Hey: where's the analysis...?

Tony Jackson:

Again, this is a scaled-down version of the eight-player deal the clubs never consummated earlier this month. That one was CC Sabathia, Casey Blake and Jamey Carroll for (I believe) Santana, Matt Kemp, James McDonald, Cory Wade and Andy LaRoche.

INSANE!!!

Analysis is part of "Dodger Thoughts Platinum."

"Dodger Thoughts Platinum" will be free for everyone for a week after a game in which Andruw Jones strikes out five times.

Seems like another "he could've gotten more" type of deal. Meloan and Santana were good prospects, good trade bait, but not for an old, so-so hitter. You get the same production if you put Ethier back in the lineup and sit Jones.

This would have to mean either LaRoche or less likely DeWitt is gone in another trade soon. Today, probably.

OTOH, Blake isn't blocking anyone for long. But just because this isn't the worst imaginable deal doesn't make it less disappointing.

2

Well, I guess it could have been worse.

Well, I guess it could have been worse.

That sort of attitude helped Napoleon in Russia.

On the bright side, the guy in the ad seems to be enjoying his vacation.

Our four best pitchers are all ground ball pitchers.

We now have possibly the worst defensive infield in baseball.

This seems like it will end badly.

I have been assured that Blake is a gamer, so I am mollified.

Go Team!

2 That makes my stomach hurt.

Casey Blake is OPSing 1.007 in July. Also, is OPSing .973 outside of Cleveland. He was awful in April and May. He broke out in June with a .954 OPS.

I have zero problem with this deal. I'm mildly irritated that that Meloan didn't get a shot over the likes of Jason Johnson or Falkenborg.

Then again, if Tron, Borg and JJ are getting shots before Meloan, that tells me a lot about Meloan.

I'll be very upset if this deal ends with Andy LaRoche heading to Oakland.

2 Tony Jackson is going to the mat with the CC deal but again who was the source?

This deal signals to me that the Dodgers are not going to deal anyone on their MLB roster and probably their 40 man roster (outside of Meloan) by this trading deadline.

I wonder if the Padres would take Greg Miller/Justin Orenduff for Greg Maddux?

Awesome, the Dodger infield gets older. Now we just need to swap Loney for Delgado, then turn our attention to the outfield and deal Kemp for Alou.

I'm tired of Ned and his utter stupidity. I almost want AZ to win to force out Ned.

4 But we did get more--Cleveland still pays Blake. Maybe it's time to start taking seriously the notion that McCourt won't let Ned add more salary.

Colletti: "CC Sabathia, Casey Blake and Jamey Carroll for (I believe) Santana, Matt Kemp, James McDonald, Cory Wade and Andy LaRoche?"

White: "No!"

McCourt: "You heard him. No."

Colletti: "Okay, how 'bout Santana and Meloan for Blake."

White: "No!"

McCourt (after a long silence): "Logan, maybe we ought to let him just this once. So Jon Heyman and Ken Rosenthal stop killing us in the press."

White: "What's in it for me?"

McCourt: "Talk to me in three months."

8 We might as well trade Lowe then, right?

This is depressing. I just don't see how Blake solves any problems, unless he becomes the everyday left fielder and we sit Jones and Pierre. Even then, I don't think he's good enough to justify parting with Santana and Meloan. I keep hearing that there's discord in the front office, with Logan getting a bigger say in things and perhaps playing a role in the veto of the CC trade. This has the hallmarks of being a concession to Flanders.

18

That's what we should've done in the first place.

I'll be very upset if this deal ends with Andy LaRoche heading to Oakland.

Be ready to be upset.

14 I wish we had Delgado right now. Dude is straight up mashing lately.

13 If this deal guarantees that either LaRoche or DeWitt is sent back down and neither of them are traded, I'll be happy.

LaRoche + X = Street

X = ???

19 17 In other words...

Is there an appropriate Santana song for this sad occasion? How many good catching prospects is Ned going to give away?

22
Lately is the operative word.

X = James McDonald

This is why you gotta love DT, there may be discord in the Dodger front office but there is nothing but respectful discussion here.

My final say on this before I run off today, I think this is a good deal for the current and future Dodger team.

6 Of course I got a good enough kick out of that comment that I had to log-in and post.

Thanks!

There's no reason to deal LaRoche if this is a 2 month rental. We could still cut Sweeney and use DeWitt as the first LH bat off the bench.

Oh and I propose we re-brand the August DT outing "Casey Blake's 35th B'Day Picnic."

Horrible.

Dumping a high ceiling catcher like Carlos Santana for ultimate non-consequential PVL...

Just fire Ned.

Not even Bhsportsguy can condone this anymore.

Didn't Omar Minaya want Casey Blake?

33 Phillies too.

4 --LaRoche isn't going anywhere. 3B will have no incumbent heading into 2009, and the Dodgers will want to have an option beyond DeWitt. And what would LaRoche be traded for? A shortstop? The whole idea of getting an SS was so Nomar could be moved to 3B. No way Nomar gets benched. A closer? Dodger executives already "scoffed" at the idiotic Huston Street rumor, according to Gurnick. We know that Colletti refused to give up DeJesus for Rauch, so if the Dodgers were looking for a reliever, the price they were willing to pay probably wasn't too high.

I think this is a good deal for the current and future Dodger team.

Explain how adding Casey Blake makes the Dodgers better in 2009.

32

He just did, three spots above you.

Not even Bhsportsguy can condone this anymore

My final say on this before I run off today, I think this is a good deal for the current and future Dodger team

15 - utter stupidity

Isn't that going a little far? LA has gotten a 665 OPS out of third base this year. Blake has an 830 OPS (119 OPS+) this year. Seems like an upgrade to me. And they didn't have to trade LaRoche to get him. I still feel LaRoche is the starting 3B next year.

The two guys traded were not really in the plans going forward either. I can see disagreeing with this deal, but not really the outrage.

I'm baffled. We seem to get a part time Bat/DH type for a few prospects I guess I can live without, but it totally feels like doing something for the sake of doing something.

If its a prelude to something else, Ive got a bad feeling.

I'm ok with the deal. It probably doesn't add much to the team but perhaps for two months Blake will be slightly better than LaRoche/DeWitt so unless either get traded it probably doesn't hurt. Meloan has potential but we've got the best pitching in the NL and middle relivers can be added on the cheap as needed.

I think Ned is done--in more ways than one.

32 see 29

I actually think Blake is pretty good. I had him on my fantasy team the past few years - he plays 2B, 1B, 3B and corner OF, plus he has some power. I just don't like the idea of him putting Laroche in AAA or on the bench. As a supersub that plays alost every day, he's great.

