Bhsportsguy will keep Lenny and Carl from taking over our gazebo I see.

I'm in.

Darn, I wish I could go, but besides not living in LA I will also be away backpacking then so I'd miss it anyway. Can I send a Fathead.com lifesize cutout of myself to represent?

I'll be there. And Helen can actually root for the Dodgers for a change, what with the Brewers being in town.

If the Brewers maintain a strict five-day rotation for Sabathia, the Dodgers should face him that Saturday.

We need to plant a flag. I am ready for a mean game of face ball.

Bill Plaschke has agreed to show up to raise money for Jon's site. He will sit in the dunk tank for 5.00 for 3 balls.

1 Carl is always welcome.

3
Please do, he can play 2nd base ala Kent.

5 You should get a game of Yardball going.

Unfortunately I'll be on the other side of the planet at the time, so I can't make it.

I'm in too, and I will be interested in Whiffle ball or over the line.

Possibly!

5 Jon, there's your revenue-generating idea. Make it $10, and pocket $5 every round.

And I loved the EANAB reference (Go Cardinal!), but I think you've got one too many As...

4 I'm not sure about that, the way I see the schedule the Brewers play 20 straight games after the break, I figure CC and Sheets are probably 1-2, then they have an off-day but it doesn't matter since those guys are already going pitch next. Then they don't have an off-day before the play the Dodgers, they play 7 straight before the Dodger series, so both Sheets and CC are not lined up to face the Dodgers that weekend.

11 - I couldn't remember if "-Alcoholic" got its own "A."

Sounds like fun, but like other posters, since I don't live in L.A. I won't be able to make it.

On a side note kinda related to whiffle ball, anybody ever heard of the drinking game Louisville Chugger?

Doug Glanville ought to be invited; he's thought about baseball and rules, which would make for a scintillating discussion.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/5lynzu

... I'll be there, with a couple 12-packs of Vanilla Zero and a couple 12-packs of turkey patties for the grill (unless you guys prefer something else).

Looking forward to meeting all of you and thanking you for putting up with my overt negativity on this site.

I wonder if Drew Barrymore ran off with John Hodgman.

http://tinyurl.com/6s576e

17 It was either him or Lenny Kravitz

15
I liked that Glanville article so much, I don't have the heart to let him no Ron LeFlore never stole 100 bases in a season.

Can't say with utter certainty that I'll be there, but the spousal negotiations will start in earnest tonight. ("Hey, honey, I'd like to go meet my internet buddies. Sound good? . . . ). I'm pretty sure I can make it work.

I'd like to take credit for suggesting Elysian Park. I think it'll be a great venue. I'd just caution that we be very specific about where we're setting up shop and how to get there. The park is large and somewhat confusing to navigate. My original suggestion was for the Elysian Fields/Northeast Little League area up on top of the hill. It has many advantages including the best picnic/bbq/bathroom facilities in the park. Plus, it does have ballfields (though I don't know if they are available for the public). It also has the view down to the stadium (it'd make for nice group picture). The big disadvantage of that location is its a little tough to find, especially if you don't know the park all that well. I had my birthday there a few years back, and everyone did manage to find it.

Anyway, I'd be happy to volunteer to help scout out a spot. I'm really looking forward to this.

I should be able to go. I'll have to leave by 2:30 or 3 to get back however as my wife and I will be hosting the 2nd church night at Dodger stadium that night and we will have a bus going to the game from our church in North Hollywood at 5:30. I am looking forward to placing some faces with the handle names of some of the posters I've read here. I want to mingle and talk Dodger baseball. Wasn't Kuroda terrific last night. Just that one slider that was a little too hittable short of perfection. However, there was a couple great defensive plays that could have gone the other way as well. Great game. Hope we can sustain the momentum.

O.K., I just re-read the main post. My first glance, I thought bh had lined up game tickets, not a location in the park. Anyway, disregard my pontificating in 20

Where's section 1A?

Johan Santana by K/9:

2006: 9.44
2007: 9.66
2008: 8.06

I thought he was supposed to miss MORE bats in the NL.

22 Its on Southwest corner of Academy and Stadium Way. There's a cluster of picnic tables and barbeque stands and then open space until you get to the restroom building and then you see another cluster of tables and barbeques which Section 1B. The playground area is past that.

20 Just so you know, only Section 1A and Section 4 were available for that day.

This was on the MLB Trade Rumors chat this afternoon:

>> [Comment From David Eckstein]
With all the talk about getting Jack Wilson, how come my name is not mentioned in going to the dodgers? And with Nomar back and playing well (hr last night) is there any chance the Dodgers may not be looking at shortstop at all since it would mean giving up prospects and the dodgers are clearly in youth movement mode.
2:26
MLBTR: I agree on both. They may give Nomar some time, see if he can be passable. And, Eckstein is worth a phone call.<<

23 Billingsley has a nice trend as a starter:

2006: 6.05
2007: 8.12
2008: 9.29

I wonder if he'll hit the truly elite 10+ level in his career.

First-place Dodgers look to break even

>> The Dodgers signed pitcher Clayton Allison, their 27th-round Draft pick, and center fielder Melvin Ray, their 33rd-round pick. Ray, whom the recruiting service Rivals.com ranks as the No. 18 high school wide receiver in the nation, has signed a letter of intent to play football at Alabama. ... The Dodgers sent pitcher B.J. Lamura up to Triple-A Las Vegas from Double-A Jacksonville and released Vegas pitcher Greg Jones. ... <<

http://tinyurl.com/67lz4a

28

Nice with Ray. He has a lot of potential. Probably the most athletic player in our system now.

I'll be there with family in tow...

5 Plashke in the dunk tank!!!! I love it!

Whats the record for most ABs in a season without a walk?

Chase Headley
74Abs
0bbs
22Ks

Its really amazing bc Headley's minor league and collegiate numbers indicate a player with pretty good patience.

I'd be worried if one of the Dodgers players put up a line like that.

Dodgers Mailbag is up at Dodgers.com:

1). Why did Penny keep pitching?
2). Since Ned Colletti has been general manager, can you name me one trade or one acquisition he has made that is a bona fide success and accomplished more than was expected?
3). Since he has been a Dodger, what kind of run support has Derek Lowe received?
4). Do you see this guy (CHP) being in the second-half rotation or is he too brittle?
5). Why haven't the Dodgers traded for Jack Wilson yet?

http://tinyurl.com/6eoz6u

Since 1900, Ed Walsh has the most ABs without a walk in a season. 154 in 1907.

The most ABs by a position player without a walk is 146 by Craig Robinson with the 1973 Phillies.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/shareit/vzB2

Only Fernando & Astacio have more shutouts in their first 16 career games than Kuroda's two.

http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/769Z

From dodgers.com
Rehabbing pitcher Jason Schmidt (shoulder surgery) will pitch Tuesday for Triple-A Las Vegas against Tucson. Torre expects him to go three innings and throw around 70 pitches.

70 pitches in 3 innings? Joe expects him to get hammered!

34
...for the Dodgers that is.

And special mention should go to Alejandro Sanchez, who in 6 seasons in the majors, came up to the plate 215 times, and walked just once.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/sanchal01.shtml

Dennis Rasmussen of the Yankees walked him.

35
As they say, "What happens in Vegas ..."

So if Schmidt wants to get hammered.

Elysian park is pretty near by the central library, I'll volunteer to drag Bob out of his cave!

