Stop being logical! ;-)

I mean, I agree.

Very well said, Jon.

LAT'd

Really, most of you don't believe that all this "Pierre may start" talk serves the purpose of keeping his trade value higher? At least in the minds of Ned and Torre?

For whatever reason (logic), I simply don't buy the idea that Torre will play Pierre over Ethier.

Torre's comments have been nebulous at best, and I think it's because he doesn't want to just come out and say that Ethier will start. Keeps them competitive, and keeps Pierre's price a bit higher.

I read the part about Pierre being what he is to other teams, regardless of whether he starts or not. However, I think an offer for a backup will be slightly lower than if that guy was starting. At least it should start lower, on the premise that the player isn't as valuable to the team.

I also believe that the trade that didn't go through involving the White Sox - which Ned was upset about - involved Pierre.

2 - Thanks.

Perhaps Spring Training has allowed us to see Pierre and Ethier play alongside each other more often than ever before. This might contrast their strengths, weaknesses, and overall values more easily to the fans, media, and coaches.

It's not just the numbers, but we get to see the "scout" side more clearly when they're playing side by side. We notice their swings, their approaches, their defense side by side, sometimes in the same inning.

5 Just eyeballing it, there were about 120 opportunities to see Pierre and Ethier play side by side last year.

Colletti himself said the starting OF will be decided on the field. So is he guilty of putting excessive weight on March stats? Or is it that Ethier/Pierre are just being "scouted" for their "tools" and not measured by 60-70 pa's.

If in mgmt's mind this was a coin-flip decision, then Ethier's torrid March has got to factor in. If mgmt believed Ethier was their guy on March 1, then Ethier's spring performance gives Ned/Torre adequate cover to make the decision. And of course Plaschke will write one of his "I was wrong" columns- like anyone cares about his public reversals (Pete Carroll et al).

re: 5 I guess I meant for guys like Torre and media/fans who hadn't been forced to pit them against each other for one position. Many of us here knew Matt Kemp before he even came up last year, but I doubt most casual fans had a problem with the Kemp/Ethier/Pierre rotation most of last year.

172 from prev thread.

Are you familiar with James Patterson's Maximum Ride series? One of the main character's name is Fang.

glistening white triangular tooth
open up a can of tomato juice
(guitar riff)
i've got a fang
i've got a fang
i've got a fang

sadly the dodger management views salary and fame as more important than contribution and talent, which means no matter what, Pierre will be in left field. If anything Ethier's hot spring will mean kemp will be pushed to the bench, not pierre.

In which Jon limns the elephant in the room.

I feel like this is so patently obvious, and Ned's refusal to appropriately deal with is so consistent, that there's almost no point in discussing this.

8 - the Kemp/Ethier/Pierre rotation most of last year.

To be accurate, it was a Kemp/Ethier/Gonzo rotation. Pierre was the lone undisputed starter in the OF for the entire year.

Let's all hope that this is the last time Jon has to write about this.

11 If this comes to pass, I don't think it will be due to salary and fame. Instead, I think it will be a misunderstanding of the importance of batting average and speed at the top of the lineup.

14 Next year I hope this will all be a boring historical anecdote.

Grandpa: "I remember when Juan Pierre actually challenged Andre Ethier for playing time in left field"
Grandson: "Wasn't Juan Pierre a centerfielder?"
Grandpa: "Naw, he got moved to left when the Dodgers got Andruw Jones"
Grandson: "Aw, come on grandpa, you're just joking."

191 from last thread:

He turned me into a newt.

If "it" were to happen, and by "it" I mean the correct decision, isn't the most logical time for the announcement to be this week in Phoenix? Torre would want to field his opening day lineup for 10 days and get everyone comfortable in their roles blah blah. I don't see "it" happening late next week.

Guess I'm curious, but what would you all do as GM? Is there a downside to handing the LF position to Ethier in February? Should Ned just have come out and stated that Ethier would start? Or isn't stating that it's an open competition the best way for him to deal with it?

17 A newt?!?

16 Since I'm thinking there's a good 20% chance he'll be Hall Of Famer Juan Pierre by then, I don't think that's how the conversation will go.