42 - Yeah, I think so. McCourt gives him a little leash to make a deal and improve the team short term. But I think he's gone.

Silver lining: Over the last season and a half (222 games), at third base Blake has a DP-E ratio of 39-26, which is good.

My bad I was just hoping he explained it better.

Dealing Carlos Santana for 2 months of an inconsequential PVL is utter idiocy.

The two guys traded were not really in the plans going forward either.

Santana was probably having the best year of any Dodger prospect. Is giving him up really worth 2 months of Casey Blake?

Casey Blake?
Casey Blake???

I don't quite understand why people are jumping off of bridges about this deal. I am against trading Santana too but as Canuck said where was he going to play in this organization, I'd assumed he'd be traded at some point. I have less problem trading Meloan. I actually like Blake. Plus you get draft pick for him when he leaves, presumably. Blake plays 3B, 1B, and OF, and even played SS. The Dodgers had very little depth on offense right now. Again, I don't like trading Santana, because I think his value will go up and if they were going to trade him they could've waited for a higher value trade. But that said, I don't think people are being all that rational about this.

What I would do is send DeWitt down because he clearly needs more seasoning and to start full time, keep LaRoche around and give him some starts still since he has nothing to gain from being in the minors. I would not trade him for anything other than a Jason Bay or Holliday (which won't happen) type deal; otherwise he's at third next year.

You guys realize Casey Blake now leads the team in OPS right?

Plus, NedCo will likely be gone no matter what happens so you can take comfort in that! (Barring a World Series appearance...)

Will Plaschke point out that this is the ultimate fantasy baseball move?

6 Nice observation. The same could be said for many world leaders.

If we had Sean Casey, that could cause some real confusion.

49

But it's only .830. Big deal. He's 34, and you're comparing him to a bunch of developing guys 23-25, and a couple of old stiffs. This move is still pointless and wasteful of future prospects.

So I guess this deal confirms that we do like players that strike out a lot as long as they're old.

Casey Blake is a rental, no assurance that the Dodger will sign him during the off season. Brings .289 11 HR's, which ties with Ether and Kemp on the current roster...So a bat, sort of kind of maybe.

From SI.com

Right-handed pitching prospect Jon Meloan and catching prospect Carlos Santana will go to Cleveland for Blake, 34, a 10-year major league veteran who is eligible for free agency following this season.

Ugh.

Don't care for Meloan but losing Santana hurts.

If we get two draft picks for Blake AND this stops Colletti from making anymore retarded trades, then I can live with this.

But Santana.....ahhhh Carlos, you left me too soooon.

Meloan for Blake would have been fine.

But throwing in Santana to get an old guy for 2 months is just not forward thinking at all.

IF you're going to deal prospects, deal them for guys in their prime.

Not 2-month rentals that will just block the guy that should be playing 3rd base everyday anyway (LaRoche).

39 -- yes, I'm being a little harsh. But the benching Andruw gets you the same production. And moving JP down (or out) of the lineup gets you some more.

Santana was having a great year, but realistically he was #3 on the Dodgers' likely future plans behind the plate (Martin, May). If the Dodgers were that high on Meloan, they would have called him up at some point this year, don't you think? Blake gives the Dodgers a #6 hitter that they can start at 3B every night with confidence. He'll also end up a type A or B free agent, getting us a high draft pick or two back.

The past couple days it's seemed pretty likely that blake would be a player the dodgers would target. The fact that we didn't trade LaRoche or DeWitt (at least, not yet) to get him is great for us.

I'm not a big Ned supporter, but he did pretty well on this one!

April fools, right? vr, Xei

LOS ANGELES – The Los Angeles Dodgers announced today they have acquired third baseman Casey Blake and cash considerations from the Cleveland Indians in exchange for minor league catcher Carlos Santana and minor league right-hander Jonathan Meloan. The announcement was made by Dodger General Manager Ned Colletti.

"Casey Blake is a gamer," said Colletti. "His experience and character will be a plus as we head down the stretch in the final two months of the regular season."

47 - I'm far from an expert here, but he's a 22-year old having a career year in high A-ball who happens to play the same position as our MVP at the big league level. I don't know, I'm not that broken up about it.

Plus Blake might bring a draft pick, takes away one of Torre's favorite toys in DeWitt, and provides more offense than we've seen all year out of 3B.

If Casey Blake is just a rental, then I see this trade as merely pointless. I too believe that LaRoche could have put up the same numbers with better defense, but waiting for LaRoche to do so next year is something I can live with.

Of course, don't be surprised if Blake turns out not to be just a rental. Nomar, Sweeney, Ramon Martinez...not all were acquired in mid-season trades, but all were re-signed after they'd proved their worthlessness, and after it was clear that there were better options in the minors. Blake is a "gamer." I think Torre has even more of a PVL fetish than Colletti has.

Still and all, let's say Blake puts up the same numbers as LaRoche would have, or even a little better. That doesn't change the outfield situation. If Pierre and Jones continue to start all or most games, it doesn't matter who plays 3b.

One way that this COULD improve the team would be if Blake would replace Pierre in LF, and play alongside Ethier and Kemp. LaRoche could then man 3b.

And monkeys would fly out of you know where.

Our IF defense is going to be horrible. Kent, Nomar, and Blake? Yikes. They're taking money out of Derek Lowe's wallet - his ERA could jump by a run per game. All those late-inning defensive replacements don't help the starting pitchers.

Martin is our catcher. It would have been wrong to relegate a
player with a ceiling like Santana's to back-up status down
the line. Also, he's in class-A ball. That makes him a
somewhat unproven commodity imo. I give this trade a C-. Just below average, but there's time to bring the final grade
up before the end of the semester.

Yeah, do we know what draft pick bounty Blake will yield? Is it confirmed at two? Or one first rounder?

Who cares how old he is if we only have him for two months? Is his decline going to be the most sharp in history?

65 He'd probably have to finish with better numbers than .282 .356 .479 to reach type A status.

63 Nomar's 1 million dollar season was hardly worthless.
He added alot to the Dodger's line-up. I'm not condoning
the contract he got afterwards, but he hardly proved himself
worthless.

I do agree that Santana was gone at some point, and this could very well be a sell high, but his numbers are completely insane this year.

67 He was right on the cusp of the A/B cut-off last year, so I would assume that having a better year than last year would bump him up to an A.

I think trading Santana just goes to show how little Colleti values OBP. This is a constant from him. Santana was leading his league in OBP. How many times do you see that from a catcher. This is the same story as Pierre all over again. Because don't forget "Pierre gets on base a lot."

