Teammates say Jones wants no part of a return to Los Angeles, where he was a target of angry fans for his poor performance.

It's like Rick Vaughn being scared to go to the bullpen.

I hear Pitt is playing Jeremy Brown.

1
What is that from?

2
Andruw Jones auditioned, but was turned down because of the color of his skin.

3 Sorry.

http://tinyurl.com/69v3qa

I want to know who will play Chad Bradford.

2 - I was gonna go for that joke!

I also thought about making a Schindler's List joke, but I'm not Seinfeld.

Never got a chance to comment on the last thread, but I have to say I appreciate Depo and his writing. I didn't follow the Dodger management closely enough when he is around, but I wish he was still here. I just can't imagine Ned ever writing something so well about the current situation.

So, who would you be willing to trade for Peavy?

is= was

So, who would you be willing to trade for Peavy?

Probably easier and more meaningful to list the "untouchables" instead.

9 - I don't think the Dodgers could make a trade for Peavy that wouldn't rip up their insides too much.

2008 LA Dodgers NL ranking-
ERA 1st
Runs Scored 13th

I think we need to address the offense more than the pitching. Let's re sign Lowe and spend what's left on scoring runs.

12

That is what I am thinking too, but I would be willing to trade Kemp with some other prospects. I mean this is Jake we are talking about.

Manny has another reason to pull for the Red Sox.

http://tinyurl.com/62lb2b

My guess is that the Dodger players probably voted more than 1/3 of a playoff share for Manny.

13

Once again, I would love to have Lowe come back. But I think all signs point to him not wanting to stay

13 Lowe's So. Cal. home is already on the market. It would be quite paculiar if he put that on the market with the possibility of returning to L.A., but I'm just speculating.

"Inside Sources" reveal that Lowe felt underappreciated by the Dodger organization.

I got that from the LATimes.

Ya know, the Dodgers really have holes right now at 1B, 2B, SS, 3B, and LF, not to mention the starting rotation.

That's a lot.

1B will presumably go to Loney, who was worse than average offensively. We're left having to hope that he improves and makes it up to average, which isn't very exciting.

The other 3 infield positions are up for grabs. DeWitt will probably get a shot at one of them, which isn't thrilling. He doesn't suck, but he's far from really good.

That leaves SS and either 3B or 2B to fill.

Plus probably at least 2 spots in the rotation.

Plus left field.

Plus we're already spending a ton of money on two outfielders we don't want to use.

Well done, Mr. Colletti. (Which is not to say we don't enjoy watching your team).

"Inside Sources" reveal that Lowe felt underappreciated by the Dodger organization

I would guess that's somewhat common for a guy who was acquired by the previous GM.

19

But when you figure in the low cost for Loney, it is almost a no brainer.

As much as I love baseball, that doesn't seem like it would be a very interesting movie. I mean, what's the climax? Kevin Youkilis becoming a star in Boston?

20 I would be more upset with lack of run support. Dude would have killer numbers if we scored more runs in his games.

19 I guess you and I are just different. That's what makes life interesting.

19 - Loney is a 17 VORP player, which is almost two wins. That's not "below average", though if you were looking at his 98 OBP+ you might come to that conclusion. But overall I get and largely agree with your major point, which is exactly why I wasn't thrilled to see the Dodgers pick up Manny; they are now left with a bunch of holes and fewer players to fill them with.

I'm scared to death of the prospect of Coletti dealing with DePo for Peavy.

17 - Maybe he's just anticipating being able to afford a bigger house.

they are now left with a bunch of holes and fewer players to fill them with

And with what they're paying Pierre and Jones, they're essentially paying to fill 3 holes but not actually filling any.

25 I don't think a 17 VORP in over 600 PA's is anything to be happy about. I hope Loney does develop but the years of .720ish OPS in the minors does scare me that he can do that in the majors. But the years of .875 gives me hope he can, I just don't know what to think of him.

I've read the latest draft of the script and it's more Major League than anything. They omit the '02 draft and the Bill James backstory entirely. More like a Billy Beane biopic with his cast of misfits overcoming the odds. Hopefully the new draft will have more of an edge. I was pulling for Vince Vaughn myself.

Maybe Paul DePodesta could play himself. Didn't he do some acting when he was younger?

Loney is a 17 VORP player

I have to think that Loney's VORPy value comes from being in the lineup, not so much from producing while he's there.

Just for fun:

Loney: 17 VORP in 651 PAs
Teixeira: 37 VORP in 234 PAs (with the Angels)

26

Good point. Call it off, don't answer the phone!

I can't imaigne any scenario in which the Padres deal Peavy within the division, much less to their main arch-rivals.

I hope they send him to the AL.

Even after we get Manny we still need to upgrade the offense and pitching staff. So I can't wait to see what happenes when we don't get him. 2028 here we come.

30 - Did you read the Chervin draft?

34 I can, if they get Kemp and Kershaw they'd be more than happy to.

The Moneyball movie idea is one I'm glad I'm not writing the script for. (Well, sort of. Actually, I could use the work. Never mind.) But the point is... where's the drama, exactly? Where's the cinematic scope? Feels almost like when people who've tried to adapt Marcel Proust to movies...

With Jason Schwartzman as Paul dePodesta! Or maybe Wil Wheaton.

I dont really like VORP either bc its a counting stat (not rate).

Regairfield did some analysis that when you include Loney's DPs, along with his suspect defense, that he was the worst player in the Dodgers lineup. I doubt he compares favorably across the board either.

The Dbax are in a similar position with Chris Young IMO.

Young players, that stagnate or dont improve, need to be moved before the rest of the league figures out they arent very good.

Friedman did that, albeit with greater risk involving former #1 pick Delmon Young, and got something more useful (Matt Garza).

I think the Dbax/Dodgers both improve themselves if they trade the childhood pals from Houston.

Josh Bell feature:

http://tinyurl.com/6lctf2

Ah 30 interesting...

Give it a love interest, say, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and then I'd like a terrorist attack at the ballpark in Act 3. Yes, good, let's spitball here.

35

The article on mlb.com about Torre was interesting. It seemed like he was more concerned about pitching than getting a bat. I guess he is expecting our young guys to develop more and get better, so someone like CC would be more important than getting Manny.

29 - but it isn't "below average", either, and he has the key merits of being 24 and cheap. On the other hand, he is dead last by VORPr among NL first basemen with 500 plate appearances or more. He looks perfect in the Howie Schultz role... now, if only we had a Jackie Robinson. :-)

Farewell, Levi Stubbs.

17 Tongue in cheek, I know...it's a pretty awesome house.

1 - Thanks for the sourcing. If Jones wants out and Pierre wants out, then we dump both of 'em! Of course, that won't happen without picking up some/most of their salary, which probably means there won't be a Manny happy return.

Unless he pulls a rabbit out of his hairpiece this winter, the Colletti Playoff Luster doesn't seem likely to last long. Too much baggage from his past mistakes remains.

but it isn't "below average", either

But it's only not below average as a counting stat, which depends on being the lineup.

46 - Unless he pulls a rabbit out of his hairpiece this winter,

LOL!

36 Yes the Chervin draft. I think the movie works best as a Glengarry Glenross cutthroat business tale. Billy Beane isn't that interesting as a person. Bill James' story is more fascinating but now you're talking an audience of hundreds.

44 Feed me Seymour.

Furcal, Schmidt and Jones each made more than Puljos last year. So this fan dosen't want to hear that we cant afford Manny.

34. Since it's within the Division and some reports have speculated on the Pads asking for a major league ready CF and 2 pitching prospects I would think the price would be at least Kemp, Kershaw, and possibly Hong-Chih Kuo or James McDonald. Not really worth it for us.

Ugh, a winter of Loney discontent. The holes are manageable, some will be plugged from the inside, some will be plugged from the outside, some will simply cease to exist because the player in question will get better. Did anyone not see what Ethier did this year after basically being written off as an average corner outfielder? Growth happens, those of you giving up on them have always had a negative opinion of them, the rest of you need to display some patience and not let the naysayers cloud your mind with what you know is right. Kemp, Loney, Martin, Ethier, and now DeWitt are our core. Give them a chance. I was as unimpressed with their 2008 season as anyone but the talent is there. Chase Utley was nothing at the age of these guys other then Martin/Ethier.

Sure the core is not as impressive as what the Rays are doing, but then again we have never been in the draft positions of the Rays. What we have is the money to build around the core. The Rays are totally dependent on their core.

