35 and 36 years are probably a pretty replaceable commodity. C.C. Sabathia's prime isn't.

Yes, we'd all love it if everyone took two year deals, but the only way you can get premium talent from outside the organization is by paying out the nose. You can't have a good team without good players, otherwise you end up like the Blue Jays, or the more recent renditions of the Dodgers. (Yes, I realize that we made the playoffs twice recently, but that's largely because of a terrible division). Hopefully the emergence of our prospects stops the trend.

63 There's going to be like 45 million dollars free next year. Why not do both?

If we pass on Lowe in hopes of signing CC we could easily wind up with neither of them. If Schmidt is healthy that's not so bad. If he is not healthy we better hope Penny pitches well or we could be headed for 4th place again.

56
That would mean Ned was thinking 3 years into the future and they felt Hu was the guy back when he just a single A player. Ned has proven that he just hates long term deals. Which makes the whole JP thing even harder to understand. He held the line on Furcal, Schmidt, A Jones, Nomar, and Kuroda but couldn't hold the line on JP?

49 "That doesnt mean Ned thinks that, we know how much he loves PVL's. It's hard to imagine Ned fielding a LaRoche, Hu, Abreu, Loney infield." - Yah, that's sort of what I was trying to get at in 34 . I'd rather have Furcal than another veteran - although I do like Mark Ellis, as mentioned above. He's one of the more underrated players in baseball. But I just don't fully picture Colletti handing over the keys to both Abreu and Hu. Ah well, we shall see. I am still rooting for Furcal to have a good year, because I think that will be a huge key to the Dodgers' season.

As far as Lowe goes, he's been one of the most consistent pitchers in baseball over recent years, but locking him up to another long term deal would make no sense. He's just going to get more and more injury prone, riskier to keep around. You thank him for his time, take the draft pick and move on. There's also the little matter of the Kershaws and McDonalds of the system knocking on the door.

58 If Hu does that adios Raffy. From what I saw in September, Hu is almost ready. If he can be a tad more patient, he can be an elite SS. Do you think Hu is capable of hitting 10-15 jacks in the bigs right now Reg?

68 That is precisely why Ned is a horrible GM.

Derek Lowe is a Tiger next year. Give me CC or give me death.

if you sign CC Kershaw won't be in the rotation until 2010 (unless schmidt is finished, or they don't pick up penny's option) which actually maybe best for him anyway.

68 He's essentially admitted that he panicked when he lost Drew, and I take him at his implied word. I like to hope that he's learned from that, and given the Jones deal I think he did. As for the larger subject, Hu will be cheaper, I'd like to see if he can be as good.

68
Didn't Ned think there was some competition for Pierre? I thought it was the Giants? So he beefed up his offer to make it more attractive to Pierre and not get "burned" (I find that so funny to type when we're talking about Pierre) by SF. You are right though, it seems to be the only FA contract he has awarded of late that bucks his current trend.

66 If you're the McCourts and you know that money is coming off the books and you know you have young talent you need to resign soon, don't you just bank the savings rather than spending for the sake of maintaining a certain salary level? It isn't clear to me from a business perspective that those savings have to be spent to remain competitive.

74 It was the Giants, and I personally think it was Sabean's version of rookie hazing, and it just went too far.

75 good point, you shouldn't spend money just to spend it. obviously the rotation is better with CC in it, but is it the best way to spend $125?

72
Nada, there is not a door made that can hold the minotaur back from being in the rotation in 2009 unless it was built by Tommy John.

70 No, I'm not sold on his power yet, it spiked when he went to Vegas, so right now I think the power is more of the product of the park. Fortunately, we have a full season to find out if it's real. If he keeps hitting for power in Vegas, get rid of Furcal, otherwise I'd keep him. This year means a lot.

Like I said, those numbers are Hu's best case scenario right now. We can expect that from Furcal if he's healthy.

72 Someone will get hurt. I don't expect Kershaw to be fully entrenched in the rotation until mid 2009.

77 What would you spend it on?

78 if managment won't bench pierre (who is awful) based on his contract, which high priced pitcher who is at least decent will they send to the bull-pen

75 We're a better team with Sabathia and arguably Furcal or Lowe, so the money is worth spending.