If this is the level of outrage for Meloan and Santana for a decent 3B, I can't wait for the inevitable LaRoche deal.

Good times.

70 Better year than 2006, it takes into account the last two years so he'd have to beat those numbers to move up.

66

I was using his age to make the point that his OPS should be higher than anyone on the Dodgers, since the Dodgers are mostly very young, developing players, while he is still at the back end of his prime.

But seriously, the comments from Colletti are absolutely mind boggling retarded.

He's a gamer?!?!!

HE'S A GAMER!??!!

Please say something else.

72 Except he's not a decent 3B. Fielding matters.

Is this a better deal than if Ned would've sent the same package for Jack Wilson, and moved Nomar to 3rd? The defense would've been better, but I think the offense continues to stagnate.

FWIW, Ken Gurnick before this deal went down:

>>Dodgers sources scoffed at rumors that the club is on the verge of trading third baseman Andy LaRoche to Oakland for reliever Huston Street.<<

72 Flipping over cars and setting them on fire (virtually), I reckon.

74 So it helps the team this year. Why the outrage then?

Just because we have Martin, doesn't mean you give up quality catching prospects. Martin has the athleticism to play 3B or 2B full time or at least part time to rest his legs. This sort of lineup flexibility has great advantages. If Santana can play C, then he can probably play other positions too. Or you can package a trade for top-level talent, instead of a rental.

Is this a big trade? No. Could NedCo have done better? Yes. Could NedCo be more visionary and think more long term? Absolutely.

I'm kind of up in the air about this trade. Value wise, we got ripped off because like many have said, LaRoche would've matched Blake's production if given a chance. And if you're going to trade Santana at all, he would've net us more in the beginning of next year after the new BA rankings put him in the top 50 or so.

Reason why I might be ok with this trade is because even though LaRoche could've matched his production, we know Torre wouldn't have given him a chance. This is a way of putting that production in the lineup instead of the horrible numbers that Dewitt's been giving us, which definitely helps the Dodgers for the next 2 months.

Of course, all this is assuming Blake is gone after these two months and LaRoche stays a Dodger.

Now, the important question is: Will Blake get to LA in time for today's game? I was planning on starting LaRoche on my fantasy team tonite.

Its doubtful that Casey Blake arrives in time for tonight's game, there is only one non-stop flight out of Cleveland to LAX that remains today and even that one he would have to be at the airport right now.

Is his decline going to be the most sharp in history?

I believe Dodgers fans know who holds that title.

82 Apparently he's already on a plane over here, so I would assume he'd be here in plenty of time for tonight's game.

62--Look, what happens if Santana just continues to mash. It would have allowed Martin to move to 2nd base, or 3rd, etc.

At any rate, you just traded a very high ceiling prospect, for 2 months of Casey Blake.

Not 2 months of Carlos Beltran.

It has very limited short-term gain (since LaRoche for 2 months or Blake for 2 months isnt going to be the difference between winning the division and not), but alot of long-term risk (you just gave up Santana, who could have been a difference making player, and at worst could have been packaged for something better).

Honestly, what is 2 months of Casey Blake worth to a team that already has Andy LaRoche?

80

Why does my disagreeing with the move have to be labeled as outrage? Am I screaming or something?

I do not agree that it helps the team this year. LaRoche is better defensively, and I think he would start producing if he continued to play everyday.

Andrew, he's the 7th VORPiest 3B in baseball this year, middle of the pack last year. His defense is atrocious, but 3B isn't SS, C, CF, or 2B. He'll get how many chances?

If we can't even say "decent," we're not being totally fair.

This is not a terrible deal.

83 Was written before 82 was seen but as I stated and Bob Timmermann knows first hand, non-stop flights from Cleveland to LAX are limited (only 3, all on Continental) and the last one leaves Cleveland at 2:30 p.m. EDT.

Meloan has just been taken off the LV roster. No infielder has been added (yet).

We are buyers at the deadline, dealing with Mark Shapiro for the best 3B and bat on the market....

.... this wasn't Dave Littlefield or Jim Bowden in a December deal.

You have to give something up to get something.

83 They probably have him on a chartered flight.

81 I love how you subconsciously channeled Jim Tracy in that last sentence.

Unless you truly think Santana was going to start at catcher for the Dodgers in the next two years, this isn't that bad. Like I said in the previous thread, eventually the Dodgers and everyone else who coveted Santana that Martin was going to block Santana from catching, and while there is somebody who were advocating to move Martin to 2nd. (I'm sure Martin would have loved that, and then promptly demanded a trade.) Lets be honest with ourselves, Santana didn't have much of a future with the Dodgers as is. As for Meloan, there's a dozen more relief prospects from where he came from.

88 He's a first half hitter, guys don't have career years at age 34. Once his hitting declines and you've completely blown your infield open on a team of ground ball pitchers I don't see how you could count him as decent. We voluntarily made our team worse and gave up talent to do so. At least most of Ned's moves managed to improve the team in the short term.

So it helps the team this year. Why the outrage then?

Bc the team sucks this year.
Adding Blake might make it suck a bit less.

But why give up 1 of your best prospects for a guy that might make the team suck a bit less.

As I mentioned earlier, this isnt 2 months of Carlos Beltran. Its 35yr old Casey Blake, ultimate PVL.

Lets take away development time from LaRoche.
Lets trade a potential piece to the future.
Lets play Casey Blake for 2 months, bc having him in the lineup instead of LaRoche might lead the Dodgers to 82 wins instead of 80.

Meanwhile, if Santana goes on to be an All-Star (like um whats that guy's name--Navarro), who cares bc we'll always fall back on the excuse that "we have Russ Martin, we had to get rid of [insert catching prospect's name]..

This management really makes it difficult to root for them.

How can we assume that LaRoche would hit as well as Blake if he got to play every day? Every other youngster that we love (Martin, Loney, Kemp, Ethier, etc.) has gotten a chance to play every day all year and Blake has outproduced all of them at the plate. When it was DeWitt vs. LaRoche it was easy to pull for LaRoche, but it would take a real leap of faith to think LaRoche would outperform Blake for the rest of the year.

85 Unless the deal announcement was held up or it was a condition that Casey Blake be here tonight, I don't know how its possible he could be on a plane right now. There was one other flight that left Cleveland at 12:30 p.m. EDT but that would mean that the deal was done by 9:00 a.m. EDT since Casey Blake would have to go to the ballpark to get his gear and then the tickets and everything would have to be arranged.

Also, though perhaps they just get money if it isn't possible, per the MLBPA CBA, players whose rights are transferred during the season, have to be transported via First Class on any flights longer than a certain time period.