25 - What hole did trading for Manny really open up?

I was a big Andy L supporter but have since soured on him big time. I think he is more a candidate to wash out than a candidate to be a productive 3rd baseman.

When I was at Dodger Town last January I asked a couple of the Minor League coaches about 3rd base and why the team was pushing Nomar instead of promoting La Roche. They rolled their eyes, I pushed the topic as the beers accumulated and they said that he was injury prone, had an attitude, and didn't like to work.

Talent isnt always enough, Andy got a bad rep here in LA and then turned off the Pirates by dogging it while hitting well under the medoza line there... That was his chance to rewrite the book on himself and he just did more of the same

We may have given up too much for Casey Blake, but I will never be convinced that the Manny move was a bad one. Even if La Roche turns out to be a great one, I think it was a good bet at the time.

Heck when was the last time any of us had such a fun and meaningful October?

I am sorry for feeling the need to keep throwing this out but if I continue to read negative things about my favorite player, Loney, then I feel prompted to comment that at least I know it might be coming from the same people that thought LaRoche was going to make major contributions to the Dodgers. Two wrongs will never make a right.

53. Instead of Sabathia or Peavy, I think I would try and take my chances with some combination of Smoltz and Randy Johnson with Schmidt, McDonald, and Stults there in case of injury. I think RJ would be a good mentor for Kershaw and Smoltz for Billz. But that is just my take and I'm pretty sure we could get both much cheaper in comparison to CC

I'm with you, man 53 and well said 54

There's no question the team will have holes before next season, and there's no question we all have some concerns about Colletti's ability to fill them, but the cupboard is far from bare. There's a lot of worry in the wrong places, if you ask me. The cupboard is a long way from bare in the minors, too.

The idea of a Moneyball movie seems ridiculous.

If A Jones doesn't want to come back to LA then I hope Mr Boras goes to work for his client and comes up with a bright idea on how Andruw Jones can play somewhere else. Must be a match of bad contracts somewhere out there. Maybe Jones for Schmidt/Pierre. Oh crap we own all the bad contracts.

and another thing...

It seems strange to me so many seem ready to throw out our 24 year old first baseman and yet so many others wanted to keep a 25 year old 3rd baseman who never produced, even for a week, at the major league level

I am not married to Loney, but I dont give him up for anything less than significant value - I really want to see what kind of ballplayer he is at 27, I think we will all want that guy in our lineup

53 - Agree. I remember many comments on many boards last offseason that said Ethier would likely not be more than what he was in 2007 and I think I have already read the comment that he will likely not be more than what he was this season. It just goes to show that these players will likely progress over the next 2-3 years and that is a comforting thought.

I was having this conversation with one of my buddies last night just trying to gauge value. If you were TB and you felt the need to trade Longoria, which players would you do a one-for-one trade?

I come up with a definate for, Utley, Pujols, Wright. I wasn't sure with such players as Hanley, Reyes, or Sizemore.

56
Sure you could get them cheaper and you would be lucky to get 1/2 a year of production from the names you mentioned. I'm down with CC big time, have little interest in Peavy at the price the Padres would need to make the trade worthwhile.

54
Well said.

55
Don't bury Andy yet. If the talent is there and work is what is needed then when the light bulb goes on he still might meet his expectations. I would do the Manny trade 100 times out of 100 times.

61
I don't think I trade him for anyone. Given his age and his contract he will probably be the best value in baseball over the next 5 years.

58 - "Maybe Jones for Schmidt/Pierre."

It's just crazy enough to work!

Count me among the Loney supporters, by the way. For whatever reason, I have confidence in him.

55 - I am so with you on this one

You are Plashke-wrong if you think Loney will not improve on his 2008.

The Angels seem to want to keep Teixeira but he is an East Coast guy. If they can't sign Teixeira, they may want to try to sign Manny. Manny will only get a 4+ year contract from a DH league team.

Teixeira came up to the majors as a 3b/1b player and if he could play adequate 3b defense, I would rather sign him than Manny.

CC wants to hit and pitch for a NL team preferably on the west coast and he is not represented by Boras. Before I would commit anything to Furcal or Manny or any other Ffree Agent, I would sign CC and have a deadline for doing so.

Is Andre Ethier essentially a platoon player...?

vs. RH: .326/.392/.560/.952
vs. LH: .243/.325/.368/.693

61 - I trade him for no one.

It would take a package and a really impressive one

Project him 3 years into the future and that just might be the next "best player in baseball" for a decade

You are Plashke-wrong if you think Loney will not improve on his 2008

Like I said earlier, Loney has to improve by a not-small amount just to become average.

70 - May your Fantasy team be infested with 15 LaRoche clones.

59

I don't think anyone is talking about trading Loney for nothing. But if we could sign Tex and use Loney to fill one of the pitching holes with someone decent, than I don't think you can just write it off.

It seems strange to me so many seem ready to throw out our 24 year old first baseman and yet so many others wanted to keep a 25 year old 3rd baseman who never produced, even for a week, at the major league level

Here's why:

One (Loney) has been given a chance to prove what he is, which some here dont believe is good enough for 1st base production.

The other (LaRoche), was never given a chance to play an entire season, or 3 (like Loney has been).

If LaRoche plays a whole season and sucks, then you can believe that some here who liked LaRoche will begin to change their minds about him. However, he still needs that chance.

Loney's been given enough experience to form a solid opinion about him. LaRoche, to this point, hasnt been.

70 ...just to become average? Wow, seriously?

I guess we agree to disagree.

He clearly needs to improve, I'll agree with that, though.

66 He doesn't have a ring in a box though, so how good can he be?

Speaking of which, say, Juan, how does banishment to Cincy sound to you?

72 - That is close to saying sign Teixeira and return Loney to pitching.

I will never understand all this skepticism of a 24yo Loney. Save it for when he is 26. Besides TEX, realistically, who is going to be available and better than Loney for the next couple years?

By the way... they are not going to pay Teixeira!

I can't look at Bay and not think of Manny. At least not yet. Bay is like the dutiful, pretty second wife who does everything right … and yet, I can't stop thinking about the soul-wrenching tramp who married me first and broke my heart.

If I learned anything about Drew over the past two years, it's this: You have to start every clutch Drew at-bat thinking about the worst things that can happen -- in this case, a double play or a called third strike -- and once you cruise through that process, it's OK. Does this make sense? Of course not.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/081017

My TV Guide listing for Dodger Thoughts didn't have a little {r} by it, so I didn't think it would be reruns today. I guess it's that Loney-is-inadequate episode again, the one I already deleted from my Tivo. What else is on?

Besides TEX, realistically, who is going to be available and better than Loney for the next couple years?

Any slugger that the team can put at 1st base.

Texiera will be a Baltimore Oriole.

Loney will be a Dodger, and will be above average in 2009.

Mark it eight Dude.

73 - The argument you make for LaRoche could also be made for every triple A player who never got called up.

55 i feel your pain, as I have been a huge Loney supporter ever sine his arrival. You'd think he'd receive a hero's welcome after the way he produced in these playoffs, but it will always be a divided camp until he does one thing...hits more homeruns..

78- No one is preventing you from attempting to discuss something else.

Of course, it'd be nice if you'd afford others the same courtesy rather than a snark.

80
Yup, if not an Oriole he at least will be playing for someone in the AL East.

I'd love the Vowel if he was interested in playing for us but he's not so we should move on without using him as a possible solution.

The Dodgers have to keep Loney as a matter of principle. In this era of lazily assigned nicknames (A-Rod, K-Rod, F-Rod -- MLB has more Rods than NASCAR), how often does one run across a "Weird Game James?"

I want to see a running gag involving a Joe Morgan cameo.....

73 - and I am saying that unless Andy becomes someone else he may never get that chance

By year end he was riding pine and splitting time for the Pirates when they had all the reason in the world to let him develop

You have to ask, what made the Dodgers willing to put Loney out there every day as a 24 year old and not let La Roche (who projects better looking at numbers) as a 25 year old?

Can't be simply organizational philosophy, must be something else - eh?

Why did the Dodgers become so willing to develop DeWitt at the major league level and not give that same chance to La Roche? DeWitt's numbers at any level never projected to what LaRoche projected to

Can't be organizational philosophy, can it?

Why did the Dodgers put up with perceived attitude from Kemp as he matured but not with La Roche?