35 that's funny, i've been extremely optimistic on schmidt this season. but my optomism has all but run out.

39
I will be at the picnic.

Willingly!

Chase Headley currently has the fewest RBI ever (7) for a player with 5 HR in a season.

http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/c9Kk

Don Demeter had a 5 HR / 8 RBI season in the Dodgers inaugural campaign in Los Angeles.

29 Ray agreed to sign when the Dodgers agreed to pay for four years of college in addtion to his signing bonus.

He was named as a second team outfielder for Florida-All-State High School Baseball honors.

32 the 2nd question is a fairly easy one to answer.

I should be able to make that date. I'll bring at the least potato salad.

43

Do you know how much the signing bonus is?

Paying for college tuition isn't anything new with prep prospects

Tony Jackson confirms Kemp was in the aborted trade with Cleveland. Along with Meloan or McDonald.

47
Bravo Frank McCourt!

I thought you worked saturdays Bob 'O? cool, it will be nice to see you again.

Futures is a present

>> Suns' DeJesus excited to play in front of his father in N.Y. <<

## DeJesus Jr. collected three hits in Monday's 4-3 loss to Mobile to raise his season batting average to .311.

"Staying above the .300 mark is a goal I want to achieve," he said. "Plus I want to finish with more walks than strikeouts. I take a lot of pride in that. The first half of the season I took a lot of walks but in the second half, I want to be even more aggressive. I'll take my walks, but I want to be up there swinging for hits, too." ##

http://tinyurl.com/5df7yp

I work every other Saturday. If I worked every Saturday, I would be, in the words of Greg Brock, a sad panda.

51 With UCLA playing at home for 3 consecutive Saturdays in September and October, Bob will either be able to go to 2 games or just once.

47 Thank you, Frankie angel.

48

Seriously. Kemp for half a season of Sabathia!?!?

48 What exactly happened with the C.C trade? What caused the speculation that McCourt vetoed it?

47 I still don't understand was that the offer the Indians presented to the Dodgers? If that is what it is, who cares, they could ask for anything and if the Dodgers say no, why is that news.

Joe Sheehan on Baseball Prospectus said today that the Indians caved too early and should have waited. I think these stories are planted to just give some cover so you can say to the media, we had a deal for MLB players but in the end the Dodgers once again pulled out.

54 esp when you can sign him in 4 months if you really wanted him.

Has there ever been an instance where an owner doing the GM's job has ended well?

52
It works out to be just one game.

Johnson will skip Triple-A star turn

>> Being a starting pitcher in the Triple-A All-Star Game would be a big deal for most players, but not 51s right-hander Jason Johnson.

The 10-year major leaguer has respectfully declined a chance to start for the Pacific Coast League in the July 16 game at Louisville, Ky.

"It's an honor, but my goal is to get to the big leagues, not to make an All-Star team in Triple A," said Johnson, 34, who is 10-5 with a 4.22 ERA for Las Vegas. "I figured there's a lot of young guys in Triple A who deserve a chance and I'm not going to take one of their spots." <<

http://www.lvrj.com/sports/24058899.html

54 I think the Indians wanted more from a team like the Dodgers because there was a good chance that they would be a team that could sign him to an extension during the season since they have the resources and also they are on the West Coast.

Milwaukee told the Indians that they would not be able to afford to offer CC a better contract than the one he refused from the Indians so that this was straight 3 month rental.

Buster Olney on LaRoche's stock fading (fairly or unfairly)

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=21375

I wonder if that is internally and/or externally

62 Is the chad insider info? Crazy pay to read sites! Wanna summarize what he says for us non-pay to read people.

i'm not to up on how to determine who the better defensive player, but if someone can breakdown pedrioa's defense for me compated to kinsler's i'd appreciate it.

63 I have no idea why I typed chad there, guess I was thinking about bills start tonight. I meant is the "chat" insider info?

From the press notes:

"With last night's 3-0 shutout, the Dodgers and Dodger Stadium became part of Major League history. Going back to June 25, when Eric Stults blanked the White Sox, there have been six consecutive home games in which one of the team's have been shut out, which ties a Major League Baseball record. The other occurrences came from June 2-8, 1903 at Pittsburgh's Exposition Park, April 24-May 2, 1905 at Detroit's Bennett Park, July 31-Aug. 5, 1953 in Washington's Griffith Stadium, and April 19-May 1, 1981 at the Texas Rangers' Arlington Stadium. Source: Elias"

Also, happy birthday Danny Ardoin!

65 - He says that Laroche's stock has taken a hit, but no reason why, and no followup question.

Olney seems to have been down on the Dodgers all year.

63 That's pretty much what he said, I think its a combination of both.

Also, and this is not a reflection of the current administration, the Dodgers have a long history of overhyping its prospects, some of that due to where their teams were playing but nonetheless, the history of the system actually producing MLB quality players was not great until Logan White started drafting players in 2002.

"I think my baserunning has actually been pretty good this year."

--The Bison

47 - that's interesting. Izturis and Rivera for Kemp, here we come! It certainly provides confirmation that the recent code we've been reading about uncoachable players is aimed squarely at Matt Kemp.

If it makes LaRoche feel any better everybody's stocks are down.

68 What about the rookie of the year streaks, they were before Logan's time. I know Nomo wasn't home grown, but the rest were, right?

67 - Olney seems to have been down on the Dodgers all year.

So has the rest of the National League.

48--> I'm actually surprised the Indians were that interested in Matt Kemp. Kemp has great value in CF (but they already have Sizemore). Sure they need corner OF'ers, and Kemp is an upgrade over Frank Guiterrez, etc... but seems like a strange move.

Good job of McCourt to veto it.

A half season of Sabathia isnt worth giving up Kemp/Meloan for. Its not as if the Dodgers are anywhere close to adding just 1 player and all the sudden being in the World Series.

Taking away Kemp, and adding CC would have made the team worse bc it would have meant Pierre plays everyday. This team doesnt need more pitching, it needs less Pierre& more power.

There is a good chance that if Kemp were really uncoachable he would be hitting .330 with about 14 home runs.

Someone make sure Ned doesnt get the phone:

Rotoworld: The White Sox have DFA'ed Pablo Ozuna.

This guy would be better than Berroa, but not worth trading anything for.

66
I would say those 1981 games at Arlington are an outlier, but the stadium was a pitcher's park.

The Rangers won all those shutouts.

72 Yeah but they really were exceptions, they had a lot of other guys who flamed out before getting to the majors.

If Club A calls up ands offer a player for Matt Kemp, does that mean Matt Kemp is on the trading block?

I know I keep harping on this but basically that is how I read these rumors.

Of course others may choose to read them differently.

Some might argue that Kemp has been overcoached. I can almost picture a Mommie Dearest or Gypsy scenario.

Has there ever been an instance where an owner doing the GM's job has ended well?

Jerry Jones in football.

In baseball, cant think of any but most of the owners stay out of the limelight.

Steinbrenner did buy some pretty good players during the 90's with the Yankees. How much of that was his doing--and Cashmans---> who knows?

73 Actually, the Dodgers have a winning record in the National League.

77
Correction, the Rangers won the first five and then lost the sixth one to the Royals.

In the intervening road trip, the Rangers won a 16-8 game at Fenway.

79 see 75

78 - I'm with you, BH. All we know is that the Dodgers turned down a deal that had Matt Kemp in it. Even Tony Jackson's article said that Ned and Frank were on the same page. I don't know what's going on behind the scenes, but publicly, there's no smoking gun.