The stuff about Santana and Meloan "not being the in the team's plans" does not necessarily tell you anything about Santana or Meloan. It might just indict "the team's plans." And even IF those guys really were blocked (talent-wise, not just perception-wise) that doesn't mean they're throwaways. If they're more highly valued by others, then the Dodgers should have been able to take advantage of others. It's not like they HAD to trade them.

But I'm willing to accept others' evaluations of Meloan as easily replaceable and of Santana as good, but having a career year in a league he's too old for (so, selling high). That's fine. I'm not going to rend my garments over losing them. What bugs me is that this is another piece of evidence that management doesn't understand the meaninglessness of PVL and that the kids they already have (LaRoche, Ethier) are more talented than the expensive guys they go out of their way to acquire.

When Colletti made these sorts of pointless deals in the past, my big worry was that they revealed this line of thinking, and might eventually lead him to really mortgage the future by trading Kemp/Martin/Billingsley for veteran has-beens. It turns out (so far) that he has avoided doing that. So those early pointless PVL acquisitions were merely harbingers of later pointless PVL acquisitions.

The road to expensive mediocrity is paved with such risk-averse, small-minded thinking. If a guy like Colletti is going to be a GM anywhere, it should be for a team like the Yankees, where he can buy his way out of mistakes (or get veterans who are actually good) or for the Royals, where bringing in well-known names is the only way to put any butts in the seats, and where mediocrity is an aspiration, not a fall-back.

I'll certainly root for Casey Blake to succeed, and just hope that he doesn't succeed enough that Colletti's successor is tempted to re-sign him.

86 Just wondering, what is the basis of moving of moving Martin out of catching outside of fatigue? The guy is already one of the best catchers in MLB. I doubt Martin would voluntarily move from catching permanently. Its where he's going to make the most money.

94--What if Santana turns out to be a better catching prospect than Martin was though?

Surely, trading Russ Martin would bring back more than Casey Blake. If if Russ wouldnt agree to a buy out of his arbiration years, maybe he'd be a trade candidate if Santana was ready.

Trading Santana eliminates a ton of options the Dodgers had going forward.

The gain: 2 months of Casey Blake.

86 -- Martin is not going to be moved off of catcher. Hey, I agree that talent-wise we gave up way to much for way too little, but in the real world that is not how these trades are analyzed. Meloan and Santana just didn't fit into any Dodger future I can conceive and that made them expendable.

The guy is already one of the best catchers in MLB.

Not this year.
He cant throw out anyone trying to steal.

His bat is great there, but Santana had power that Martin never has shown.

95 Stop saying he's a first half hitter. His pre/post-ASB OPS is less than 50 points difference.

Plus, our team's not all groundball pitchers - just Lowe and Kuroda. Billingsley, Kershaw, and Park/Penny are all flyball guys.

Martin isn't moving from behind the dish, nor should he.

Assessment of Blake, from an Indians fan: "Streaky hitter, some decent power, average fielder, great arm. Solid middle of the road player. I like him better at 3b than OF though. He can play any position so that is nice. Allegedly great guy in the clubhouse."

104 That's a pretty freaking big difference. .800 to .750 is a huge jump.

Look at the numbers, Bills and Penny have ground ball to fly ball ratios over 1.5.

97

Maybe LaRoche doesn't match Blake's production. Fine. I don't think this team is at a place where it should be sacrificing the future for two month rentals. We are not very good this year, and I don't think Blake is the type of player to make enough difference to be worth the expense. I was enjoying watching the young guys play and rolling with it.

Sad to say, I wish we were running the team like the Giants are starting to. Trade off the veterans and play the young.

93 I guess I brought home more than I thought from my recent trip to Pitt. Do you think it's contagious?

103 Santana shown power at high-A, In a league known for boosting offensive numbers, and he's already 22. Santana could be a paper tiger for all we know. And I just find it odd that surprising that people here think Santana would be able to push Martin from the catcher's spot. Its almost like Martin joined the PVL's club.

103 -- Santana's HR power is a California League illusion. In his home park, a more pitcher-friendly park than most parks in the league, he is more of a singles/doubles hitter.

Casey Blake has a man's beard. And '80's beard. A Steve Bedrosian/Jeff Reardon beard.

There's no stat that can quantify that beard.

108. Kinda makes you wish Arizona hadn't let the Dodgers back into the race. It's true that Blake is not much of a difference maker for a team that's not very good. But "not very good" could win the NL West (and then get swept in the first round).

This is motivated by the "do anything to sneak into the playoffs, at which point anyone can win the WS" way of thinking instead of the "make the team as good as you can for as long as you can" philosophy.

I don't actually believe that the playoffs are a crapshoot, despite the examples of unlikely WS winners. I think that, on average, the best teams win pennants and championships.

I guess we do need to climb the ladder in bad facial hair.

112

It's the kind of beard that drinks Old Milwaukee during commercial breaks of Braves games on WTBS when Torre was manager and Dale Murphy was a god.

Also, Santana is still rough using the English language. If there is one player on the team who has to be able to speak English, it is the catcher.

112

God, you always make sense.

Long live the rugged woodsman beard!

This was written by Josh Rawitch two hours ago:

It's official...Casey Blake is en route to Los Angeles, hopefully in time for tonight's game.

110--I just get leery of the "he's blocked, so he must be traded".

I think the Phillies are glad they didnt trade Ryan Howard, even when they had Jim Thome.

And part of Russ Martin becoming a PVL is the Dodgers realizing his upside of .290/.380/.440.

Santana could be better. I would have rather found out, than trade it for Casey Blake.

108 Just making the playoffs could be huge for this team. Having Billingsley, Lowe, and Kuroda as your 1-2-3 in a playoff series puts you at a nice advantage.

And we're not "sacrificing the future" - we gave up a couple extra pieces. If Blake plays well enough that he helps us make the playoffs then I think it's a worthy deal (especially since it'll mean he bumped himself up to type A status).

The funny thing about all this is that I'm pretty neutral on the deal, but all the negativity is forcing me to seem like a huge advocate.

In the interest of bringing facts to this debate...
According to Hardball Times, the National League's ground ball percentage is 44.
Penny - 49.5%
Kuroda - 50%
Billz - 48.1%
Lowe - 58.8%
Kershaw - 50.4%
Park - 48.5%
Kuo - 46.4%

83 , 92 Continental flight #67, hits LAX at 7:22pm...so mid-game dugout arrival. This isn't Boston or NY, so a police escort to the stadium isn't likely ;)

118 Also this:

If he can get to Los Angeles in time for tonight's game (he's currently in the air so the chances are pretty good)

120 I agree. I also reserve the right to be outraged pending future trades.

The average playoff appearance earns a team 25 million, so you should definitely do what you can to get in.

always fun when Brock is the voice of reason.

unless this is followed with a move that involves LaRoche, DeWitt, Kemp, Ethier, or Loney, I just have to shrug my shoulders.