I think it all points to something about Andy's character and attitude. As with most things in life, you can be a jerk in baseball if you are really really good, but until then, shut up, get dressed, and work your tail off

81- Except Laroche wasnt like "every triple A" player.

He was an exceptional minor league player at all levels.

If Laroche was just an average minor leaguer, no one would have a problem with him not getting a legit MLB chance, bc chances are he wouldnt be very good.

But when you destroy minor league pitching, are still relatively young, then I think its reasonable to withold thinking "he sucks", until he actually has a full season or two to prove it.

81
Not at all. Andy has quite a pedigree of success in the minor leagues that only a few can match. If he does not succeed in the major leagues he will be one of a handful of prospects who displayed power/patience/plate discipline in the minors at his age and did not succeed. He may actually end up being unique as Andrew and I were unable to find any prospect with his background who did not make an impact in the major leagues. Remember age relative to his league is the unique identifier here.

Does anyone know how to look up a player's sOPS+...? I can never find it on Baseball-Reference...

87 - A broken thumb?

Joe Morgan can't understand why Billy Beane chose to write and direct this movie.

83 Trying to be funny more than snarky.

Y'all are welcome to discuss whatever you want to discuss. I personally find repeated discussion about Loney in this way pretty repetitive, but yes, I can certainly step out of here for awhile if I'm alone there, or start a new conversation.

Okay, here's one, third baseman of the future -- DeWitt, Josh Bell, Pedro Baez or
TBD?

This is going to be a long off-season, isn't it?

87- You have to ask, what made the Dodgers willing to put Loney out there every day as a 24 year old and not let La Roche (who projects better looking at numbers) as a 25 year old?

You just cut to the root of the entire Dodger organizational problem.

I dont have an answer, other than I wish the Dodgers had different management.

Most clubs will give their highest ceiling talents the most chances to fail. With LaRoche, he was blocked by Dewitt/Nomar/Blake & then shipped off.

93- Gallagher's my pick, but 3rd base seems to have the least depth in the organization.

Btw, I'm with y'all in the Andy-didn't-get-enough-of-a-chance camp, given how he looked in the minors. I still think he'll amount to something. But on the other hand between Joe's report and what I've heard from Dodger scouts and management, and the Pirates, there is clearly something dubious about him, too, that isn't just coming out of thin air. I hope for the best, though.

I also know the Dodgers have had other prospects over the years that have had remarkable minor league careers and didn't amount to much, but some of them had altitude-inflected stats and probably didn't have quite the talent that ALR does.

57 I don't think anyone is saying (with the possible exception of D4P) that the cupboard is bare. But I think regfairfield said something rather profound yesterday when he pointed out that it's much more expensive to improve a team full of okay players. That's what the Dodgers are right now. Bills is great, and I love our bullpen, but no one else currently under contract was even close to great this season (Ethier, even with his great spurt, was about average for his position). A few have the potential to be great, but, for Loney in particular, does he have the potential to be better than average at his position? I don't think so. At some point, even cheap players need to be good players.

I am not Ned apologist, but I don't envy his job this offseason. And yes, I realize that he hamstrung himself.

95 Wasn't there something about his defense being suspect at third, though, or am I thinking of someone else? He didn't seem to project well at 3rd from what I recall. I like his bat, though.

If anything I think this conversation is showing how difficult this off season will be. I would hate to be working in the FO. Can you imagine all the different possible scenarios?

Other than when Loney had an injured wrist he excelled in Spring Training while LaRoche was always a late starter. LaRoche had a strained shoulder and back problems and finally when he may have received his chance to be a regular, hurt his thumb. Combine that with several spring trainings where he displayed the opposite attitude that DeWitt displayed, added up to what can happen to a career.

97

And that is what makes the Pierre/Schmidt/Jones and Nomar signings so painful.

79 - if you can't name one, that is a big problem.

I can see both sides of the Loney coin. On the one hand, he's young and liable to improve. On the other hand, there's nothing in his minor league numbers indicating he'll be the kind of hitter you want to put at first base. The utter collapse of his power numbers from 2007 (a drop of .062 as measured by ISO) is not a little disconcerting.

Alas its time for Loney bashing again. He drove in 90 runs, was one of the few clutch hitters in the NLCS, but he's the problem. I don't get it.

90 You have to go into the individual player's splits.

It sounds like we all just need to work off some stress. So, I will ask one more time:

Any takers on a softball game next weekend? Or, if we can't get enough to field two teams, we could do wiffle ball or over the line.

Loney is the last thing on NedCo's mind. Let's talk about the 2009 roster in realistic terms.

103

That is not a fair response to the discussion right now

87 - fair and a big part of it. But that has been part of his rap too, some guys are just bandaids. When he crushed at Las Vegas and was called up, why didnt he get the job?

I was a HUGE Andy supporter, and even though I was excited to get Manny I was really bummed that it took Andy to get him but....

What Andy did post the trade made me feel a heck of a lot better about the move - you can't say he didn't get a chance in Pittsburgh and you cant say that we would have been happy with those numbers

My real point isnt that Andy LaRoche sucks - he projects to be great, was great at every level, and still might become a nails 3rd baseman. Not Longoria or Wright, but that next level of pretty dang good

What I am saying is...
The Manny trade was a good one at the time and even a better one today - we were 7 wins away from winning the world series. Trading for Manny didn't open up any off-season question marks that wouldn't still be here if we had LaRoche.

Plug Andy's numbers at Pittsburgh into the Dodgers, subtract Casey Blake and Manny, and add Pierre. What do you get? Missed playoffs this year and STILL a major hole / questionmark at 3rd base for next year

As for Loney, I think we have bigger holes to fill and I personally like his game enough to see where he is at 26 or 27. If his power numbers dont jump (as many hitters do when they mature), then we may need to make a move

97

Ethier's OPS of .885 was hardly average for his position. He was tied for 4th in MLB among RFs with Jermaine Dye and was .001 behind Vlad Guerrero.

106 exactly. Unless of course Loney is traded for Peavy.

104
You have to go into the individual player's splits

I think I only see t OPS+...

The thing that works in the Loney argument is that there is reason to believe he will improve. He has shown ability to hit for average, is still only 24 and still could end up becoming a 20 HR guy. He will never be a stud, but one thing we all agree on is that the Dodgers have some holes to fill and 1B is really nowhere near top of that list of holes for this offseason.

Regarding LaRoche, I think he will end up with a decent year next year. That being said, there is a lot of evidence that he will not end up being a stud either. He might prove me wrong, but it's foolish to say that we shouldn't have traded him for Manny because we have a lot of holes in 2009.

Of course now that I said that, scareduck is going to come in and say the Dodgers need to win 20 in a row to make the playoffs.

107 - not only is it not fair, it's misleading.

106 - I agree. Let's be realistic.

- Pierre and Jones for Longoria and Crawford.
- Sign Sabathia for 4 years, $12 million (total).
- Nancy Bea reclaims her rightful role.
- Jon Weisman becomes director of baseball operations.

110 The last position that the Padres would want in a Peavy trade is a 1B. The last!

114 You want to pay $12 million for someone who pitched 333 innings consistently on 2 days rest this year. Nuts.

93
I think DeWitt has the upper hand for the next two years. Gallagher at 6'5 may end up being the 1st baseman of the future if he develops some power during the ball games and Loney does not develop. Every time I've asked about his defense I've been told he will move. Even at 19 he was unable to crack the top twenty of the BA breakdown of the California League. Josh Bell is a question mark after missing most of the year. Next year will be a big year in determining what his future holds. Switch hitting guys with power don't grow on trees. Baez regressed so much that he looks to be years away.

DeWitt at age 22 posted an OPS+ of 88. Alex Gordon at age 23 posted an OPS+ of 87. Ron Cey was 25 before he cracked the every day lineup. DeWitt is not being given enough credit for what he did at his age. Seems like alot of people think he is a hole at 3rd base. Even when he wasn't hitting his defense was good enough to keep him afloat above the real holes of 3b. I would think an OPS+ of 100 with his defense of this year would be better then a hole. For those who don't think he can muster an OPS+ of 100, you may be right but for three months in his age 22 season he did just that including a month of playing out of position during a period where every game was a must win.

112 - Regarding LaRoche, I think he will end up with a decent year next year. That being said, there is a lot of evidence that he will not end up being a stud either. He might prove me wrong, but it's foolish to say that we shouldn't have traded him for Manny because we have a lot of holes in 2009.