Someone could tell Rosenthal or Buster that the Indians had asked for Vin Scully, and they'd report that he was on the trading block.

Julian Tavarez should be joining the Braves tonight.

Anyone else reading the Matt Kemp chat? LOL, apparently he and jeff kent are buddies. =)

rmlvr55: Hey Matt, Do you have any pre-game rituals? . . .

dodgersguest: Me and Jeff Kent get together and listen to Lil' Wayne to get pumped up!

78 - But does it matter who initiated the call if Colletti found the offer compelling enough to take it to McCourt?

It indicates that the only thing standing between the Dodgers and another horrible Colletti deal is Frank McCourt. And we all know how well Frank handles player personnel decisions, right Vlad?

I don't remember where I heard this but it sounds like the Dodgers are trying to trade Vin Scully

"I would never want to get traded from LA. This is my home. I love it and if they ever traded me, I'd be very disappointed. Being in the rumors is just part of the game." - Kemp

All we know is that the Dodgers turned down a deal that had Matt Kemp in it. Even Tony Jackson's article said that Ned and Frank were on the same page

I think the reason for anxiety is because Kemp is apparently on the table. If Kemp's off the table, then there's never any article's written about the Dodgers turning down a deal involving Matt Kemp.

diggie1:
5:15 pm What's your key to stealing bases?

dodgersguest:
5:15 pm I'm still learning from the best, Juan Pierre. DY says the key is to not get thrown out.

haha! Matt Kemp sure is funny! haha? right?

Someone log into the chat and get Kemp's thoughts on trashcans and the placement thereof.

Jim Molony now has us going after Eck if Nomar can't go. I'm no Eck fan but I assume he wouldn't cost the Bison. (And thank you again, Frank McCourt and perhaps Ned as well).

http://tinyurl.com/6lrv76

thnk88blu: What do you think of your nickname, "The Bison"?

dodgersguest: I'm a beast! Seriously though, what do you think of it??

Ahhh. I'm having trouble logging in. Ugh.

95.

I think it's a kick-ass nickname!

See? Kemp is "dodgersguest." They won't even give him a screen name. He's on the way out, clearly.

He shops at Walmart. In your face, D4P!

91 - "If Kemp's off the table, then there's never any article's written about the Dodgers turning down a deal involving Matt Kemp."

That's not true. Or it's an oversimplification. It's very possible that Kemp was only on the table in the Indians' minds. The supposition that Colletti went to McCourt to discuss the deal doesn't mean Kemp was on the table.

Again, we have nothing on the record that I know of saying that Colletti wanted to make the deal. What we have is him checking with his boss to see if his boss wanted to make the deal. From anonymous sources, mind you.

I'm not saying that Colletti would never trade Kemp. I'm just saying that there's a lot of sketchy info here.

98 - He just didn't donate enough.

101 - LOL, cat.

91 No.

Couldn't it have happened this way.

1. Dodgers call up Cleveland and ask about CC.
2. Indians say they want Kemp but will also add some other players if you add a pitcher.
3. Dodgers say no because they don't like that deal.
4. Cleveland says they are not interested in just the Dodgers minor league talent.
5. Talks end.

Matt Kemp is no Amoeba in the chat room.

Yeah, how can you say "all we know is Kemp is on the table" when, again, it could be that he's the guy the Indians (and every team that inquires with the Dodgers) asks about? Kemp is officially on the table when the Dodgers are clearly offering him as trade bait. I see no evidence of anything beyond the Indians asked for him.

---

Btw, I just found that Nomar has a Facebook page! I've asked to be his friend.

Apparently what people want is a blanket no on trading any of the young players. Apparently, through last week, that existed, but now the Dodgers are trying to create an impression that it has loosened a little.

But aside from that, I have seen nothing to indicate that the team is actively seeking to deal anyone.

105 - I'll bet that page has a 404 error about 85% of the time.

If I'm Colletti, the first thing I do is sell those boots and buy a new hairpiece. Then, I ask myself if I want to work at a place where I have to ask my boss before I can reject a bad deal.

Delwyn Young is Kemp's hero? Or was he being facetious because DY was in the room with him? Heh.

103 McCourt did get involved so it was probably more than the standard Kemp for Kenny Lofton deal, but the whole "McCourt and Ned were on the same page" makes it confusing.

107 That's what I don't get. If the Dodgers were just in talks with the Indians and broke them off when Kemp's name stayed in them, why then did NedCo have to ask Frank? If talks end, it's over. But if a deal was in place, McCourt had to give thumbs up or thumbs down.

I can't remember the source, but I heard somewhere the Dodgers offered Vin Scully for Kenny Lofton.

I'm not sure I would describe Kemp-for-CC as a bad deal. Jack Wilson for Kemp, that's a bad deal. CC Sabathia, he's a pretty good player. It would certainly be a significant change in direction for the franchise, which is why McCourt would get involved.

And maybe a follow-up deal is made to replace Kemp.

Kemp for CC.
LaRoche/McDonald for Jason Bay.

It's not the direction I would go in, but if LA wants to go for it this year, I can't say that the team would be worse off after those trades.

109 How did McCourt get involved?

I might have traded Kemp if I could have had CC and Blake for three years instead of three months. I suspect that in the end, the return simply wasn't enough. Maybe Ned just went to Frank and said "how badly do you want to make the playoffs this year?"

I just don't believe any of this stuff. Getting worked up about it is pointless.

Transcript of the Kemp chat:

http://tinyurl.com/w422g

None of my questions got answered. Robot made of nails? More like a robot made of fear of my edginess, I'd say. . .

111 Is that because their ages matched up well?

USSM has handicapped the opening for the Mariners GM job. Of interest to Dodger fans.
Chance of getting Seattle GM job:
DePodesta: 10%
Ng: 5%
White: 1%

in other words, a one out of 6 chance that one of the above three will be the new Mariners GM.

vr, Xei

What was confirmed in Jackson's story.

McCourt said that the deal did not breakdown over financial considerations which is what Jackson's sources indicated. He did confirm that the Indians offered three players.

McCourt further added that the players they asked from the Dodgers did not match up. And he finally said that he alone did not have the only say in this deal and that he and Ned saw it the same way (or were on the same page).

No where is it implied that Ned made a deal but McCourt nixed it or that the Dodgers put Matt Kemp on the table.

114 And seeing as our problem is that we can't hit, trading our right fielder wouldn't have helped much.

I can't believe people are making this big a deal about the Kemp/CC thing. We don't know who's on the table, and the fact that Frank did not like this deal means nothing. It does not say anything about Kemp on the trade table and it does not say anything about Colletti's job security. The fact that Ned took the offer to Frank means nothing. Doesn't mean that Ned wanted to do it and Frank didn't or whatever.

If I was the owner, and let's say I'm not a meddling owner. If a player like Sabathia is available and someone approached my GM about a trade for him, I'd want my GM to discuss it with me before making up his mind either way. And if I don't like the trade, it does not mean that I disagree with the GM or that the GM was even for the trade anyway. Nowhere does it say that Colletti had made up his mind and then talked to the owner about it.

Wait, isn't the rule that the team with the most third basemen at the end of the year wins?

119 - I think where we disagree is that I believe it is implied that Colletti brought the deal to McCourt for approval but did not get it. McCourt nixed the deal, not Colletti. I (choose to) believe that detail is significant.

But I am willing to concede it may not be.