122 Hah thanks for bringing back memories of the awesome Mirabelli airlift of 2006.

125 I was going to mention that too, but I didn't think added revenue would help sway anyone :)

120

Okay, hope you're right. Still don't get why people can't disagree with the move without having to be labeled as negative and outraged.

BPro's park factors for Inland Empire:
2005 - 954
2006 - 950
2007 - 938

FWIW, Cleveland's:
2005 - 967
2006 - 988
2007 - 1013

120 - Exactly how I feel.

I keep reading that the Dodgers should have kept Santana and waited for his trade value to increase. What if he moved to AA and hit only .260 with 10 HRs. Then what? Continue to wait?

126 Blind squirrel, nut, you know the drill.

I have no faith in us giving LaRoche the job next year. We pretty much have done everything we could to not give him the third base gig.

126 Why is it unreasonable to be upset that we gave up talent to get worse?

I'm glad I'm not relying on Colletti for information on how good a baseball player Blake is:

"Casey Blake is a gamer," said Colletti. "His experience and character will be a plus as we head down the stretch in the final two months of the regular season."

Carlos Santana's stats, including splits:
http://tinyurl.com/6apfzx

Given that Ned was ready and willing to hand Mike Lowell a 4-year deal (!) at age 33, I would say there is a strong possibility that Blake is in our 2009 lineup. Ned does not want to go into Spring Training '09 with ?/?/?/Loney around the infield. And most predictable of all, the team will still not "know what they have" with LaRoche since the guy hasn't played a full week since last september.

PS- If LaRoche hit 2 HR in Coors during the showcase showdown, does this deal happen? I was dense enough to think his 4-7 with 3 BB was enough to win him a few weeks of PT.

129 Outraged was a bit strong, but it kills me when people are so blinded by the fact that we traded for a veteran that they start acting like it wasn't an upgrade. Sure, it was too much to give up for two months of Casey Blake, but it still makes the Dodgers a better team for the rest of 2008.

Santana's post-ASB numbers (28 games, 107 at-bats): 393/485/682/1167

118 123 scratch my 122, that means he made Cont. #515 landing at 2:30pm. Unless he has Tony Jackson status on Delta and is connecting thru Atlanta or something backwards like that.

Either way, doesn't sound like LaRoche starts tonight.

139 I made some completely reasonable arguments about why Blake is a downgrade from LaRoche and I'm blinded by the fact that he's a veteran?

I hate the PVL crap that gets thrown around here, I don't care how old a guy is as long as he produces.

I don't like this at all. We should be sellers right now, not buyers. it is a lost season.

135 - Santana was a high-A catcher in an organization that has a career all-star at that position. the odds of him becoming johnny bench are as good as him becoming rick demnsey. The odds of him ever helping the Dodgers at the major league level were close to nil

Meloan would have been nice to have around, but he never struck me as a guy who was going to be anything other than a serviceable middle reliever.

LaRoche and DeWitt, it has been pointed out, consistently, have been terrible this year at third. Furcal is not coming back, so Nomar is stuck at third.

The Dodgers didn't get worse. They got a few more options, which may make them better. Unfortunately, they also got older in the process. And that does kind of suck.

The $25 million in revenue for making the playoffs, what's the source on that?

Also, why were we so excited about a 22 year old at high-A? isn't that a bit old for that level? shouldn't he be mashing at that level?

144
How has LaRoche been terrible at third? The most games he started in a row were four.

145 Business of baseball said it was 15-20 million for one round. That was a few years ago.

144 I don't particularly care about the talent we lost. I care about the fact that we got a guy that up to this point has been four more runs more valuable than Blake DeWitt. A guy who has a tendency to decline in the second half. Even if you think LaRoche will never improve it's such a marginal improvement that it won't make a lick of difference. In the very likely event that he does improve, it's a downgrade.

142 You pointed out what you think Blake's flaws are, but never gave any reason for DeWitt or LaRoche being a better bet for the rest of the year. What we have right now is an .830 OPSing third baseman as opposed to horrible production from a couple young third basemen. We can posit all we want about how we think LaRoche might have fared, but there's no reason to think he would match Blake's production for the rest of the year.

Echoing many of the points here, this is the typical useless Ned trade. Did he rip the guts out of the team's future? No. Did he improve the team for the future? No. Did he improve the team for the rest of the season? Unless you assume that Laroche would have given you absolutely no production for the rest of the season, no.

As it stands, the Dodgers are currently a sub.500 team, despite how close to first they happen to be. This trade does nothing to address the main problems the team has--the lack of hitting from Andruw Jones, and the fact that Juan Pierre has to play everyday.

Isnt Blake pretty much the teams (co-)leader in HR and RBI?

147
And he was good in those games too.

143 Pedro Astacio
...it is a lost season.
A quitter.

I kinda hope LaRoche gets traded to the A's, because he will never get a legit shot here it seems. Might as well be with a team I like and a good organization not Frank and his band of merry court jesters.

150 I have actually. Several times. LaRoche can actually catch the ball and his track record shows no reason he can't be a mediocre hitter. His PrOPS right now is .840, better than Blake's .832.

It is a lost season. I would rather sell off all those free agents leaving next year for some quality prospects that will be here for a while.

157 - LA is a game out of first place, so I have trouble calling it a "lost season". The only veteran that you would be able to "sell" for a quality prospect is Lowe, and he's a Type A free agent. I'd rather keep him.

PrOPS? All I know is that his actual OPS is .641. If he was given a chance I would expect his OPS to be somewhere in the low-.700's, but I'm pretty confident Blake will be able to outproduce that for the remainder of the year.

156. yeah but Laroche's GAMR is only.634 while Casey Blake's is an astounding 1.234

'Gimme a minute, let me get it together.' - Bob Dylan

159 I guess I can't argue if you straight up dismiss my case.

101 Lets not try to trade our starting catchers again. Especially a guy with as much talent and ability as Russell Martin.

Who is better -- a gamer or a ballplayer?

158. How would Lowe be a type A free agent? What's the criteria? Do they consider win/loss percentage?

Jon Meloan speaks out on Dodgers trade

http://www.beloblog.com/Pe_Blogs/prosports/mlb/dodgers/

Considering Blake was Cleveland's starting right fielder in 2006, I'm wondering if he might not play there against lefties with Ethier sitting. Not that this would be my choice, but Torre isn't returning my phone calls.)