The guy has a pretty realistic shot at 3000 hits and 800 steals if he keeps getting jobs. If he does that, he's Hall bound.

19 - I would expect Ethier to have the maturity to handle getting a starting job the same way I expect Loney to have the maturity to handle his starting assignment.

It's not as if Ethier hasn't started a bunch of games before.

19 If I'm Ned, I'm doing everything I can to give Juan Pierre a chance so I don't look like a complete idiot for signing him.

19 - Is there a downside to handing the LF position to Ethier in February?

Since it isn't February, there's no point to discussing this. But assume for the moment that going into spring training Ethier were given the starting job. That would imply Ned would have to confess his Pierre deal was a near-total loss. It would be a significant hit to his prestige.

So the collateral damage would principally be limited to Ned's ego.

Ned signed Jones to replace Pierre, and did the whole Pierre to left field schtick to help trade him, as well as to soothe Pierre's ego much the way Nomar was soothed into taking grounders at 3rd before being replaced by Loney.

I remember reading that on here months ago and thinking it was logical. I'll just stay in that happy zone and hope Torre doesn't let me down.

How many people here still remember what happened with Matt Kemp at the end of 2007 Spring Training?

I'm getting annoyed at the "it's a good problem to have" comment coming from everyone from the dodgers. It's not a good problem to have when the right decision is not being made and you will have two 9Million dollar bench players if everything is right

27 It's annoying, but they have to say that. What are they supposed to say publicly, especially if they really DO want to trade Pierre somewhere? It is a bogus PR-y thing to say, but it's unrealistic to expect them to say something else, too.

Can y'all just wake me in April?

26 Didn't he come out of spring as the starter until he ran into a trashcan disguised as a scoreboard?

21 Your blogmate disagrees, but I want Pierre to be traded partly because I want him to play everyday and have a shot at 3000 hits.

19 - I tend to agree with 22 and 23. If I was the GM now, I'd be looking to trade Pierre. I don't know that I'd be publicly saying that I was shopping Pierre, but I'd be looking for teams that would want a player like him (yes, there are teams that would want a guy like Pierre). And, in shopping Pierre, I'd be looking for the best possible value.

The public approach would be similar to what Ned has been doing.

Pity Ned's ego at least temporarily if... Pierre is on the bench to start the season, Nomar is banged up, Schmidt is hurting, and Jones slumps out of the gates.

He did go out and get Ethier, but overall it seems the best thing that can be said about Ned is that he hasn't traded top prospects, traded for Maddux, and got a ridiculous output from Marlon Anderson. Just seems a lot of things might be piling on the negative side now.

just wondering did torre or ned actually say anything about there being a spring competition or are we just assuming there is the three outfielders for two spots thing?

24 - I'm still not buying this argument, because it's so easy to spin the positive. Ned all along has said (rightly or wrongly) that he got Pierre because Kemp and Ethier weren't proven. Well, now Kemp and Ethier are proven - plus, Jones was available. All Ned has to do is say, "My goal is to put the best possible team on the field, without sacrificing the future."

Who wants a GM who rests on his laurels? If the starting outfielder from 2007 is a fourth outfielder in 2008, that's a good thing. (You can get into an argument about whether Pierre's salary prevented the team from getting A-Rod or Santana, but I don't think most people will take it that far - plus, it may not even be true.)

I've never heard of improving a team translating into a loss of prestige. If the team wins, no one's going to care that Pierre was signed along the way. And if the team loses, no one's going to care that Pierre was benched. They're only going to care about the wins and losses.

Ned's prestige solely depends on how well his team does. It's the only barometer, and frankly, I'd be surprised if Ned doesn't know it.

exactly KG, and I just think we need to see that for what it is - Ned posturing. No matter what stats Ned uses, I'm sure he now sees Ethier that outperforms Pierre if given equal opportunities. Not sure if he saw that last year.

23
I don't think that is what Ned is thinking. If he can win, all past mistakes will be forgiven. If he finally decides to move JP for pennies on the dollar it will be because he's decided that an outfield of Kemp/Jones/Ethier makes that a more realistic proposition.