Foolish? Nonsense. The Dodgers are now, at this very moment, in a worse position than they were before they made the Manny trade. Chickens are coming home to roost, my friend.

James Loney is not an issue on this ball club.

Series changing grand slam in the NLDS.

7 for 16 with three walks in the NLCS.

We have much deeper holes that must be filled. Thinking about first base when the position is already filled rather than talking about 2B, SS, 3B and LF is a waste of time. James Loney is our first baseman. It doesn't matter who is playing first base if we have junk surrounding him. Ned & company have some very serious decisions to make. First base is not one of them.

I understand the desire to upgrade at a position but why spend resources at one place when there are so many other gaping holes?

Why go after James Loney who was our best player (not named Manny) in the postseason?

First baseman for the Dodgers is James Loney.

I think Loney has potential to improve a bit. He's young and I think he can develop power still. If he can do that he's a pretty above average player, especially for his salary.

I just have to think that we can more sizably improve our team by going after a guy like C.C. (especially if Lowe is gone) or Manny (so we don't have to trot out JP every day) than try to replace Loney.

106

But it is hard to even know what is on Ned's mind because he doesn't talk with the fans like Depo.

120 Obviously how good a player is has nothing to do with his salary. You get my point. He's a good value if blah blah blah.

If I'm reading it correctly, Loney's 2008 sOPS+ at 1B was 91.

116 - But he was consistent!

That's why I said it Zak!

I think Torre and Bowa soured on LaRoche. His attitude and work ethic, coupled with him being injury prone and DeWitt being the kind of player they both like, was the difference. The numbers he put up in Pittsburgh on a team going nowhere (no pressure) and playing with his big brother indicate the Dodgers were right in trading him for Manny. I think the wild card in who plays where on the infield next year is how well Tony Abreu heals — if he heals at all. He's been a forgotten man all year. I would be very happy with a starting infield next year of Loney, Abreu, Furcal and DeWitt. Flop Abreu and DeWitt if you want. As they get older, Loney and DeWitt will get stronger and develop more power. Same with Kemp and Ethier. We still need the big power bat Manny would supply and I have little confidence that Andruw Jones will bounce back and be able to provide it. One bad year is simply a bad year, two in a row is something else.

109 How many PAs for Ethier? Is it reasonable to assume that his OPS would be lower given an entire season's of at bats, given such an awesome swing at the end of the season?

But your point is valid. Ethier is actually my favorite player on the team, so I hope he can continue to be a near-900 OPS player.

Let's face it, the real problem with the Dodgers looking ahead isn't the Manny trade, Loney projections, LaRoche missing, or most of the other things we are banging our collective noggins against the wall about...

The real problem for 2009 are the contracts for Pierre, Schmidt, and Jones...Without those contracts I LOVE where the Dodgers are sitting

Ned did a good thing by getting Manny, but he has been a terrible GM for backing us into this corner (not to mention the value pissed away trading other valuable talent for little in return)

118 I like you Rob. I really do. I like your passion, but we will forever disagree on this one. As far as the Dodgers being worse since the Manny trade, you have to explain that to me because that statement does not stand on its own. LaRoche has not shown anything yet so you can't say that he will be the answer next year. They made a lot of money off of Manny, and no matter what one thinks of McCourt, he has shown a willingness to spend on the Dodgers. There revenue increases from attendances, merchandise sales, playoffs appearance, TV viewers and probably other things that I am missing due to a direct Manny effect. That might help us secure a free agent in the future we may not have considered or been willing to spend on. Plus we will get two supplementary draft picks. For LaRoche and Morris. I don't see how we're worse because of this trade. If you can put your response in a coherent way, if you have a decent response, that'll be much better than you spewing vitriol towards me.

Keep Loney. How good was Adrian Gonzalez 3-4 years ago? I do wonder about Loney's concentration, he appears to lapse mentally on defense.

117 - Gordon also had an OBP almost 100 points over his average. Loney has never done that.

125 I missed the underlying humor.

Even if LaRoche becomes a star, which is unlikely, the Manny trade was a great one for the Dodgers.

128 Agreed.

Maybe I need to clarify my position. I don't think 1b/Loney is a hole that needs to be filled. But, I do think it is possible that he could be part of a trade to fill other holes, coupled with signing Tex. I am not saying this is the way to go, but I think it is interesting to think about.

133 Agreed... if only for the simple reason that for one reason or another, he was not going to be a star in LA.

127

Ethier had 596 PAs.

105 Interested in some softball. Where at?

129
I don't even care if LaRoche would have been the answer next year. Creating one hole while acquiring a player who took the team within a real shot of the world series is a trade off any team should do. I didn't understand the criticism at the time when it looked like it was a fools play and I certainly don't understand it after he proved to be the missing link. Let the chickens come home to roost, the last two months were pure gold.

128 --

Agreed, the opportunity cost relating to Schmidt, Pierre and Jones is huge. Pretty amazing that the Dodgers reached the NLCS with that much dead money on the books.

I consider myself to be rather neutral to Loney, however at the same time it seems to me that this team is really in need of at least one star quality hitter so my thought for this offseason would be

Sign Tex (18 – 20 Mill per) – I think his contract will be much more reasonable than Manny and given his age I believe he will be able to be productive for the duration

Sign Ellis (7 Mill per)- infield defense and some pop

Trade Loney for Beltre, I think this could happen but I am not that familiar with Seattle's system, heck throw in DeWitt and see if they would be willing to take Jones' contract off of our hands (maybe salary neutral)

Let Dejesus and Hu compete for short and then hopefully the Dodger will have some 15+ Million to throw at a starting pitcher (heck I would give it to Lowe if he would take 2 years plus an option)

This way the team would have good pitching, outstanding defense and reasonable power all for close to our current budget

118 - you keep saying that but why?

If Andy posted this for us the last 3rd of the season would you be really happy about penciling him in at 3rd base - his numbers from Pittsburgh

G AB AVG OBP SLG
49 164 .152 .227 .232

He may end up great, but that ain't no sure thing....

stats for James Loney and Rafael Palmeiro are almost identical at the same age. I'm not saying he'll be as good as Raffy, but you can't say he won't....

139 I totally agree with you. That is what I am saying. The Manny trade stands on his own, no matter what. But if someone was still saying it makes the Dodgers worse, well, a reasonably argument would go a long way.

Jon probably doesn't need me to suggest any subject matter, but I would love to read his take on whether the Dodgers need to reseed the farm system.

Due to graduation, trades and attrition, it's been thinned quite a bit.

Dodgers apparently could get up to five compensatory draft picks from this crop of FAs. Would love to see them keep their first-round pick, add 2-5 comp. picks and spend as aggressively in the draft as Boston does.

Who are the Dodgers available trading chips? I can't think of a position with enough depth that would allow us to trade to fill a hole without opening another up.

Where is a good place to find a list of pending free agents?

stats for James Loney and Rafael Palmeiro are almost identical at the same age

Rafael Palmeiro did not take steroids!!!

139 - amen

We had October baseball and got to watch a hitting display that was so awesome I still stuggle to comprehend just how good Manny was in the playoffs and I have watched each game at least twice on the Tivo - Manny was so very plainly beyond what we can rightly expect of mere mortals

The question about Loney is not for 2009. He will be the starting 1B and given every chance to improve.

The question is AFTER 2009. If the Dodgers were able to sign Martin, Kemp, Ethier, Billingsley, and Kershaw to reasonable 5- or 6-year deals right now, I think most of us would support that, even with Martin's and Kemp's regression this year.

But Loney? That's more complicated, for all of the reasons that have been discussed. The issue is, though, if he does make a big step forward at some point, it will be just in time for him to make a big payday.

James Loney isn't the problem. He was our second best hitter after Manny!

145 You suggested that yesterday, too, and I still think that regardless of whether the Dodgers need to do that -- you have a real point there -- the Dodgers won't do that. I think most fans expect the Dodgers to build on their NLCS season, but a rebuilding year would end up with more losses than wins and Ned would lose his job. Next year might be bad anyway, but not because Ned is committing to rebuilding.

129 - As far as the Dodgers being worse since the Manny trade, you have to explain that to me because that statement does not stand on its own.