It would be a lost season if the D'Backs didn't make this a race again. As for people saying that Blake will be the 3rd baseman for the Dodgers in 09. Thats only if Ned survives this off season.

165 No one's quite sure but it's a pretty primitive system so wins are probably considered.

167
No, we can't keep Andruw's bat out of the lineup.

Defining PrOPS:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/introducing-props/

Andruw Jones cannot sit. We're chasing history here, people.

164 - The "gamer" just sent the "ballplayer" to the bench, if not the minors, so I guess we have our answer.

165 - Unsure, but it's been decided that he's pretty safely a Type A guy.

I think to some extent we're talking past each other.

Some of us think that Blake is not an upgrade at 3b even for 2008, because LaRoche could produce the same numbers (with better defense).

Others of us are saying that what LaRoche "could do" doesn't matter, because LaRoche isn't the reversion point. DeWitt is. In the absence of the trade, the expectation is that DeWitt was the starter, and Blake is clearly an improvement over DeWitt for 2008.

I think that both groups are correct, but, sadly, only the 2nd group's point matters (for 2008). Indeed, were this a DePodesta/Tracy-era deal, it's likely that many of us would be happier about the deal, because we'd say "finally, DePo gave Tracy a reason to bench his pet DeWitt - now LaRoche can get consistent playing time in AAA and be ready for next year."

It's hard to wrap my brain around the idea that Colletti might have done this to protect the team from Torre's poor judgment, and in fact, I don't believe that for a second, but it might work out that way.

Just as long as Blake is elsewhere next year.

Andruw Jones should be batting leadoff. Sure he has no speed and his bat is horrible right now, but he is a game changer, a ball player, and a gamer. He's also bald if that helps.

164

I don't know, but .830 is better than .665.

165 The Elias formula uses mostly counting stats. Lowe is definitely a type a.

172 - Consider me the eternal optimist, but if Andruw is hitting in the .160s in August with a productive Kemp, Ethier, and Blake (and a healthy if not productive Pierre) around, I just can't see how Torre continues to trot him out there.

175
But does he know how to lead off? Can he distract the baserunners thereby forcing them to give up a hit to Matt Kemp?

75 164 At least Colletti didn't call him a "professional hitter."

I dont' see how this is so bad, especially if it somehow pacifies Ned and keeps him from making any more moves. I can live with this, and I think it helps the club going forward this year.

174 - Excellent analysis, GB.

179
Distract the pitchers as a baserunner I mean.

I think you guys should start using "Casey" and "DeWitt" to talk about these two guys, instead of "Blake."

180 - (shudder)

179 Maybe we should get Jessica Alba to lead off?

184 - CB, BDW and ALR? OK?

179 Oh, I'm sure everyone is distracted when Andruw Jones bats. The crowd certainly is.

184 - I feel like I need to see Blake in a Dodger uniform before I can call him "Casey".

I wonder what we would have given up had McCourt not gotten Cleveland to pick up Blake's salary?

With Casey's acquisition does this mean Andruw bats eighth tonight?

191 - My guess
Pierre
Kemp
Martin
Kent
Blake
Nomar
Loney
Jones
pitcher

Colmnist Bruce Jenkins in the San Francisco Chronicle today, comparing the Giants and the Dodgers:

" . . . The Giants may be doomed for the next two or three seasons, but at least they have a plan: Don't trade Tim Lincecum or Matt Cain under any circumstances, while hoping that the core of prospects (Buster Posey, Angel Villalona, Nick Noonan, those on the current big-league roster and many solid arms in the minors) turns the tide. Things aren't as clear for L.A. general manager Ned Colletti, Brian Sabean's right-hand man for so many years. There are persistent rumors of discord in the Dodgers' front office, where tightwad owner Frank McCourt nixed a CC Sabathia deal (naw, that wouldn't have helped) and former scouting director Logan White is adamantly against trading prospects. There are signs that Matt Kemp, James Loney and Andre Ethier may finally be coming of age, and Colletti desperately needs that to happen. Through only partial fault of his own, his front office is being portrayed as a joke . , , , Huston Street would be a solid bet for the Dodgers, Brewers or any other interested team. He may not have an "out" pitch, along the lines of Lincecum's changeup or Brian Wilson's pure heat, but he's a tough-minded kid from good athletic stock. . . ."

So let me get this straight. Because Martin is firmly entrenched as the starting back stop, so would block Santana, who's playing very well at high A but admittedly is old for the league, some of you think he should be traded away for anything including a rent-a-player. I guess we don't learn from the mistakes of the past, like the last time a high prospect catcher was dealt. Too the fact that LaRoche had won the starting 3B job before he got hurt showed he could play at the top level and do well at it.

I don't know what to think about this trade, some Indian fans are ecstatic that Blake is gone (and say they would have taken some used balls and broken bats for him) and others thought is was terrible move. But Mark Shapiro is a much better GM than the one the Dodgers have so I'm leaning toward the 'we got taken' line. At best the move is lateral. It doesn't help but it doesn't hurt that much if at all.

What kind of financial shape is Frank in if the 4th highest attendance record is not enough for him?

Huston Street would be a solid bet for the Dodgers
The bullpen is not a problem.
Jenkins is ridiculous.

193 - What's the difference between the Giants' plan and the Dodgers' plan, if you strip away the hype about the discord?

He seems to be criticizing the Dodgers for not being like the Giants, even though nixing the Sabathia deal fits in with the Giants' plan.

Casey just makes me think of Bob's cat.

I'm not a huge Frank McCourt fan, but calling him a tightwad is pretty irresponsible.

He's not.

197 - "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

199

Quit sucking up just to get picked to be on the statue of fans.

191

Make Jon's prediction true, start sitting Jones tonight, he's hurting the team...Big Time.

201 I want to be the one stealing a foul ball from a small child.

Immortalized!

197 . The main difference is that the Dodgers don't have any "a tough-minded kid from good athletic stock."

203

I want to be the one getting choked by Chad Kreuter.

204 - But we have a closer who looks like he ate a good-sized stockyard.

Cleveland just got Anthony Reyes from StL for next-to-nothing. Nice little restocking of the farm system they're undertaking today.

194 What Denavrrao? Did you want him to back up Martin?

208 - Dioner Navarro, perhaps?

207 Jeez, that's gotta be one of the worst sell-low scenarios in history. I realize they didn't get along with the guy, but he still has loads of talent. We should have offered Meloan for Reyes instead.