Hey, how come Jon puts up an announcement about DT picnic day and it turns into an examination of the behind-the-scenes ongoings of Ned and Frank?

Somebody shoulda asked Kemp on the chat to show up at the picnic.

124 Aren't Ned and Frank invited to the picnic?

124 - I haven't been keeping track of the headcount. I need to keep score better.

123 But what basis do you have to believe that? Nowhere is it implied that Colletti brought the deal for approval. I'm not seeing that anywhere. I'm not being snarky, I'm just trying to see where you are reading this.

Also, I've been in situations where I vehemently disagreed with my boss, but I stood there and smiled so that others believed we were "on the same page."

I guess my glass is half-empty today, and BH's is, as usual, half-full. And I appreciate your optimism/pragmatism.

123 The only way that is true is if the reason Jackson went to McCourt for confirmation on the financial part was accurate. McCourt said it wasn't.

After that, everything indicates that the deal the Indians presented was not agreeable to McCourt and Ned based on the players involved.

At this writing, Dewitt is hitting .265 after going three for three last night. LaRoche is hitting .189, though his appearances have been limited. But the fact is, LaRoche has never put it together for the Dodgers, even in two spring training seasons.

As sure as I am submitting this comment, someone will pop up on the board with a tortured interpretation of LaRoche's minor league stats and his walks, compared to DeWitt's, and will conclude that LaRoche's major league batting average is irrelevant and that he has actually outperformed DeWitt.

Greg Brock, whose views I respect, has pointed out that LaRoche may show us something if he can just get 500 at bats. That may well be so. But no one can argue with a straight face that LaRoche has shown us anything yet.

If Ned's the GM, doesnt he have power to nix the deals? When its put in print (and why would Tony Jackson lie--he covers the team everyday and wouldnt want to upset those in the front office)---> that McCourt declined a deal involving Kemp for CC---> that certainly implies there was a deal being considered that Colletti had brokered. If Ned wasnt interested in the deal, why even go to owner to get his opinion?

105 Kemp and Loney are both on myspace too. They're both my friends.

129 My old job involved reading lots of words to try and decipher anything between lines, reading what was written appears to indicate that the more likely scenario is the one I have sketched out above.

No where is it implied that Ned made a deal but McCourt nixed it or that the Dodgers put Matt Kemp on the table.

This is what Tony Jackson in his blog:

I was told this morning, by a source completely separate from the ones from which I got the earlier story, that Matt Kemp WAS involved in the aborted trade for Sabathia, Blake and Carroll, and that either Jon Meloan or James McDonald also was involved.

So are you saying Tony Jackson is lying or has a bad source? Because if in fact Matt Kemp was apart of an "aborted" deal, then in fact he was on the table no?

119 OK, let's say you're correct that there was never a deal in place, that Colletti never agreed to it. This still requires an explanation for why Ned took the deal to McCourt in the first place. If we're to give Colletti the benefit of the doubt as you want us to, then we're forced to draw the conclusion that McCourt's approval is necessary even for trades that Colletti turns down. And if this is true, why is it true? The only plausible reason would be that McCourt has decided that someday there might be a trade offer which Ned doesn't approve of but which he (McCourt) will pull the trigger on anyway. And that's not healthy either.

Basically, any way you parse the information we have, it makes the Dodger front office look dysfunctional.

Didn't LaRoche absolutely mash this past summer when he was playing for Team USA?

132 The Dodgers didn't call a press conference to announce that they almost made a deal, Jackson went to confirm a story, McCourt only confirmed that a deal was being offered by the Indians but the Dodgers were not interested in the player mix.

Tony Jackson doesn't care if he upsets anyone, if there is no truth to the rumor, he'll just move on. And its not Tony Jackson implying any rift between the GM and himself, its some of the people here on this board that are doing that.

McCourt said he and Ned talk everyday, it is certainly in the realm of possibility and probably probability that Ned told him that there was an offer on the table for CC and some other players, and from their they both agreed it was not in the Dodgers interest to pursue it.

I don't know why my reasonable explanation cannot be possible.

131 Are you saying that if a guy is absolutely terrible for 150 plate appearances he doesn't deserve a chance?

137 It was this past fall/winter, but yes, he did.

123 - It's never said in the story by anyone that Colletti endorsed the idea and McCourt rejected.

We have anonymous sources saying that McCourt rejected the deal for financial reasons.

We have McCourt saying that the anonymous sources are wrong, that it was because players didn't match up - and that he and Ned were on the same page.

We have nothing meaningful from Colletti on the record.

I don't take anyone's word in this story at face value. McCourt could be spinning, but I certainly don't trust anonymous sources.

In any case, no one, not even anonymous sources, says that Colletti 100 percent wanted this trade to happen. The most we can assume is that he thought it was worth discussing. Even if Colletti did want this trade to happen 100 percent, there's no proof that it means that McCourt has lowered his opinion on Colletti.

As I said last night, the only significance I take from this story is that McCourt can't say "I'm not involved in baseball decisions" anymore. That might mean bad news for Colletti, but it just as easily might not mean that.

135 Do you know what a source is, he is someone willing to spread information but not get quoted on it, in politics its called spin.

Apparently what people want is a blanket no on trading any of the young players.

Its what they are traded for that matters most. A blanket "no" on adding players that wouldnt help is what people want. No Guzman for Lugos, no Jackson for Baez, no Navarro for Hendrickson, etc.

Probably a "no" on any 3 month rental that could just be signed in the off-season. I like Teixiera as much as anyone, but even this year I wouldnt deal for him bc he can be signed in the off-season.

132 - It's not that Jackson is lying. It's that he might have gotten bad information. I'm not saying he did, just that it's possible.

131 - It's not torturing the numbers to say that you have to look at more than batting average.

if in fact Matt Kemp was apart of an "aborted" deal, then in fact he was on the table no?

Actually, no. Just because a player is mentioned in an "aborted" deal, it does not mean he was on the table. That is a huge leap that is not logical. You may think he was on the table, but being a part of an aborted deal does not mean that the Dodgers had him on the table or even considered trading him.

Furthermore, if McCourt says that the trade was aborted because the players did not match up and Ned and him were in agreement, how can you infer that Colletti was willing to trade Matt? Are you saying that Tony Jackson is lying?

From Diamond:

Kemp RF
Ethier LF
Martin C
Kent 2B
Loney 1B
Jones CF
Garciaparra SS
DeWitt 3B
Billingsley P

131. I think the main issue many have is that LaRoche hasn't been given a fair chance to succeed, or to fail. Look at DeWitt as a comparison. Because the team had no other options at the time, he was allowed to play through his initial struggles in April, and then blossomed in May. (Even now, he still plays regularly, even though he has struggled for well over a month.) The Dodgers have never afforded LaRoche the same opportunity they gave DeWitt, which is regular playing time.

147 Er, make that from Kevin Pearson.

Have fun at the picnic! It'd be cool to meet you people, but I probably won't make it this year.

136 - I have no doubt that the front office is dysfunction. I'm also quite willing to believe that the deal intrigued Ned. It also quite possibly intrigued Frank.

But are you saying that wanting to talk about the deal is a sign of dysfunction, in and of itself? I disagree with that. If they talk about the deal, even starting from different viewpoints, and arrive at a conclusion that both can live with, that's not dysfunction. That's a healthy discussion.

I predict that Kim Ng will be sitting in between McCourt and Colletti at next year's May Day parade.