The Dodgers are worse right now, full stop. They have nobody at third, unless you want to move DeWitt back there. They have nobody at second base. James Loney is serviceable at first, but just that. They have superfluous and bad outfielders on expensive contracts. (They also appear to have run Derek Lowe out of town, but as that is not a consequence of the Manny trade, it is not an issue at the moment, though it will be of high priority in the offseason.) That is the legacy of Ned Colletti, and that was a known from the moment the Dodgers acquired Manny.

LaRoche has not shown anything yet so you can't say that he will be the answer next year.

But his power has always been better than DeWitt's. Pretending he is of no value because he has "not shown anything yet" is the first step in writing off the farm system altogether.

They made a lot of money off of Manny, and no matter what one thinks of McCourt, he has shown a willingness to spend on the Dodgers. There revenue increases from attendances, merchandise sales, playoffs appearance, TV viewers and probably other things that I am missing due to a direct Manny effect.

Two months of Manny equals a quality free agent? As they said repeatedly in my college math textbooks, show your work. First, regular season attendance was actually off from 2007 (3,730,553 in 2008 vs. 3,857,036 in 2007). Even accounting for the four postseason games they played, assuming sellouts at 55,000 each, that's a total of 3.95M attendance. Yes, it's higher than it would have been otherwise, but it's a fractional improvement -- and also has to be directly shared with the players.

Plus we will get two supplementary draft picks. For LaRoche and Morris.

For Manny and Blake, though it's questionable what sort of compensation pick Blake will yield (my guess is a B type).

As far as vitriol, I have tried very hard to abstain from personal attacks. If you think you're being personally attacked, that's one thing, but if you don't have a defense for your arguments, or don't want to defend them, then that's something else entirely.

As someone else upthread observed, the problem the Dodgers have is that they are competent; they got a rent-a-Manny for two months. Now what?

Once we get CC we will have the big bat we need.

152
You act as though the two months of rent a manny didn't matter. It might be the best two months of baseball that many fans have seen for 20 years. And the price was a rookie 3rd baseman who may or may not pan out. Did we create a hole at 3rd base, maybe. Given how Torre allocated time I'd have bet heavily that DeWitt was going to be starting at 3rd base in 2009 even if LaRoche was still on roster.

The problem as has been noted are the dead weight contracts not the Manny trade. You have held onto your belief that the trade was unacceptable unless it brought us a World Championship. I would say that 99% of the fans found the results very satisfactory.

Once we get CC we will have the big bat we need

Can he play first base...?

152 - I think you have to show your math too

How is this team worse because of the Manny trade?

Pretend he is a Dodger and plug in LaRoche's numbers for Pittsburgh and tell me we have an answer at third for 2009 that you would feel good about. Andy has had over 300 major league at bats, that is not an insignificant number. He may end up quality, but if we had him today the questions about 3rd would be just as persistent and troubling

154 - good work. August, September, October did happen, Manny did happen, the wins did matter, and they did bring much joy into my life. I appreciated them immensely and this year of my life is better because of those wins, those performances, those memories. When you can say that with a smile on your face how can you call the trade that made all that possible a bad one....

152

Laroche's IsoP in the majors is .089. DeWitt's is .120.

My awareness of the Dodgers began in the early '90s, so this was the most success I've ever seen for the Dodgers. I'm OK with the Dodgers paying a price next season and beyond (the realization of that price is still to be seen, but ex ante, giving up Laroche was a high price) for the success we enjoyed this year.

119 This is where the chorus comes down upon you about sample sizes. And the chorus is right.

157 - with nearly an identical sample size

159

Gibson's sample size in the '88 WS is as small as it gets.

158 - You have a point that 300 at bats does not define a career at age 25. BUT, as far as sample sizes are concerned 300AB is also not an insignifcant number either

We all made up our mind about Andruw about 100 at bats in. And our minds were right

Despite the two losses this week, I raised my post-1990 Dodger Stadium winning percentage by .002 this year!

I think all this early '09 roster speculation could aptly be called `The Twelve Dreams of Dr. Sardonicus'.

159
Maybe the chorus is right but without Loney's turn around grand slam in the 1st game we may never have gotten that 1st road postseason victory in 20 years. With that one shot he will have left an undeniable imprint on 1000's of fans in a way that countless 1st baseman since Steve Garvey have been unable to do.

163 You're gonna have to work on that :)

163- now that is something I can get behind.

I wish I could say the same about my postseason record. My only playoff game in person this year was game 4. My chest still hurts when I think about it

96 "the Dodgers have had other prospects over the years that have had remarkable minor league careers and didn't amount to much"

See Brock, Marshall, Stubbs.

162
I was not trying to say anything about sample size.

But since you bring it up, I'd like to say that the concept of sample size seems to be terribly misunderstood and/or abused around here.

Of course, it might just be me that misunderstands the use of the term "sample size" in this context.

165 - You're forgetting Hee Seop Choi's walk in 2004!

169

I meant to write 159 - my bad

I am pretty much a posting novice - I dont know how to do that cool link trick to the referring post that others do

that and posting while I am on conference calls with clients makes for some silly errors.

PS - I think I did the same thing (referred to the wrong post number) further up on board but was too lazy to do anything about it

San Diego pitcher Jake Peavy, the Cy Young Award winner currently being dangled in trade talks, initially indicated to the Padres that he would prefer a deal to one of five teams -- Atlanta, St. Louis, the Chicago Cubs, the Los Angeles Dodgers and Houston Astros.

But because San Diego apparently isn't close to honing in on a deal with any of those five, sources say that the Padres are reaching out to other teams, as well.

- ESPN

So did any fans leave Fenway early last night?

I would absolutely love a softball game. I'm trying to get back in shape and hopefully find a team in the LA area that actually practices (I'm hoping to be half decent at a fun MIF position while not embarrassing myself), and trying to improve on my pierre-esque whiffleball performance sounds grand!

And the last two months of baseball has been the second best sporting shortish period of time in my time as a fan, second only to the Colts improbable playoff run in 06. Third is the road up to the 2000 NBA Finals.

If I were casting Moneyball

Billy Beane: http://tinyurl.com/6bm68x

Paul D: http://tinyurl.com/64p7oj

Joe Morgan: http://tinyurl.com/eomec

173 Chip Caray or whoever it was said something like "and the Fenway faithful are starting to leave the stadium" at some point.

And then I grumbled something along the lines of "gee, I thought only Dodgers fans did that."

173 The cameras showed fans filing out in droves after the Rays increased their lead to 7-0.

imagine how they felt this morning.

TBS had a money shot of people leaving after the score went 7-0. They need to get that on the YouTube.

154 - it's not that they didn't matter, it's that it won't matter past the end of the season. Bottom line is the Dodgers are not making a run at being a consistently great team; they're willing to settle for two months of really-good-ness. That's how the Mets were run for a very long time. I do not want to see the Dodgers emulating that path, but that's exactly what they're doing.

165 Maybe we can get Feliz, Dobbs or Brett Myers to be our future first baseman. They all had hitting stats just as good as Loney's this postseason!

My point in mentioning sample size when citing postseason stats was about evaluating a player's value going forward. One can have a soft spot in one's Dodger heart for a player and still want to upgrade the following season as that player's position.

Is Loney the highest priority problem on the team? Nope. Probably not even the 5th highest priority for this offseason. But it is much easier to find a league average 1B than a quality middle infielder. And I agree with the previous poster who said that we have a decision on our hands after 2009 about extending Weird Game James.

171 Joe, just put the comment you wish to link to inside [].

To bold, put comment inside asterisks comment

To underline, _ word _.

181 Sorry, not too clear. To link, put in side square brackets, [ ].

179 et al - We've had this conversation often enough before so I'm not exactly sure why we're having it again - no new ground is being broken.

I think there are points to both sides. I think the Manny deal by itself would hardly be a problem if there weren't several bad moves proceding it. The biggest killer for the post-2008 Dodgers isn't losing LaRoche and Morris for Manny, it's losing Santana and Meloan for Blake - don't you think? And that ignores the goofing off on Navarro, Aybar/Betemit for Proctor, bad free agent signings, and so on, and so on.

Both sides are right. The Manny trade was worth it, and it was costly. But it was mainly costly for what preceded it. It's a difficult business, but I wouldn't waste time singling out the Manny trade as a negative. It's an uphill battle, and it's not even the best battle to pick.

179
My experience as a Dodger fan has conditioned me to settle for any period of reallygoodness.

Are you pessimistic about the Dodgers' chances going forward, or are you just saying we'd be better off going forward having not made the Manny trade?