I would also be shocked if this decision is not completely in Joe Torre's hands. They brought him in to win, and he will play who he thinks will give him the best shot at winning. This isn't some rook manager worried about his backside.

That said, I have little faith that Joe will make the correct decision.

29 - He wasn't expected at all to make the Opening Day roster ... until he did. My point is that there's always room for surprises, no matter what we perceive or read this month.

if the team wins while Pierre and Nomar and Schmidt eat up lots of salary, sure fans will still be happy, but Ned's resume will seem to show that he won because of the kids and the guys DePodesta brought in.

And the money he has thrown around to those guys has to stand out to McCourt at some point when it comes to evaluating his total GM-worthiness.

Sure, Ned still wants to win no matter what, but ouch on his ego.

36

I imagine Joe has already had conversations with Ned about wanting Ethier over Pierre. All the comments have been so neutral that it seems they are trying not to upset Pierre/bring down his value. At this point I am going to trust the higher ups to make the right decision.

A competition is a competition. I think the stats they are putting up right now are definitely relevant. How relevant? I'm not sure, but I'm not willing to completely dismiss Matt Kemp's bomb off Dice K and Slappy barely above the Mendoza line.

It's been obvious for quite some time, but this spring Ethier just decided he was going to bring the SWAT team along to knock down Ned's ridiculously strong door.

If Ned wins, his job is safe. DePo will be an ancient memory, and Ned will be praised for not trading the kids.

DePo wasn't fired for his methods; he was fired because of the results.

40 - So what would you have said if Pierre had 50 good at-bats this month?

40 When deciding how relevant, just keep in mind Abraham Nunez (he of 18 home runs in 2484 career at bats) once led Spring Training in home runs. A lot of freaky things can happen in 60 at bats.

Diamond Leung:

"I asked bench coach Bob Schaefer if this would improve Ethier's chances, and Schaefer said, 'His chance has been good all this time.'"

http://www.beloblog.com/Pe_Blogs/prosports/2008/03/ethier_has_good_day_for_dodger.html

Assume that logic and good sense prevail, and that Ethier is the starter. Pierre seems like a perfectly decent bench player, 4th/5th OFer. Does Ethier starting necessarily require trading Pierre (and taking the massive financial hit that would go along with it)?

Perusing the depth charts, it doesn't seem like anyone has a desperate need for an expensively unproductive centerfielder right now.

Everyone has made this a Pierre vs. Ethier competition, but is it correct to assume that Kemp is definitely the everyday RF?

23

I really hate that that might be how Ned actually thinks. What Ned needs to realize is that if there are World Series games played at Dodger Stadium this year, he will look like a genius no matter what. If he gets us to the World Series he secures himself a job for at least a couple more seasons.

Ned needs to understand it could be win or go home for him. If we have another year like last year he could very well end up unemployed. If we win the World Series he gets a contract extension. So if Ned thinks anywhere in his mind that Ethier starting over Pierre gives us a better chance to win he needs to start him. Sure he'll get asked the tough questions in April if we get rid of Pierre, but nobody will remember or care if we're hoisting up flags in October.

I really hope Ned understands this, that winning a World Series will vastly cover up any "looking bad" dumping Pierre would cause. Because if we start Pierre for 162 he'll look bad and possibly be unemployed next year.

Colletti praised for not trading the kids just doesn't lend itself to a raise or extension in a few years though does it? Congrats on not screwing up.

Won't someone - be it McCourt, someone hired by McCourt, or the press - lay down the + and - on Ned's side and not be impressed?
Hmm, I guess it would necessitate a risk-taker to hire a new GM in the midst of winning seasons (happy assumption is all mine!). Maybe that's not McCourt and Ned's job is safe. That just seems like the right move based on Ned's track record in big-money free agency moves and trades.

45 I think he'd actually be a really good fit for the Padres if we paid some of his salary. They're a team built around fly ball pitchers that has no outfield defense. They could use Pierre's glove.