142 Sorry, that was a little bit over the top but again, outside of politics, people floating rumors around the trade deadlines in sports are a dime a dozen these days.

"Apparently what people want is a blanket no on trading any of the young players."

Occasionally BH appears to let his frustration get the better of him and makes statements like this which he really knows aren't true. Of course, nobody wants any kind of blanket anything. I'd trade Matt Kemp, I'd trade Clayton Kershaw, I'd trade Chad Billingsley. I would trade anybody for the right price.

The thing most people want to avoid is making an ill-informed trade that would hurt the team in the long run (and probably in the short run, too). Nobody is opposed to trading if we get value in return. If you offer me Felix Hernandez or Hanley Ramirez for Chad Billingsley or Clayton Kershaw, I'd make that trade in a New York minute.

131 But no one can argue with a straight face that LaRoche has shown us anything yet.

Well, the only argument most of us are making, at least I am, is that LaRoche is not getting the chance to show us something where his minor league numbers, at the very least, say that he deserves that chance more than Dewitt does.

From Jim Moloney/mlb.com:

>>As for the Dodgers, they've scouted Pittsburgh's veteran shortstop, Jack Wilson, and, according to one industry source, are considering Toronto's David Eckstein, who helped the crosstown Angels win a World Series in 2002 before going on to another World Series title with the Cardinals two years ago.

But there seems to be no sense of urgency to make a deal.<<

if McCourt says that the trade was aborted because the players did not match up and Ned and him were in agreement, how can you infer that Colletti was willing to trade Matt?

Because I think Ned brought a trade proposal to McCourt that Ned had brokered, and Frank didnt like it. The whole "we were in agreement part" just doesnt make sense bc if Ned was in agreement to not trade Kemp, then why even bother to bring the trade proposal to McCourt's desk?

At any rate, you have a owner signing off on decisions. Thats fine, in fact having some checks/balances among the Dodger front office might be better considering the deals made in the past---> but it just seems strange.

The McCourts are supposed to be masters of PR. I'm surprised they let it get out that they nix'ed a deal or made it appear they did. It really makes Ned look weak, even though they add that he was in agreement with the decision (again, they arent going to say he wasnt, unless they want real division).

*Molony.

150 "But are you saying that wanting to talk about the deal is a sign of dysfunction, in and of itself? I disagree with that. If they talk about the deal, even starting from different viewpoints, and arrive at a conclusion that both can live with, that's not dysfunction. That's a healthy discussion."

If you're talking about it with the team owner who admittedly knows little about baseball, then yeah, to me that's dysfunction.

A healthy discussion would be talking about the trade amongst the baseball operations people. When the owner gets involved in any manner other than the finances of the deal, that automatically signals dysfunction to me. Of course, YMMV.

But the fact is, LaRoche has never put it together for the Dodgers, even in two spring training seasons.

Laroche did pretty well this ST before breaking his wrist:

350/409/550

131 Excuse me but LaRoche was hitting .350 w/ a .409 OPB in 2008 ST ...He had virtually won the job and they were grooming Nomar to be a super sub even asking him if he would take flyballs. He was given consistant playing time in ST and lo and behold he actually got in a groove. Too bad he hasn't had that opportunity in this regular season.

118 What were the odds of Colletti getting the Mariners job?

124 Picnic! Woo hoo!

153 I'm intrigued because I really don't know if I would, but Felix Hernandez for Chad Billingsley? I would have last year, but I don't think I would now. Hanley Ramirez... yeah, for anyone on our roster.

Going to the owner and having him clear off on a big deal even if you don't like it has 2 advantages:

1) McCourt knows Colletti values his opinion and won't do something without him.

2) If the Dodgers don't make the playoffs then McCourt can't fire Colletti because he got a deal that would have helped at the expense of the youth movement. It makes it his decision and releases Colletti from taking the blame.

153 you'd do felix for bills straight up? i wouldn't

I realize that this discussion is close to being played out but the accounts of the non deal for CC seem to indicate that McCourt was (at the very least) involved in turning it down. I for one don't really care what Ned's opinon was on this non deal ok I sort of do but.. the issue here is why is an owner turning down a deal? Isn't that a GM job, the only way this should go to the owner is for final approval which would makes sense and indicate the Ned was ready to make this deal. Otherwise the sugestion here is that McCourt approves and disapproves all pending deals which to me sounds like an unusual situation for a GM to be in. Now that is not to say that the entire report is misleading and that McCourt merely responded to a deal that he was aware that Ned turned down.

161. Colletti was part of "The Field" at 10% odds.

164. I doubt I would too. I'd atleast have to study it very hard.

vr, Xei

131 At this writing, Dewitt is hitting .265 after going three for three last night. LaRoche is hitting .189, though his appearances have been limited.

The key word is limited. Batting average means little when looked at in a small sample.

But the fact is, LaRoche has never put it together for the Dodgers, even in two spring training seasons.

LaRoche has never gotten consistent playing time with the Dodgers. As far as his spring training performance - it is what it is, spring training. Besides, in 2006, he only had 1/2 season of Double-A experience under his belt and was not seriously considered for the 3rd base job with Bill Mueller under contract. In 2007, he was recovering from shoulder surgery. This past spring, he was great before the freak thumb injury.

But no one can argue with a straight face that LaRoche has shown us anything yet.

In the extremely limited sample of ABs this year, which have been wildly inconsistently from game-to-game, LaRoche has shown good power. In fact, FAR more power than DeWitt when considering their respective opportunities to play.

Whether DeWitt is poised to break out of his slump remains to be seen. Fact is, he's been horrible for over a month and remains the logical choice to send to AAA for more seasoning.

149 I've never met any of them, but I have a source that tells me they're really not that cool.

131 "As sure as I am submitting this comment, someone will pop up on the board with a tortured interpretation of LaRoche's minor league stats and his walks, compared to DeWitt's, and will conclude that LaRoche's major league batting average is irrelevant and that he has actually outperformed DeWitt."

"Tortured?" Even the most cursory, unsophisticated look at their minor league stats reveals LaRoche to be a far superior player. "Tortured" is a better description of the logic used by those who would have DeWitt remain the third baseman.

LaRoche and DeWitt have both been awful offensively this year. DeWitt has been slightly less awful, but only slightly. The main difference between them is that DeWitt has been given a reasonable chance, with 274 plate appearances and 15 starts in a row at one point. LaRoche has not been given anything remotely resembling a chance -- he's never started more than two games in a row.

And, as has been mentioned, the notion that LaRoche didn't show anything in spring training this year is patently false.

Make your argument, Jack, by all means. But it'll carry more weight if you make it using the truth.

King Felix for Billz is Six Of One, A Half Dozen Of The Other... With Billz having an edge w/ consistancy & health

165 - Otherwise the sugestion here is that McCourt approves and disapproves all pending deals which to me sounds like an unusual situation for a GM to be in.

Certainly not. Peter Angelos in Baltimore and George Steinbrenner in New York (AL) represent circumstances where there is considerable input from ownership on player personnel moves.

Cubs have acquired Rich Harden.

(according to mlbtraderumors.com)

I'm just glad we're not arguing about line-ups these days! Anything trumps that.

172 For Sean Gallagher and possibly Matt Murton or Eric Patterson.

165 - also, Bill Bavasi in Seattle (Kenji Johjima was re-upped at the behest of Japanese ownership).

172 - Wow. The Cubs get Harden and Chad Gaudin for Gallagher, Murton, Patterson, and catching prospect Josh Donaldson.