D4P, I think the key for sOPS is to go into annual splits. B-R doesn't break it down relative to position for career splits.

here is a link to Loney's 2008 splits. It's showing sOPS as one of the columns (in between BABIP & tOPS):

http://tinyurl.com/5gzdmb

183

I am not convinced that the Manny trade in itself was all that costly.

We may very well have sold LaRoche at far beyond his value.

156 - How is this team worse because of the Manny trade?

Get back to me after Ned assembles the 2009 team. I've already explained that in 152 and I don't see any point in repeating myself.

162 - We all made up our mind about Andruw about 100 at bats in. And our minds were right

Because of the 572 at-bats before those, i.e. there was good reason to believe he was headed on a downhill slide before he was signed.

165 - I don't want to give people the impression that I think Loney is either bad or irreplaceable — for the right player(s), I would move him in a New York minute. He's not Albert Pujols or even Prince Fielder, which is approximately the kind of guy you want in that slot. But I think it should be absolutely clear that Loney's slam was a gift from a pitcher that had just walked his seventh batter of the game. Those who -- incredibly! -- point to his RBIs as a metric of greatness also need to be aware that Loney had more at-bats with runners in scoring position than any other first baseman in the National League:

http://tinyurl.com/6ehzzc

All that said, the Dodgers indeed have more pressing issues (the rotatation, the outfield) than finding a replacement for James Loney.

184 - Yes, I am pessimistic about the Dodgers' chances going forward, for two reasons:

1) Ned Colletti cannot tell a good player from a bad one (though Manny is so good even Ned couldn't be fooled)
2) This apparently applies doubly to anyone without a major league track record.

138 174

I was thinking the fields at the rose bowl/aquatic center. They are generally empty on a Sunday afternoon.

However, it takes at least 18 people to field two teams, so a wiffle ball game might be more manageable.

So, if anyone is interested, shoot me an email at: kevblewis at gmail dot com

I will create an evite from the emails I receive.

One thing I am sure of is that this off-season is going to be very, very entertaining.

It's amazing how winning gets the blood going. How reaching the NLCS, and potentially being 5 outs away from tied 2-2 heading into another home game, can make you feel like "it can happen again".

The lucky thing for the Dodgers is that I don't think the NL West is going to be very strong, again. Although there's an off chance a dark horse wearing Orange and Black could rise in the north, and we know the Dbacks will be tough with the best 2 pitchers in the division.

Now that we've tasted winning, the Dodgers off-season looms large. I think the potential is there to build another winning club because they have something that's essential in today's game-- a core group of young, cheap, talented players.

Let's say it takes a 3-year $30 million contract to re-sign Furcal. Given that parameter (regardless of who else is signed), who here would like to see him as a Dodger next year?

Here's a list of pending free agents, if anyone is interested:

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2002/02/2008-09-free-agents.html

Speaking of dark horses up north, when do they announce the Cy Young, right after the WS?

It feels strange, but I would actually cheer it being won by Lincecum.

191
I would like to re-sign Furcal, but that is the one position where we have a couple internal options in DeJesus and Hu. I would rather save money and go with one of them.

Too much injury risk with Furcal.

This argument is like that simpsons episode where homer enters the powerplant design contest.

Grimey: he just wont a design contest for children!

Lenny: yeah and he beat their brains out!

185
Thanks. I had eventually figured that out, which is how I got the 91 for Loney's 2008 sOPS+ at 1B.

191 I think the first Furcal deal was a huge bust (I'm surprised more people here don't hold it against Colletti).

Can somebody give me a good measure of how Furcal compares offensively relative to other shortstops?

197 It was in no way a bust. that was one of Coletti's best moves. We have Jason Repko to blame more than Ned.

[197, 198] The comparison will certainly depend on if you include only when he is healthy. That's the rub, right?

It was in no way a bust

There is at least one way in which it was a bust: Furcal played in just 333 out of 486 games the past 3 years, or 68.5%. And he OPSed .688 in 2007.

That's two ways.

I've always loved Furcal, thought he really brought something big to the Dodgers. Would love to re-sign him, but the injury issue is really tough. If he goes to Chicago or some other competitive NL team and has a big year, it would be awful.

200 I define a bust as an underachiever. Furcal was a victim of a freak injury in 2007, he didn't underachieve, nor was he damaged goods.

198
I guess it's debatable whether an average-hitting (relative to the league, not other shortstops) shortstop is worth $13 million per year, but certainly after the fact you'd have to say the deal was a bust, right?

202 If he wasn't damaged in 2007, nor did he underachieve, then what was he? Do you think he was just himself in 2007 and that 2006 and this year (when healthy) were outliers?

Jason Schmidt and Andruw Jones are the free agent busts.

204 He wasn't damaged goods a la Schmidt. He was injured in 2007. A freak injury at that.

Furcal was injured for nearly 2 of the 3 years he was here.

The contract didn't work out very well. That's not necessarily anyone's fault, but still.

Rob, again I think your argument towards me in 152 does not resonate with what I am saying. You said

The Dodgers are now, at this very moment, in a worse position than they were before they made the Manny trade.

And I disputed that. I'm not arguing with you about Colletti's competence or the Blake trade. I more or less share your opinion on those, maybe a little less extremely. You keep throwing the Blake trade at me or Loney being serviceable or Dewitt being bad... and that is not what I am talking about at all. The only thing I am saying is that the Dodgers are not worse off because of the Manny trade on 7/31. That's all. I think Jon sums it up in 183 where the problem is the deals preceding the Manny deal or the fears we have about future deals we have to make. But to argue that we have a lot of holes because of the Manny trade is facetious and nonsensical.

As far as the personal attacks, you are entitled to say what you want. But to argue about something that I am not even talking about and then saying "don't have a defense for your arguments" is immature. When we traded for Manny, you were confident it was the wrong move and you were adamant we would not make the playoffs. You were wrong. Abslutely wrong. You thought we would need an improbable run (20 straight?) to make the playoffs. Again you were wrong. Now you keep slamming the Manny trade when you still haven't explained how that one trade put the Dodgers in a worse position.

207 So would you re-sign him for 3/$30 million?

207 well, that was my point. Calling it a bust is outta line.

My 2 cents: 3/30 is not worth the risk, although I do believe in Raffy in general.

209 I would not. I would do a 1 year deal with an option and plenty of incentives.

Seeing him pull an '06 as a Cub would be tough though.

I see Furcal as a good signing at the time that did not work out. Of all the things I hold against Colletti, that is not one of them. A lot of GMs would have signed him for a seven year, eighty million or something.

Of course, you could argue that he might be worth 4 years 40 million going forward, but I would not be happy if Colletti gave him that now. That's why a 3 year deal was a good move at the time.

I don't even hold Alias Schmidt or Jones against Colletti. I had more reservations about the first than the second, but ultimately thought both would help.

Not that I want to debate the point!!!!

Jason Schmidt and Andruw Jones are the free agent busts

But they've been injured, just like Furcal. The only real difference is that Furcal played (poorly) through some of his injured time.

If Schmidt and Jones have good 2009s, are they still busts? And if so, why would they be any different from Furcal?

In theory every expected out you make or don't make on defense is worth roughly half a run so according to that here you go.

SS from 06-08. Vorp/+/-= Total value
1. Hanley 225.1/ -40= 205.1
2. Reyes 167.9/ +27= 181.4
3. Rollins 154.8/+42= 175.8
4. Jeter 171.3/-68= 137.3
5. Tejeda 116.9/-11= 111.4
6. M. Young 112.1/-32= 96.1
7. Renteria 97.3/-4= 95.3
8. Furcal 83.2/+10= 88.2
9. Hardy 65.8/+33= 82.3
10. Peralta 76.0/-23= 64.5
11. Tulo 45.1/+34= 62.1
12. S. Drew 64.0/-4= 62.0
13. Escobar 50.0/+21= 60.5
14. Bartlett 43.8/+30= 58.8

There you go FWIW.

215 now it kind of sounds a little bit like you're arguing for the sake of arguing. We know that injury was was not Andruw's problems, and that Schmidt will probably never pitch again. You can't compare Furcal to Schmidt and Jones on any level.

215 By many accounts, Schmidt was damaged goods. Andruw Jones grossly underachieved. He is the definition of a bust.

Your other question would require a lot of subjective speculation and is bordering on being condescending.

217
It doesn't make sense to me to declare a 2-year contract a bust after only 1 year, when you've already declared a 3-year contract "not a bust" when the player was hurt for 2 of the 3 years.