Here's what I think Mr. Colletti is doing. He recognized that JP was not a strong CFer, and got a much better replacement in Jones. He did the smart thing and got Jones before getting rid of JP, figuring he could figure out that situation later. That led to putting him in LF temporarily, while he explored deals. However, he's not the type to give away a player for free, and no good offers have come in, so he's left him out there with regular playing time in spring. No harm done, since no one plays full-time in spring anyway. Spring is rapidly coming to a close, and I expect that, unless a good deal comes along, he'll be relegated to the bench, with an occasional start. I think Colletti follows a very logical pattern of thinking, and this seems entirely logical to me.

If Ethier starts, the Dodgers could have an impressive lineup:

44 That's very reassuring.

I think that the Dodgers know that they are better off with a Ethier-Jones-Kemp OF and want to trade Pierre, but it is really difficult to make trades at this point in the season. Most teams would rather start the year with what they got and make adjustments along the way. Based on that, I doubt the Dodgers can trade Pierre before mid-season.

Either way, this has to be resolved at some point this season, since Pierre is signed for five years, and Ethier and Kemp are 4-5 years away from free agency. Something has to give.

47 - I'm confident Ned understands all of that. I think Ned's boosting of Pierre is simply because he likes Pierre, for the same reasons that prompted him to sign him. Whether he will continue liking him more than Ethier will have very little to do with his ego.

48 - All baseball jobs are temporary. But winning tends to provide the best security, regardless of how it was achieved.

49 - I agree; I'd just add another if: "If we were willing to trade a starting player to the Padres."

Correcting myself, Pierre has only 4 years left on his contract.

49 - You're right, that is a good fit (as far as divisional rivals go). If Ned was shrewd, he'd wait until the first Edmonds injury happens. Which should be any minute now...

56 - It already happened.

42 Darn, Pierre is doing good. Andre Ethier still brings more to the table, offensively and defensively.

43 Yeah, I know "it's spring training".

Assuming Ethier starts, the Dodgers could have an impressive lineup:
1. Furcal
2. Martin
3. Kemp
4. Loney
5. Jones
6. Kent
7. Ethier
8. Garciaparra
9. (pitcher)
Depending on performance, there would be some flexibility at the bottom of the order. If Ethier does not start, the lineup would be significantly weaker--since Ethier is the better player--but also, there would be an excessive number of consecutive right-handed hitters in the middle or bottom of the lineup.

52 But Diamond just asked if it increased his chances. He didn't specify RF or LF, which I'm trying not to read too much into.

57 - Geez, didn't even get through the first week of March.

Box score from Mississippi Valley State's last game against a Pac-10 opponent:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=273280265

47 - Ned needs to understand it could be win or go home for him. If we have another year like last year he could very well end up unemployed.

And the Dodgers will replace him with someone exactly the same. Ned was chosen as a PR-first GM. That was Frank McCourt's priority then, and I very much doubt it will change if the Dodgers have another crummy season.

I think Ned takes a lot of hits here that he really might not deserve. Now whether he doesn't deserve them because he is good, or whether it's because he is lucky may be up for debate, but he has done a pretty good job, although he's done it a little slower than we would have liked. The best player he has lost in his years here may be Milton Bradley. If thats your worst loss, I'll take it. In that loss, he gained Ethier, good move. He traded away a couple prospects, but NONE of the good ones, a huge plus. Now has he signed a few overpriced free agents? Of course he has, but the way I see it they allowed us to keep the kids. Playing these vets when we believe the kids are ready has been frustrating, but that's where I say he, or Grady, has been slow, not bad. Looking at this thing optimistically, which is not my nature, Ethier has a good chance to start in LF. If that happens, there will only be one position on the field where our best player is not in the lineup. Couple this with a pitching staff with at the very least 4 out of 5 starters that are our best, and a bullpen led by two of the better relievers in the league, one of which is one of those very same prospects that Ned held on to. The only real negative I see is at 3B, and I believe we would have seen the right move there if Andy hadn't gone down to injury. It's taken at least a year longer than what I wanted to see, but hasn't Ned put us almost exactly where we wanted to be right now assuming that Joe makes the right decisions?