153 Yes, I do short cut reasonable discussion at times and to even add on, certainly I don't like bad trades either.

Now, there is no question that I don't lump some of the deals that others here put in the bad category but I have spoken my piece on that and I don't want to rehash it.

Just was at MLB Trade Rumors ...Harden to the Cubs.

I know we all love Billingsley, and I do more than most, but I'm pretty sure any objective analysis from a non-Dodger-perspective would show Hernandez to be the far more valuable property. Felix is two years younger, has better stuff, and the two of them have turned in roughly the same performance so far this year.

Given the choice between two similar pitchers, it's an easy call to take the one who's two years younger and throws 98.

Chicago radio station is reporting that Rich Harden has been traded to the Cubs.
vr, Xei

Send the guy hitting .265 down for "more seasoning" and replace him with the guy hitting .189?

I agree on one thing -- LaRoche will probably not benefit from any more time in Las Vegas. He wasn't hitting all that well there either when the Dodgers brought him up.

I would give him his 500 at bats in LA and see what happens. But at second base, moving Kent's surly mug into retirement.

Perhaps a better source than MLBTR: Chicago Sun-Times

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/1045631,harden070808.article

If Harden can stay healthy, that isn't that much to give up at all.

harden to the cubs it's done not sure for who

wow, i guess i was a little late.

178 180 184 Either I type too fast or I have nothing left to do at work.

New piece on the Dodgers from Yahoo's Tim Brown:

http://tinyurl.com/6g8o39

181 - Are you willing to look at any other statistics than batting average? That's really the rub.

That seems like a really bad trade for the A's. It's looks like they aren't getting anyone with upside there.

Sporky wins the scoop award!

Wow, Chad Gaudin, too? If he's included, too, then the A's seemed to have been fleeced. Of course, we've said that about Beane trades before and then look what happens...

I love how MLBTraderumors is also quoting 174-year old Hal McCoy on the possible trade.

I was away last week, so I apologize if this was already discussed, but sending Kershaw down pretty much eliminates any chance of him being arbitration-eligible in 2011 as a "Super Two".

Kershaw has 39 days of service time right now. If he is called up as soon as July 20 (the bhsportsguy prediction), he will accumulate 71 more days of service time, giving him a total of 110. In general, Super Twos have always had at least 2 years and 125-130 days of service at a minimum.

Ethier (2 yrs, 153 days) and Martin (2 yrs, 150 days) will almost certainly be arb-eligible this offseason as Super Twos.

181

Why do you insist on using an almost completely meaningless statistic (yes, BA means very little) to make your argument?

I think it's because there is no real argument to make.

Jon helped get me off of BA. I should've just let him have it.

If the hitter's triple crown could be revamped to include stats/numbers that are meaningful, which 3 would they be?

I will also grant you, Eric, that LaRoche had a more distinguished minor league career. Cold comfort.

LaRoche career: 158 PA .215 average.
DeWitt last 158 PA: .226 average

191 Maybe that's the reason because one thing I have been meaning to bring up is his option back to Jacksonville, even though I kind of understand the predicament, they had to know that Penny wasn't going to go over the weekend and they could have optioned Troncoso especially since he hasn't been used much at all since last week.

Can Patterson stil play 2b? He's probably Ellis' replacement.

194 on base, slugging and sb% min 20 steals?

it would be an impossible feat but that's my oponion.

196 But DeWitt hit 1.000 last night!

ok. Dewitt's slugging average is higher. In what statistical respect is Laroche superior? Getting walks?

Wow, at the NL Central getting in a arms race.

I think Dodger Jack would be good friends with my co-worker.

198 I'm sure he is, but is there something I'm missing about him? He's 25, doesn't have great numbers for the PCL, strikes out a lot and doesn't walk.

*would make

204

I don't think he's that good either but he's in the part of the PCL where they don't get to play in the high altitude stadiums that much.

I think Beane's reasoning:

Harden's value is only going to go down from here and there is probably not a chance in hell Harden has one fully healthy season. You probably get 3 mlb average players for their position.

Eh, why not.

I have said this more than once but if we are to ignore Andy LaRoche's minor league record, which was better than all the other position players recently promoted over the past 3 years (Martin, Ethier, Loney, Kemp, Young and DeWitt) than why bother having them play in the minors at all. Okay, that's a bit much but still, he has showed both power, hitting for average, and strike zone judgment at every level.

That just has to count as much if not more than 1 good month in the majors.

DeWitt has the most important going for him according to Bill Plaschke .... Hes a Ballplayer!

201 I wonder if you would answer this: Are you unaware of the concept of sample size, or aware of it and just choose to reject it?

Because if your contention is that sample size doesn't matter, we shouldn't be discussing LaRoche and DeWitt at all. We should be trying to figure out how to make Eric Stults our third baseman.

209 Unless he can throw right-handed, that wouldn't work.

206 I'm sure that was the logic, I just hate the A's getting average players, they're already flooded with them.

Great deal for the Cubs.

I think the A's could have gotten more for Harden. Maybe they were afraid he'd get hurt again?

Hmm, looking at Gallagher's resume, he has some pretty nice minor league numbers. He's also only 22, I think there is some decent upside there.

This is kind of a win-now trade for the A's isn't it? Gallagher goes right into their rotation, where there's probably about a 33% chance he's more valuable than Harden the rest of the year. Murton goes right into the outfield, Patterson goes to 2B while they trade Ellis for more parts.

Seems like Beane wants to make a playoff run this year.

The only thing is, the Cubs hated all three of those players to varying degrees. They'd essentially given up on all of them. Seems like Oakland could have gotten more of a haul if the Cubs were undervaluing their players to begin with.

The thing that makes me sad is even though I'm firmly in the "Start Andy" camp, I not only - like everyone else here I'm sure - really appreciate what Blake DeWitt did contribute this season and would like to root for him, too. Which is why I've been an advocate of a scenario, next year I would imagine, where one of them plays 3rd and the other 2nd. I think the arguments in favor of Andy are clearcut, imho, but I also think it's fair to say that DeWitt, too, could improve. The guy jumped from AA to the majors, and has had the expected ups (more of those than expected) and downs from a guy making that leap. So while I'm firmly a believe in LaRoche's future, I don't feel right in rooting against DeWitt, either, Plaschke nonsense notwithstanding.

Forced to make a choice, I would take LaRoche, but I do like them both.

212 Hah. Maybe the sun will rise in the east? Harden is made of glass.

208 - Enough, please. Not directed toward you personally.

I like both DeWitt and LaRoche and both can help here at the major league level. Both could use more work but both are capable of performing here. I can't think of anybody I'd rather have in the organization over them both.

I completely understand why some people would want LaRoche playing over DeWitt. I also completely understand why some would want the opposite. DeWitt is a great story and maybe June was just a bad month. It's not fair to either of them nor their fans. I want them both to succeed but only one can start at third base.

Even next year, if Dewitt is our 3B, that position will produce below NL average for the Dodgers.

215 - I love DeWitt. I don't see a problem with loving him and wanting LaRoche to have more of a chance. Heck, I've even fallen in love with Danny Ardoin a little!

212 Reading rotoworld, In Harden's last start he complained of a dead arm (had 4-5 MPH less on his fastball) & the Angels players commented they thought he was hurt. With Harden's injury history tjat would be a HUGE red-flag on dealing for him.