192 My Guess
1.Pierre lf
2.Kemp rf
3.Martin c
4.Kent 2b
5.Blake 1b
6.Nomar ss
7.LaRoche 3b
8.Jones cf
9.Pitcher
* Possibly Loney needs a break??

210 - Apparently they got a relief prospect named Luis Perdomo in return, but he wasn't in Cleveland's top 25 in the preseason BA handbook.

209
Okay him too. Did you want him to back up Martin for the next four years? Or even worse Navarro and Martin platoons? Or even worse than that Navarro's the starter and Martin's the backup? The Dodgers made a choice and decided that Martin's would be the better player over Navarro and traded Navarro to make sure they wouldn't second guess themselves. Did they get spare parts for Navarro? Sure, but they didn't give up much to get Navarro in the first place either. (Shawn Green?) With our current front office, you take what you can get. Its not like we got the smartest guy on the block with Ned Coletti.

So if the trade is official, when do they have to announce the corresponding roster move to get "Casey" on the 25-man?

Speaking of High A prospects, 19 y/o Austin Gallagher is OPSing 1.333 with 3 HR over the last 10 games (45 PA).

214
The Dodgers have until game time to make the decision. Doesn't anyone remember Eric Young tapping Wilton Guerrero on the shoulder telling him that he was the leadoff hitter and Wilton had been traded?

From ESPN rumor blog.

Now that the Dodgers have dealt for a bat, they'll also now turn their attention to pitching. Among names they're believed to be still pursuing: Colorado's Brian Fuentes, Baltimore's George Sherrill, Cincinnati's David Weathers and Oakland's Alan Embree. They're not believed to be currently interested in Oakland closer Huston Street.

Another possibility could be trading for Greg Maddux, who has told San Diego he would only waive his no-trade clause to accept a deal to L.A. The Dodgers could then move one of their current starters to the bullpen.

213
It's ridiculous that our expectations have to be so low.

217
David Weathers sure is the missing piece to a playoff team.

I don't think this board was this outraged when we dealt Guzman or Edwin.

194 - it's not that i don't think he should have been traded for anything. i'm just not sure he's anything more than an add on player.

209 - if Navarro doesn't get traded, Martin probably does.

221
I think the team always saw Martin as the future catcher. Yeah, Navarro was a luxury for us, but you do not trade a good player for a terrible one.

"he's a tough-minded kid from good athletic stock."

Jenkins sounds like a racing tout. Does he know something about Huston Street's lineage that is relevant here? Who sired him?

Or maybe he just saw "Brideshead Revisited."

Or maybe it's just a cool-sounding word and he couldn't think of anything else to say.

222 - Navarro was a luxury, but he was a cheap luxury. LA has paid their back-up catchers about a million bucks a year since they traded him. Dioner the All-Star is making 450K this year.

I'm not a violent person, but listening to Ken Rosenthal makes me want to punch him in the face.

220

We're not gonna take it. No, we're not gonna take it. We're not gonna take it anymore.

223
His dad was QB for the Texas Longhorns.

220 - Yeah it was. More. The outrage today is pretty scattered.

This trade really isn't that bad. As a poster above correctly noted, Blake now has (I believe) the best OPS on the team. Please note how dreadfully bad the dodgers offense is; the team is unwatchable to all but the most commited fans. Blake does improve the offense somewhat.

While Meloan and Santana were good prospects, neither plays a position of great need. The Dodgers, though terrible, are in a pennant race. And Blake does make the team better -- if only on account of stability -- over the short term.

Ned Coletti is the worst general manager in sports today. I don't think that is an assailable position. However, on the Coletti-blunder scale, this is small potatoes.

220 Guzman/Jackson? Yes, this board was pretty outraged.

Same issue, too. Agree that trading them was no big tragedy, but persistent frustration that Colletti should've gotten much more.

For a handful of lesser prospects, the Yankees got a much better hitter and a worthy LOOGY. Why can't our GM make deals like that?

I'm okay with Blake. I'm okay with trading Meloan and Santana. I'm just not okay with Blake for Meloan and Santana.

At this point wouldn't it just be better to DFA Jones? Might as well just cut our losses....

217 Is what scares me. Isn't refraining from dealing prospects for closers like GM 101?

220. Again, disappointment and outrage are not the same thing. Disagreement and outrage are not the same thing. I think the strongest word I've seen used so far is "horrible." My choice was "pointless."

I do not even care about the trade itself, it's the fact that we are blocking LaRoche again.

Just because we need to ratchet up the hyperbole a bit, this trade was worse than murder.

223 Jenkins writes a solid weekly notes column, and he has good sources. He is not afraid to offer a strong opinion. I like his stuff, and it's not just because we worked together on the Daily Cal sports staff at UC-Berkeley a few decades ago.

229 Ned Coletti is the worst general manager in sports today. I don't think that is an assailable position.

Sadly, I think you're completely wrong about that. I want Colletti fired as much as the next guy, but he is not the worst GM in baseball, let alone sports.

You'd rather have Sabean? Ed Wade? Jim Bowden? Whoever is the current patsy in Kansas City? I'm sure there are more who are still employed.

Colletti is terrible at his job, but it could be a lot worse (currently unemployed folks who could get rehired by someone, including McCourt). Kevin Malone? Dave Littlefield? The guy who was in Cincy whose name I can't spell (Kvrisky or somesuch)? Tommy Lasorda? Steve Phillips?

If I had spent $127 million on Juan Pierre, Andruw Jones and Jason Schmidt, I would be a tightwad.

Btw, I've been reading Bruce Jenkins here in the Chron for years and the guy has almost always been anti-Dodgers, sometimes even sneaking in potshots at them when it doesn't seem relevant. One time I was so irritated I actually wrote him a letter about it, though in hindsight that was kind of pointless. I don't know if he really feels that way or is just condescending to Giants fans to give them something they want to hear or what, but that's how it's been. The only time he's paid them compliments is when praising their farm system in recent years, and even then it was only together with praising the DBacks and the Rockies, and dissing the Giants.

And I don't mind him taking shots at Colletti, but his comments today seem both rootless and to be taken with not a grain of salt but a giant rock of salt.

The comparisons being made between Santana and Navarro are just a little silly.

At Santana's age, Navarro already had ~300 PAs in MLB. And we traded Navarro for a bad player who had managed to pitch over his talent level for half of a season. Casey Blake has been a plus bat in MLB over the last 4.5 seasons.

237 - Now don't drag Dayton Moore into that group.

When Sweeney comes back we're going to have a pretty serious group of proven gamers on offense. I like our chances with Nomar, Kent, Jones, Pierre, Blake and Sweeney. Those guys know how to scratch out enough runs to win a ballgame.