Theo Epstein, Billy Beane, Kevin Towers. etc. all seem to do pretty well with the media. If you don't like how he does his job, that's one thing but to deny that being good at PR in that position isn't important, is just wrong.

65 - Taken any good cooking classes lately?

21. Pierre HOFer? Eeegadz! I think he will be out of baseball completely in 2-3 years. Oh wait, he should be out of baseball in 2-3 years, but there is that pesky contract with 4 more years remaining.
vr, Xei

63

The best PR McCourt could ever hope to receive would be the kind bringing home world championships provides. If he hires morons the press likes and we never do much of anything the people will eventually turn on him.

66 Occasionally, I do venture outside DT.

Has anyone ever done any research on other teams and how many of them play worse players on a regular basis than they have on their roster? I'm familiar with the Dodgers faults, and I follow by default the errors of the Reds, who gave away Josh Hamilton, and now appear ready to put Hopper or Freel in CF instead of Jay Bruce, but how many of these situations are there out there? One thing I know is that we're not alone, Freel over Bruce is a larger crime than Pierre over Ethier if it happens.

65 - no denying that PR is a big part of the job, but oversensitivity about what people will say is a disease. The Penny/Loduca-Mota trade was a good one that I very much doubt Ned would have made.

My mother's family name is Fang (anglicized - Wade-Gilles?). Because my uncle visited KTLA once when he was a newscaster in Taipei, I got to hear George Putnam say the name.

50 I tend think this is more likely the case

70 Off the top of my head:

Tigers - Jacque Jones over Marcus Thames
Angels - Gary Matthews over Juan Rivera and Reggie Willits

71 I don't think there were a lot of GMs, maybe Billy Beane, who would have made that deal.

68 - "Neo, sooner or later you're going to realize just as I did that there's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path."

71 - It was a good one and I wouldn't have had the guts to have done it.

74 - Willits is the defensive inferior to Matthews in center. If Matthews starts at one of the corner positions and Juan Rivera does not, you have a point.

70 Isn't this heading towards the old question, if all of your friends jumped off a bridge, is it okay for you to do it too?

66 BTW, nice people you work with. But it is a very small world.

78 - of course I say this without having seen Rivera play post-broken leg.

70 - who gave away Josh Hamilton

They got Volquez for him who is going to be in their rotation, right? That's something.

And I think the jury is still out on what kind of CFer Bruce can be, playing in between Griffey and Dunn. And it's not like Bruce has kicked down the door yet and demanded the job from PVL Freel :)

74 - in Seattle, Richie Sexson over Ben Broussard, at least, against lefties.

Too slow is wrong.

79 I'm not trying to say it's OK in any way, but just for the record I would do it with a bungee cord.

79
My friends are all afraid of bridges.

83 - Last year, playing Vidro, Ibanez, et al over Adam Jones, even after recalling him towards the end of the year.

Also in Cincy, Hatteberg over Votto, if it ends up working out that way.

82 Hamilton for Volquez is a horrible give away and making the Reds rotation is no proof of worth by a long shot. I agree on the jury being out on Bruce's ability to play CF, but you could always move Griffey back there if he can't handle it. If he can handle it, he has the talent to be the best CF in the game, very, very soon. Hamilton is possibly a top 5 CF right now if he can stay healthy.

After some more research:

Twins - Brendan Harris over Alexi Casilla (arguable)
Yankees - (Potentially) Shelly Duncan over Wilson Betemit
Rangers - Catalanotto/Byrd over Jason Botts
Cardinals - Skip Schumaker over Ryan Ludwick (and later potentially Colby Rasmus)
Pirates - Nyjer Morgan over Nate McLouth, Ronny Paulino over Ryan Doumit.
Mariners - Jose Vidro over Wladmir Balentin

78 Several stats peg Matthews as one of the worst center fielders in baseball. I'm inclined to believe his defense is horrible.

89 I would add Ensberg to the list with Betemit (potentially).

In the NCAA Women's Basketball bracket which is being announced as we speak, I just saw a couple of first round matchups of interest:

No. 4 Virginia vs. No.