201 Not over the last 158 PAs. Building on 196 :

LaRoche career: 158 PA, .215 .348 .331 .679
DeWitt last 158 PA, .226 .278 .301 .579

Surprised Beane couldnt have gotten the Cubs to throw in Rich Hill also.

Rest in peace, Bruce Conner...

DeWitt's the guy who needs to learn to play second. LaRoche will hit enough to carry third base, while there is nothing in DeWitt's record to indicate that he'll ever hit well enough to hold a corner infield spot. If Blake wants to have a future as a regular and not just a utility man, then it's going to have to be as a second baseman.

If we re-sign Furcal, I'm very much in favor of using a DeWitt-Hu-Abreu-Young quadruple tag team at second base in 2008.

Yep, I do have a hard swallowing the notion that batting averages are now irrelevant or that walks are more important than getting hits. The notion reflects a minority view, of course, because batting crowns are still awarded based on BA and virtually every newspaper in the U.S. carries BA's.

As far as "no argument to make," the argument is a simple one: DeWitt has outplayed LaRoche.

I am fascinated by why this simple truth galls so many on the board. There is an allegiance among you LaRochies that is unfathomable. Ya'all love the guy whether he swings a decent bat or not.

Having a father who is a major league pitcher doesn't entitle anyone to a presumption of stardom. Having a good minor league record or being rated as a top prospect does'nt do it either.

We wouldn't be having this discussion if LaRoche were hitting. I hope that he starts hitting.

But please stop telling us that LaRoche actually is hitting well. He ain't.

222 I bet he asked; but maybe with Harden's injury warnings the Cubs balked.

219 Indeed!

If Blake DeWitt were named Juan Pierre I doubt he'd get this kind of support. DeWitt only has a higher OPS than Melvin Mora and Jack Hanahan amongst third basemen. Jeff Kent even at his worst was more productive than that.

224 Who's this Abreu fella of which you speak? :-/

219 Agreed. DeWitt is a former #1 pick and it's nice to see homegrown talent succeed. He's a great story and I look forward to seeing more of him. But he's been in a serious slump (but 3-3 last night) and LaRoche needs PAs too.

If I'm a Cub fan I am loving this trade. To also get Gaudin is a real topper but he belongs in a rotation not the bullpen.

255 "Yep, I do have a hard swallowing the notion that batting averages are now irrelevant or that walks are more important than getting hits."

You're distorting (or at least misstating) the concept. There is not a human being on earth who will argue that walks are more important than hits. There is a small minority that believes walks are of the same importance as hits, but even those people are few and far between. Most reasonable people, and I think most readers of this site, would say that walks are almost as important as hits, and at the very least, are important enough that they shouldn't be ignored as you seem inclined to do.

with jair on the mound will we most likely see dewitt again tonight, I was hoping for an andy appearance because I haven't seen him live yet this season and im going tonight.

225 I don't think anyone is arguing that LaRoche is hitting well; the argument is that one can't conclude that he can't hit better than DeWitt based on 43 scattered plate appearances this season.

Juan Pierre had a 63 PA stretch early this season where he hit: .396 .475 .472 .947. Is he THAT good?

Dodger Jack.... I've only read from about 225 on to get caught up with the banter here. I'm guessing that you're defending the Dodgers playing Blake DeWitt over LaRoche. If that's the case, I applaud you.

Blake seems to be unappreciated on this blog for some reason. You would think DeWitt has blocked the road for the second coming of A-Rod based on the fan fare LaRoche receives here.

I think Andy's a fine player but his time will come next year when he has a full season of winter ball and ST to get a legitimate shot to be our 2nd baseman of the future. In the mean time, Dewitt has earned his spot on the team. I don't know how that can be argued. At this point, fair or not, Andy would have had to be spectacular in order to supplant DeWitt and force the team to ensure he's in the line-up everyday. And frankly, up to this point, he has not been.

230 Maybe he will replace Harden in the rotation. He's Harden's insurance policy.

231 And walks are far more important that outs. BA makes no distinction walks and outs.

171 scareduck

My bad I meant all offered deals instead of pending deals (meaning that everything runs though the owner) not just on deals that are in the final stages. And if indeed you think that is an ok situation then what exactly do the Dodgers pay the GM for? (assumming that being friends with Bill Plaschke, is not a job description)

Also isn't Steinbrenner widely disparaged for being an overbearing employer that is the worst owner to work for? (or am I confused about this)

234 DeWitt is the third least productive third baseman in baseball. Is that a good argument?

225 [b]But please stop telling us that LaRoche actually is hitting well. He ain't.[/b]

Deal ...if you agree to stop telling us that DeWitt is majorly out performing LaRoche

225 - On-base percentage includes both walks and hits. It includes batting average and augments it. You don't have to choose between walks and hits.

Hopefully, DeWitt can continue to build off last night's game, but before Sunday, LaRoche in limited playing time had a higher on-base percentage (which factors in batting average), slugging percentage (which factors in batting average) and OPS (which factors in batting average) than DeWitt.

So you've picked the right time to make an argument for DeWitt. But there's no hidden agenda here - I could care less who LaRoche's father is. The fact is, the case that DeWitt has outperformed LaRoche is marginal - it's two days old. One 0 for 3 by LaRoche and one 3 for 3 by DeWitt tilted the scales.

We're not debating who's going to become a star. You raised the issue of who was the better player right now. It's completely reasonable to believe that the combination of minor- and major-league stats points to LaRoche.

239 was supposed to be bold but I dee-dee-deed it

225

But at this point DeWitt isn't hitting either.

I am with Jon on this one 219

I like both of the players, but I think it would be a better career move for DeWitt to move to second. In the long run he just doesn't have the kind of power a 3B should have. I would think his agent would see the value in him approaching the Dodgers, saying "I see there will be a hole at 2B...I am willing to make the switch for the good of the team"

234 Dewitt has earned his spot on the team

Based on what? The numbers he has put up make him among the bottom 5 3B in the majors.

I love Dewitt and I will root for him. But he is not the best choice at 3B. Andy is not the next coming of A-Rod. No one has said that. Your using hyperbole does not cover the holes in your argument.

225 That's sort of like arguing that Paul Stankowski is better at golf than Tiger Woods based on the results of the first round of the 1997 Masters when Stankowski was 4 shots ahead of Tiger. Problem is, it's a 4-round tournament and Tiger won it by 12 shots.

The point isn't that Andy LaRoche is Tiger Woods or that Paul Stankowski or DeWitt suck; they're all profesional-quality players. It's that for the rest of the season, there's no reason to expect DeWitt to be better than LaRoche based on their past performances and future potential.

234 "Dewitt has earned his spot on the team. I don't know how that can be argued."

It can be argued by pointing out that his performance has been awful by major league standards. His performance has been good for a guy who barely made it to Double-A, but by the standards of a major league hitter it's horrendous.

It can be argued by pointing out that DeWitt has given us the third-worst production of all major league third basemen.

It can be argued by pointing out that DeWitt has never had a season, anywhere at any level, which indicates he's capable of producing the offense required of a MLB third baseman.

DeWitt has earned nothing except our most sincere thanks for helping out in an emergency, and a plane ticket to Las Vegas or Jacksonville.

234

How is he supposed to be "spectacular" without the same playing time DeWitt received?

I like Blake DeWitt and I like LaRoche. I am almost certain that LaRoche would be the better player right now, but I'm not at all certain that DeWitt will not surpass LaRoche over time. I don't think enough credit is being given Blake for what he accomplished at his age and it is not unfathomable that he will break out of his slump.