I would be okay with Furcal getting a 2 year deal if he can prove to be healthy in winter ball...but that might be too late. Can we just insure the contract?

Tigers Thoughts has posted the "final" numbers of their Elias projections for many positions. Here is the link for the NL relievers:

http://tinyurl.com/6rs73e

What is interesting is that Beimel is the highest Type B, narrowly behind Type A Carlos Villanueva. That would be quite a coup if Beimel ended up as a Type A.

Potential Compensation-Laden FAs
Manny - A
Lowe - A (estimated by Tigers Thoughts)
Beimel - B (estimated)
Blake - B (speculated by me)
Furcal - B (speculated by me)
Kent - B (speculated by me)
Penny - B (speculated by me*)

*if Penny's option isn't picked up, it is highly doubtful the Dodgers would offer him arbitration anyway.

Last year the final Elias rankings (used for determining FA compensation) were released on Halloween.

191 and others

I call Furcal a disappointment, hard to label him a total bust as there were periods where he was clearly the Dodger's best player

Historically he hasn't been injury prone, he saved all that joy for the Dodgers

He is only 30 years old - even as a shortstop he has 3 or 4 years of "prime" left

I think 3 years makes it hard a hard choice. At 2 years its a no brainer "yes", at 4 or 5 years a no brainer "no"

If my medical staff thought him truly healthy and not predispostioned to any further injury...I would find it hard not to pull that trigger.

I would sign him and let the Abreu, DeWitt, Hu, De Jesus contingent find their homes at second and third, or on the bench, or playing for someone else in a trade (assuming we get equitable value in return, which has not always been the cast - see Jon's post 1183 for partial follies listed).

219 I've made my point. If it don't make sense to you then it don't make sense. It's become semantical and annoying.

223
No need to be annoyed. See if this clarifies my point of confusion:

Jones: 1 healthy, productive season, 1 unproductive season = BUST

Furcal: 1 healthy, productive season, 2 unproductive seasons = NOT BUST

You know what would be fun? (Seriously.) Rather than arguing in circles... If there was a place we could go to play general manager for the Dodgers, sort of like a fantasy baseball site but for creating rosters, where we each take a stab at the Dodgers v09. Maybe we all agree on the budget amount, the cap. Maybe we could do one roster that is our own choice and another that is the predicted team via NedCo. Whoever gets that the closest wins a prize or something.

I don't know, just an idea. Is there a site that helps you do that? (Adds up salary and so forth.)

By my count, neither Blake DeWitt nor Clayton Kershaw will count as Super Twos after the 2010 season. I have:

Blake: 118 days service time
Kershaw: 105 days

In general, the lowest Super Twos have been in the 125+ day area. It is possible DeWitt will be eligible for arbitration but I think it would be highly unlikely.

224 Agree with that.

Again, when Furcal was healthy and played he was pretty terrific for the most part.

Jones was just awful.

I vote Steve Mason for next GM, he's suggesting a Pierre+MacDonald+cash for Peavy. It's that simple Ned get it done.

219 , well it wasn't me who originally said that, but I guess it comes down to the definition of the word "bust"! $18m for the worst offensive season in recent history? BUST. $47m for nothing? BUST. $39m for 1 good season, 1 not very good season, and one aborted season? Not a good outcome, but not a bust, imo. Anyway, it's about definition of the word bust, I think of a bust as something you can hang around the head of a GM and say- FAIL, you can't do that with Furcal.

228 That would be a coup.

227
I didn't mean for you to agree: I was trying to say that there was an inconsistency.

Oh well.

If Jones has a monster season next season we will all have mixed reviews. As of now, he is a bust.

Furcal was a victim of external causes. He did not underachieve in my opinion.

If someone gives him a 3 year deal, this off-season, and his back problems affect the his ability to perform, then the G.M will be accused of signing damaged goods. it will be a bust.

231
I think you are defining "productive" and "unproductive" too broadly. There are certainly degrees of each type of season.

226
Also, Cory Wade had 158 days of service time, which almost certainly means he will be eligible for 4 years of arbitration, from 2011-2014. This of course is assuming reliever reliability, which could be a fools errand.

231 - If Jones shows up and hits anywhere near 250/340/500 next year with 30 homers then I will defintely call him "not a bust"

But since we have seen Furcal's good year, and have seen nothing but a large bottom from Jones - I think it is fair to look at them in a somewhat different light

I dont think it is a stretch to say that there have been times that Furcal has been the Dodger's best player, it is impossible to say the same about Jones

Guys, this debate is pointless:

ESPN page two article already written about which Dodgers were in fact busts.

enjoy

http://tinyurl.com/5qy36c

Re: laroche.

I saw Bill James give a talk last year where he had a good line. He said, "when you go out on a date with a girl and find out she has bad breath, you don't just say to yourself, "Oh, that's just small sample size". And it's likely that the scouts, the coaches, and the organization came to the same conclusion about Laroche and shipped him out.

Andy Laroche's OPS+ through age 24: 47 (316 at bats)
Jeff Hamilton's OPS+ through age 24: 70 (539 AB)
Tracy Woodson's OPS+ through age 24: 62 (136 AB)

You might recall that the Dodgers once had the chance to trade Jeff Hamilton for Barry Bonds, but didn't want to move him because he was seen as their 3B of the future. Sometimes highly valued prospects just don't work out.

What do you think the Pirates would get for Laroche if they offered him in a trade right now?
You can never be sure about these things, but it's entirely possible that the Dodgers traded Laroche at the peak of his trade value.

It will be interesting if the Dodgers go after anyone. Maybe the reason they wanted all the season tickets holders to re-up during the summer was because the McCourts didn't want them to see the team come Jan when the invoice is normally due.

None of us knows the impact of the crumbling economy to these owners.

ToyCannon, or others, are there any other minor leaguers that need to be added to the 40-man next month besides Elbert and Javy Guerra?

According to my math, Bell, Wall, and DeJesus don't need to be added until 2009. I'm sure I'm missing somebody.

238 Somebody has to sign the expensive FAs. The Dodgers are probably among the top 5 teams who can afford the expensive FAs. They still drew over 3.5 million fans. They probably will again next year. I don't think we have to worry about the Dodgers not spending their money. Now about spending it wisely...

240

Tv network deals are what gives teams big spending money. Not necessarily fan attendance. The Dodgers are the only big team who don't own their own tv rights

239
Not my area of expertise. I only get involved when they add a someone like Mario Alvarez to the 40 man and lose a decent LHP in the rule 5 because of it.

WRT Manny, where do people think he will sign up? Just want to see what you think. I don't know if he has a lot of options... maybe the NY teams or LAA or the Dodgers. I don't see him going to Detroit or Texas. If you had to guess where Manny will end up next year, just as an informal poll, where do you all think he will end up? I will tabulate later tonight.

238 I agree with your statement. Although I can't accuse McCourt of penny pinching so far, I do believe his priorities are revenue first and winning second, and I would not be surprised to see him approaching the Blue Crew as any other owner is currently looking at their business - making cutbacks...

Does anyone have a good rec. for dinner in china town off the gold line? It would need to be quasi kid friendly.

Right now the business of baseball is making money, but no one who owns a baseball team has that as their only business. Most of these owners have enormous stakes in other industries and as those industries take economic hits, might they cut back on the baseball side of it which for most of them are just toys? Do you cut back on toys when times get tough?

243 Before giving my prediction, I'll say that there's no way we can know how Manny values money vs. lifestyle. Does he want the most, no matter what? What if L.A. is second, but it's pretty close? I suspect that Manny has not yet begun to make these determinations himself, and will wait to see what the offers are.

That said... allow me to ignore everything I just said.

It would not be uncharacteristic of the New York Mess to offer Manny too much money for too many years. So I'll go with them.

241 , 244 Do you expect payroll to be lower next year than 2008? How about 2010 compared to 2008 when Jones and Schmidt come off the books? I have a hard time seeing it, but I will concede it is certainly possible.

We should lock up Billz and Martin as soon as possible, followed by Ethier and Kemp.

245 Spring Street BBQ
sssmokehouse.com pretty good at the corner of North Spring and Cesar Chavez.

Its in China town, but I guess technically closer to Union Station than the goldline stop.

247 Mets or Yankees? I'm assuming the Mess means Mets, but there's enough mess there to go around.

You can speculate on your own reasons as to what Manny wants.. I just want to see where people think he will end up.