237 - That's been kind of my point here in the past, yeah. He's bad, but there are those who are even worse. And we could end up with one of them when he's fired! The only props I'll give Colletti at all compared to those other guys is he seems willing to (or maybe just forced to, yeah) listen to Logan White and co. before making moves. We can definitely do better, but there are quite a few guys who scare me even more.

239
I thought it was mandatory for Bay Area sportswriters and radio hosts to hate the Dodgers with unnecessary passion?

235 Er, I'm not sure we were asking for that...

Actually, anything about Los Angeles.

240 A long as you ignore 2005 and 2007.

244 - Generally (it's probably in their contracts), but I don't get that sense from some of their other writers, and Scott Ostler will mock the Dodgers but doesn't hate them (given all the time he spent in LA with the Times).

Oh well, at least Glenn Dickey has been banished to the SF Suxaminer.

Nady is batting seventh for the Yanks.

I just saw Lamont Jordan signed with the Patriots. I can now hate him.

237 You make a good point, but Coletti is just as bad as the names you list. The Pierre move was awful; Jones was laughable. What gets me, though, is the Schmidt signing. Coletti was familiar with Schmidt and had tons of contacts within the Giants organization. He paid a premium for a lemon.

Oh, and he replaced Depodesta, who was (and is) exceptionally good, overall. So, yeah, Ned is the poo-poo pladder.

I apologize for drifting from the topic of conversation.

237 - And isn't Bowden supposed to be unemployed this offseason? His name always seems to come up when the LA job is available. I guess those of us that want Ned fired should be careful what we ask for.

213. The point is, you don't trade a B-A prospect for rental or lower talent. Unless you think Navarro was worthless, which he wasn't, he was essentially given away for the likes of Hiendrickson and Hall. The same thing happened with Jackson for Baez and Carter. I'm all for using the lower prospects in the farm for trade bait but those trades should help the big club. Like I said this trade was at best a lateral move.

In re: DFAing Jones.

It's a funny thing, the way people think about sunk costs. McCourt is paying Jones one way or the other. So the only question that matters now is whether giving him playing time helps or hurts the team relative to the alternative (factoring in the cost of the alternative).

His defense is probably better than the alternative. His offense is, and is likely to remain, considerably worse. Ethier is cheap and better. Even Pierre is marginally better (and he's paid for too).

At what point will Torre and Colletti and McCourt realize that they're hurting the team (and, therefore, losing money) by hoping against hope that the Jones investment will start paying dividends? They're losing money when season ticket holders stay home and don't pay for parking and concessions. They're losing walk-up sales and merchandise sales. They're losing season ticket purchases for next season.

Btw, sorry if this was mentioned before but doesn't it seem this year as if Ned checks with Logan White, not just McCourt, about potential trades. Don't you think White signed off on this one? If so, I'm kind of willing to defer to White. (If not, well, that sort of counters the impression I got over previous couple of months, if not before.)

243-

If that's the case, we might as well just have Logan White making the decisions. Colletti has made some head scratching moves, but now it's as if the guy doesn't have the slightest clue as to what he's doing. Pierre? Jones? Schmidt?

The most irritating part is that if we used payroll wisely with our young cheap players we could very well have the best team in the NL...instead we spend money on the Nomar's, Pierre's, Schmidts etc.

234 Blocking LaRoche is the one element that doesn't bug me. He's going to get his chances. Blake is a competent substitute for Kent on his days off, in fact he's Kent slump insurance. Blake is also going to take days off and LaRoche will get worked in. If the Dodgers fall out of contention, which remains a strong possibility, LaRoche will get even more opportunities. I think this year is kind of a write-off for LaRoche, hopefully one from which he'll learn a few things. I see him emerging out of ST 09 as the clear winner at 3B. His performance so far this year hasn't earned him the job, admittedly mostly because life is unfair. But this deal exerts a positive gravitational influence on the long-term 3B situation, and LaRoche will be the primary beneficiary.

Unless the GM trades him tonight.

Also, a tremendous move for the Yankees today.

Xavier Nady = .330/.383/.535 [13 HR]
Jason Bay = .289/.383/.537 [22 HR]
Nate McClouth = .277/.352/.532 [21 HR]

Nady, although he's having a career year, might be a great catch for the Yankees. That's a formidable, exciting outfield.

250 Ay caramba. Good I can hate him more now, too.

Back to laundry, sigh.

Hacksaw: Casey Blake will bring some "fire and spit" into that clubhouse.

260 Better move the trashcan over by him, then.

We're all being LAT'd by the way. I think Jon started a NP.

254-

If he's paid for anyways, you're right, just DFA him. At this point, Jones basically brings nothing to the table. If we want to take this division and get into the playoffs, we're going to need to have Eithier in the lineup every day rather than riding the pine so we can watch Jones K four times.

NPUT

258. Where'd Nady go to school?

Oh yeah.

247

I was looking at the period as a whole. He was average in 2005 and 2007. He was well above average in 2004, 2006, & 2008 (so far). Overall, he has been a plus bat over this period and has a far better track-record relative to his position than Hendrickson did when we traded for him.

I'm curious what prospect package it would have taken had Cleveland not picked up the remainder of Casey Blake's contract (McCourt seems committed not to let Colletti spend any more of his money after Pierre/Schmidt/Jones.

Cleveland is putting Meloan back in the Bullpen at AAA, and I didn't agree with the reasoning behind moving Meloan back to thr rotation, especially just to let him get blasted in AAA Vegas (and similarly why we keep Greg Miller there), it can't be good for a young developing pitcher's confidence (or trade value).

If the Red Sox decide to try and trade Manny (recent speculation) or put him through Waivers in August, are we interested? What would we trade for him?

I have seen quite a few people mention the possibility of LaRoche being dealt away, possibly for a relief pitcher, now that Blake is in town. What about the fact that Blake can play a corner OF position? We've all heard Kemp's name thrown around in numerous trade rumors over the past couple years. Could the acquisition of Blake be setting up a trade of Ethier and/or Kemp as opposed to LaRoche? I think the Rays and Mets were trying to trade for Blake to play OF for them. My thoughts could be a long shot, but we all know Ned is a wild card.

It looks like Manny Ramirez might be available...

224- Good old fashioned hindsight says we could sure use another catcher so Martin could be an everyday infielder. Realistically, that would have only worked if the organization treated Willy Aybar with the same confidence as Andy LaRoche.

266 - We have a gold glove centerfielder and a proven leadoff hitter.

Oh, the RED Sox? Not the ones with Ozzie? Well, that'll be tougher.