As much as it irritates me that Torre will not play LaRoche I also take comfort in the fact that he does not abandon a young one during their first slump. I don't understand what DeWitt has done to win Torre's favor but it must be things we cannot see in a box score. Everyone in the LaRoche corner seems to taking it for granted that DeWitt's slump is not something he can overcome. I'm not sure how that can be said with so much conviction since most of said with conviction back in April that DeWitt had little chance of performing for us.

If the platoon continues they should both have a chance to succeed against the type of pitchers they should be able to hit.

247

In which case I would like to see more of LaRoche filling in at 2B, 1B, and maybe some outfield, so he can at least have the chance to show what he can do with some regular playing time and at bats.

By the way, I like DeWitt.

DeWitt really needs more time in AAA. He's not completely ready, and it seems like he'll be able to play second base, where his value is that much higher.

248

This is my line of thinking. I would like both to play and have Andy get his ABs in at 3b/2b/lf/1b. There are plenty of days where he can spot start for players in those slots.

I just wish Torre would be more creative with Laroche's playing time. We need to get him ABs to get him going.

I think I've unlocked the secret. This is undoubtedly the reason why people love Blake DeWitt.

RISP w/ 2 outs: .353/.476/.471/.947
Bases Loaded (7 AB's):.857/.875/1.286/2.161

He's done it when people pay attention. That's why the Dodgers love him and that's why he gets more playing time.

Andy LaRoche doesn't have a hit this season with anybody on base.

That is your mystery solved. Thank you.

248
I would love for DeWitt to be playing 2nd base in Vegas. Since it has not happened yet I can only assume that Torre has already decided who his future 3rd baseman is going to be.

I think DeWitt can still develop power, at least some. He's not yet 23 and with limited experience at the AA level, he's at a pace that would give him about 10-12 HRs in a full season.

I wonder how we'd be reacting if the Dodgers had had Rich Harden and then made the trade Beane apparently did, if it was Colletti instead of Beane? Beane has a good reputation for his past moves and has a plan, but if Colletti gave up someone like Harden and Gaudin for those guys we'd probably get out the ol' pitchforks and torches.

The Marlins have shaken up their rotation somewhat, among other things sending Hendy to the bullpen. Here are the opposing starters the Dodgers will face the rest of the week:

Tomorrow - RHP Hudson
Thursday - RHP Josh Johnson
Friday - RHP Chris Volstad (1st ML start)
Saturday - RHP Scott Olsen
Sunday - LHP Andrew Miller

If the platoon continues, LaRoche won't start until Sunday. Even then, it could be Martin at 3B. Plus, it's all night games until Sunday afternoon, so Kent might not get a day off either, especially since he will have 4 days to rest following Sunday.

247 "Everyone in the LaRoche corner seems to taking it for granted that DeWitt's slump is not something he can overcome."

There's a chance he can overcome it, yes. Just as there's a chance the 10-1 shot with no history of winning wins the Preakness.

There is, on the other hand, something like an 80% chance that LaRoche will outperform DeWitt given the same amount of playing time. It's not about giving up on DeWitt, or saying it's not possible for him to succeed. It's about the team playing the percentages most in its favor.

Look, I like Blake DeWitt and I'm rooting for him to succeed. But I don't want him to be our third baseman right now any more than I want Lucas May to be our starting catcher or Andrew Lambo to be our starting right fielder.

252
Really, not one hit with anyone on base. He needs to stop looking to A Jones and Berroa for inspiration.

255 I think the most positive thing anyone has said about it so far is that Gallagher might have some upside.

LaRoche has started once at 1B and twice at 2B. I don't see why that won't continue.

255
I know I would. I'd be breaking rules ones over at True Blue at a breakneck pace.

252 thats actually fairly compelling argument

256
I mixed up Nolasco and Olsen. Nolasco, the righty, starts Saturday.

256

Olsen is left handed.

257 It's really not just a slump anymore either. There are two times when DeWitt has been a useful hitter his first three games, and the first half of May. This is less than 70 PA, more than 75% of his career has been terrible.

Sounds like a mean game of LaRoche camp vs DeWitt camp wiffle ball is brewing up.
vr, Xei

If druw "needs a night off" can we stick kemp back in center and try laroche in the OF, or would we then be blocking peewee

this is kinda frustrating we have a lot of guys up here who need playing time, and guys like laroche and peewee have legitimate argument for being stuck on the bench in my opinion

doesn't it feel like one of these guys has to be traded at the deadline?

DeWitt has been awful, A-W-F-U-L, since June 1st. Defending someone with ONE game of AAA experience and who is only 22 is truly astounding.

He needs to be optioned.

257
I understand exactly what you are saying and I agree but on the other hand what were the odds on March 1st that Blake DeWitt would be the Rookie of the Month. 100 - 1? 1000 - 1?

Every year someone someone does something no one expected. Dan Uggla comes to mind, someone who had to scramble to make the Marlin team, wins the 2nd base job because of default, and then just gets better and better. If he had not been drafted in the rule 5 he might never have even been given a chance to play in the big leagues.

Anyway I think most of us would love to see them both succeed but we have more vested in LaRoche because we all expected him to succeed and want to see him get his shot. I know I do but it just bothers me that we have to take shots at "the ballplayer" whose only crime is doing the best he can in a tough situation.

256 I was praying we would get to skip Nolasco. Your post gave me false hope. u_u

Come on, get happy! NPUT

258 0-17 with runners on, 0-11 with RISP.

Nolasco has been nasty. Olsen has a nice ERA but has been very hittable. Johnson has been bleh in his rehabs. We could win every game this week.

And the question remains: why do so many on this board react so harshly to the suggestion that DeWitt has outplayed LaRoche? Anger. Umbrage. It is an interesting phenomenon. Of course, the sample size is small.

255 I agree that this looks like a really bad trade for the A's. However, he's earned the trust that Colletti has not. If Colletti pulls off a some really good trades and makes the playoffs five years in a row, he'd definitely get more rope from me.

234

"It can be argued by pointing out that DeWitt has given us the third-worst production of all major league third basemen."

This includes LaRoche's and Garciaparra's contributions (or lack thereof) at 3B as well correct ?

This took a little work but here's what LaRoche has produced in first 50 big leauge games.

AB 130 H 28 2B 6 HR 3 RBI 12 AVG.215 OBP.348 SLG.331

vs. DeWitt for his first 50 games.

AB 94 H 29 2B 2 HR 5 RBI 18 AVG.296 OBP.372 SLG.453

Like I said. Blake has earned his stay given the alternatives.

274 - I think you should think about how your tone has been before you talk about others.

275 Yah, that's kind of my point.

Though that shouldn't excuse Beane if he gets fleeced in a trade.

274 DeWitt HAS outplayed LaRoche. Nobody's really arguing otherwise. It's the suggestion that he's done well overall (he's done better than what anyone could expect, but he's been pretty bad at the plate), and that right now, he's a better player than LaRoche.

I never felt angry over this discussion. Disagreement doesn't necessarily mean anger.

276

I used 50 games because that's the extent of LaRoche's big league experience. (including last year)

281

Could you run those numbers using DeWitt's last 50 games instead, that may help you understand the arguement of the other side.

Enjoy Manny while we can...

I always thought he would end up in NYC next year, now the "reputable" new source, New York Post, is reporting this...

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08092008/sports/yankees/mannys_revenge__eyes_bx__123658.htm