239
And of course Elbert is already on the 40-man. Duh.

On Canuck's list, there is no one that needs to be added to the 40-man until November 2009. Those players:

Ivan DeJesus
Josh Bell
Steven Johnson
Geison Aguasviva (he HAS to make it to MLB with that name!)
Josh Wall

247 It's Scott Boras so take it with a grain of salt, but the interview I heard he said Manny wants to be in the situation where he'll be most comfortable even if that doesn't mean top dollar.

248 I think its safe to assume with what we have all heard and the way McCourt seems to run the team, that if revenue falls, payroll is going to fall, and McCourt is likely projecting a decline in attendance because of the economy. If it was from a pure business standpoint that would be the only prudent projection.

Hopefully McCourt has figured out that winning means higher revenues

245 I'm assuming you want Chinese food.

If your going ealry in the day, you should do dim sum. At the Empress Palace, or whatever that place in the mall-thing is called.

249

That place looks really good. Thanks!

Hopefully McCourt has figured out that winning means higher revenues

Yes, but how much higher? That's the key, and I would guess that with the passion and loyalty of Dodger fans, the difference is less then you think.

In some ways though, this might be a reason to sign Manny more then ever. You've got your fan favorite, your draw, your appeasement of the local media in one convenient place. Sign Manny, and that's it, fill the other holes with kids or anyone else who's really, really cheap.

My above comment is me pretending to be McCourt, not what I would actually want to see, btw.

246 Most of the money to be made in all of pro sports these days is in the appreciation of the value of the franchise. Owners may not make a lot on a year-to-year basis. They rake in all the profits when they sell the team.

251 Does Victor Garate need to be added. He had time in the Astro organization. For some reason I like him even though his age was advanced for his league.

For ToyCannon:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2008/10/clipper-update.html

Everyone here is a discussion point I am interested in hearing, and perhaps it has already been discussed and I missed it.

Let's say we definitely get one, but If only signing one is possible...

Manny or CC?

258
Right, so don't you need good cash flow from your other units to prop up the baseball business? From what I remember the depreciation of the baseball assets is what makes buying a team such a great deal for the new owner.

261
CC

256 What amused me most of all about Manny's arrival and everything that followed it was how Torre wanted him to cut his hair while the marketing people were selling the caps and dreads for all they were worth. Manny's signing provided a boost in team revenues, no doubt. Whether McCourt and company want to gamble that the boost will continue I think will determine what kind of offer Manny gets to stay. I would make a starting offer at three years, $75 million and see where Boras and Manny go from there. I wouldn't be opposed to four years at $105 million if that's what it would take. I think Boras is begging if he thinks he can get six years at $150 million overall, but maybe the Mets are dumb enough to do that.

CC

142 - He may end up great, but that ain't no sure thing....

And now the Dodgers certainly won't get to find out. On top of that, they need someone who can play third. Still.

208 - I have explained why the Dodgers are, now, in a worse position than they were before the Manny trade. Have you looked at the list of players under team control for 2009? Yes, I was wrong about the Dodgers making the playoffs and the kind of run it would take. That does not change the Dodgers' holes for 2009.

215 - Jones was a bust at the time of his signing. The signs were all in place, but Ned chose to ignore them. His knee injury, while perhaps legitimate, reminded me of pitchers who go to AAA with an inflamed ERA: it wasn't the sole or even primary reason for his failure.

244 - four years ago I might have agreed with you, but I am now convinced of the opposite: McCourt does value winning. However, he has a funny way of showing it.

246 - the Dodgers are certainly most of McCourt's financial position, from published reports.

261
If I had to choose one, CC, by a whisker over Manny.

But I am absolutely smitten with Manny, and I think both can be added with some creativity. I doubt that will happen, but a man can dream.

261 Manny. I don't like lengthy contracts for pitchers, especially for pitchers the size of Sabathia. Dreifort and Kevin Brown cured me.

261 Manny. He makes the team better every day.

Plus, there's this, The Secret Plan to Resign Manny:

http://tinyurl.com/6qxuda

260
Ring finger, no problem, I'm used to Harper blowing out his knee, Manning blowing out his knee, Livingston blowing out his knee, Elton blowing out his ankle, Lamar stepping on a basketball and blowing out his ankle. This ring finger stuff is kid stuff. What is a Clipper team without some injury to it's best player.

255 It is excellent. I highly recommend the tri-tip, and if you are a beer drinking man, they have a really good micro-brew selection. The Delerium Tremens is awesome if you like white ales at all.

I just want to do a "CC Rider" headline, whether he come or not.

The scary thing for Dodger fans is looking at what it would take to make the team as good as they were this year with Manny next year. They need both a hitter something like Manny, and a pitcher something like Lowe and a third baseman something like Blake. To be as good this year as they were in the last 3rd of last year. That's a tall order to fill, no?

271

It got shot down by the family...but I will definitely be heading there soon!

267 I like your dreams! If I'm McCourt I would go for the starpower of both haha, then get some relief after next season when we have Andruw and Schmidt off the books

273
Blake was no big deal.

276 no big deal, but still need to replace him with someone

I decided not to wait. NPUT

256 - winning means more time on national and international television, which means the potential to expand the fan base beyond the market. Even if they don't sell more tickets, they can sell more merchandise. Ever wonder why the Yankees and Red Sox are the most popular teams worldwide? Because, besides ESPN's fascination with them, they go to the play offs every year, they get major international exposure in doing so. There are a lot of heads in places like Japan, Korea, and China that would look good with Dodger hats on them.

What I can't believe is that through all the gyrations this year the offense was still worse than the Luis Gonzalez Dodgers.

2008- .264/.333/.399 700 runs
2007- .275/.337/.406 735 runs

273

I'd hate to say this, but Casey Blake could be as good as Casey Blake. I just hope we dont go after Joe Crede. Unless Joe is really good defensively, I don't see it as an upgrade.

Lowe is easy... you could get CC, or just promote Kershaw, or possibly some other guy I'm missing. I'll have to see the list of FA starters.

I think we'd survive if we landed Pat the Bat instead of Manny and instead went after CC. I'm a huge Pat Burrell Fan. Just because. You could possibly shoot the moon and go for Adam Dunn... maybe.

152 - I am trying to find the causal connection between the state of the Dodgers following the Manny trade and how we are purportedly (as you say) in a "worse" situation RIGHT NOW, as a result thereof. For example, you indicated that we're worse-off in terms of having a void at third base and second base. Granted, we lost Andy LaRoche as a result of the Manny trade. But we have DeWitt ready to play 3B if we don't resign Blake, and although DeWitt was a double-play monster of late, he exceeded all expectations and should improve his hitting with Mattingly in the mix. As far as 2B is concerned, Kent is - and was - obviously done as a result of his expired contract, so the void left at second base doesn't seem to have any logical relationship to the Manny trade. Also, I don't understand how our "superfluous and bad outfielders on expensive contracts" have any relationship to the Manny trade, considering that the "superfluous" contracts that come to mind are Jones' and Pierre's -- both of which were seemingly obvious liabilities that were apparent prior to Manny's arrival. Before Manny's arrival, we already had an overweight Jones, and an unhappy Pierre, so I don't see that situation becoming particularly exacerbated once Manny arrived (in fact, it shoved Pierre and Jones into the periphery, where they deserved to be). And then, finally, with respect to Loney being "serviceable" at 1st base... again, how is that implicated adversely as a result of the Manny trade? If Loney is only "serviceable" and not presumably capable of higher caliber play, then it would seem to me, that is an unfortunate, perceived deficiency inherent to Loney, not a consequence of the Manny trade. Anyway, I just don't get the sweeping assertion that was made. IMO, I think we're actually somewhat better off as an organization AFTER the Manny trade (even if he doesn't return in '09) for a couple of reasons. First, our young players learned from one of the best hitters ever. That's gotta mean something (although I guess we can scientifically debate whether the kids truly learned anything from him by means of osmosis, and/or whether their exposure to his singular abilities has indeed made them objectively more disciplined at the plate). Second, and perhaps most importantly, the commonweal of Dodger fans are now going to demand a continuance of this winning culture, which SHOULD (if we take management at their word) fuel management to pursue big name FA assets, such as Sabathia. As I think you intimated ultimately, it's very much a "wait-and-see" process. Hard to define the post-Manny epoch only days after Game 5.