Blake will help depth wise and add a fraction of a win to the team. I suppose his signing would move Dewitt to 2B (platoon)? or backup at 3B? I just hope they don't sign Blake for too many years.
vr, Xei

I just hope they don't sign Blake for too many years

No worries. He can always transition into Mueller's old job.

The one thing that I always liked about Blake were his throws to first. The 3B-1B throw always seems a bit heartstopping. But when Blake came up with the ball and threw it, it went on a straight line, never sailed, never made the first baseman reach. I don't remember having confidence in a 3B's arm like I did in Blake's over the second half last year.

1
I like the way things are shaping up. Putting Blake in the lineup while keeping prospects is great. I also like te Loretta signing quite a bit. We fill two holes for just over $7 million and get a ton of versatility (if not range) in the meantime.

All that is left is CC. Go with him and forget Manny. Delwyn Young, Jones, and Pierre can go after the last OF spot.

Or better yet, trade Pierre and let Young beat out Andruw Jones' carcass for the remaining OF spot.

Verducci has a new article up, starts off with some LA talk. Said Furcal is now priority #1, which doesn't seem to fit with Ned's refusal to go beyond 2 years for him.

5
Links are nice.

6 You're just trying to turn this into BBQ Thoughts again, aren't you?

http://tinyurl.com/6o5m5h

The Cubs are in intense discussions with Long Beach native Milton Bradley.

"Blake doesn't fair as well"

Other kind of "fare".

Padres are going to receive Garrett Olson, JA Happ and Sean Marshall for Peavy.

What a bunch of crap. Seriously, they wanted BILLINGSLEY or KERSHAW???

If SD doesn't get Vitters, they're making a horrendous trade.

9 - Wow, I can't believe I did that.

These Peavy trade rumors get my vote for most tiresome plot line of the 2009 off season.

10 That's what Keith Law said all along. He said all along the Padres would trade Peavy for next to nothing. Just like the Twins did with Santana last year, they asked for Bucholz/Lester/Kennedy/Hughes and ended up getting as Keith said, "magic beans".

10 How does Ned not swoop in and beat that offer?

Peavy's ERA in 2008

Home: 1.75
Away: 4.28

This signing, if it is for 3 yrs as reported, stinks.. It shows the bankruptcy of a front office that consistently refuses to learn how to properly value players despite being burned by the same mistakes repeatedly. This will be the next Nomar/Pierre albatross, possibly as soon as 2009. Blake is a barely above replacement level player (2 WAR offensively, 1 win below defensively in '08 according to Pinto's system) who is turning 35 this year. He put up a .313 OBP with the Dodgers in two months...What facts compel anyone to throw $ 17 mil at him at this point ?

Derrick Rose cuts himself, while cutting an apple... in bed. Ok, I'm skeptical on this one too.

http://nba.fanhouse.com/2008/12/08/derrick-rose-cut-himself-badly-while-slicing-an-apple-in-bed-or/

14
Bucholz/Lester/Kennedy/Hughes - They might be happy at this point they didn't trade for Bucholz or Kennedy or Hughes.

Last thread, I wished Bob Timmerman a happy birthday about 24 hours early. Facebook apparently is in a different time zone than I am. So, my apologies for jumping the gun.

Why aren't the Dodgers in the mix for

a) Sheets?
b) Lowe?

Sabathia -- that would be a prize. But I don't like the length combined with the IP already. And no matter what Tommy Lasorda says, the Dodgers will have to match or come close to the Yankees' offer. I say, let the Yanks have him. They don't play in our division.

Sheets or Lowe could be had for a shorter span, thus lesser risk profile. Lowe doesn't seem to get hurt. Sheets is more of a risk that way, but the potential reward is huge.

OJ Simpson cut his hands. While shaving. Multiple times.

We've all been there.

16
Peavy's ERA in 2007

Home: 2.51
Away: 2.57

19 I think Bucholz still has a chance to be a future ace. But I think the point was is those guys all had way more value at the time the trade was made.

20 Lowe has absolutely no interest in returning. As for Sheets, after the whole Schmidt fiasco if you were Ned would you want to sign a guy who missed the last month or so with a tear in his arm?

17
You are valuing him based on his 211 Dodger at bats. Historically he's been better then the median 3rd baseman. What is your alternative for 3rd or 2nd base? Are any of the premium 3rd baseman currently under contract all of the sudden going to become Dodgers? Just not many fish available right now so plug the hole with an adequate solution and look to improve elsewhere where talent abounds.

17 I think Jon pointed out the reasoning in the original post. Sure, Blake's numbers dont jump off the page...but considering the other 3B free agent options out there, Ned could've easily done worse.

25 I personally think the pending Blake and Lorretta signing will significantly improve our team next year. These are the type of guys that will hit 6/7/8 and help turn over the lineup to our best sticks. Their is a lot of value in a balanced line-up and while Lorretta and Blake aren't Murderer's Row, they are very competent hitters in the lower part of a line-up.

They may be going stronger after Furcal now because they know they need a balanced lineup and probably can't afford a Hu/Wilson black hole at SS.

28 Wouldn't it be better to have a Hu/Wilson black hole at 2nd then a Pierre black hole in left?

20 - Common mistake. Today is my birthday, and I can't tell you how many people have called today and said, "Happy birthday, Bob!"

People always see me and think "Bob." Some also think "Hugh Jackman." An easy mistake to make, I think.

I hate diving into the deep end of the speculation pool, but if the Cubs acquire Peavy here is their pitching rotation next year:

Peavy - 134 ERA+ / 173.2 IP in 2007
Zambrano - 114/188.2
Harden - 206/148
Dempster - 151/206.2
Lilly - 109/204.2

That's pretty darned good. It's going to be fun crushing their spirit in the 2009 NLCS.

C: Martin
1B: Loney
2B: DeWitt/Loretta
SS: ???
3B: Blake
LF: Ethier
CF: Jones/Pierre
RF: Kemp

Just need a SS and a power hitting OF.

29 I meant a Hu/Wilson black hole at SS.

28 In addition to that thought, not resigning Furcal would open up an excuse to play John Peter(Juan Pierre)more often. Eliminating those excuses is a massive priority, as far as I'm concerned.

28 Assuming we sign Furcal, I could even live with Pierre or Jones as our 3rd outfielder.

Furcal
Martin
Ethier
Loney
Kemp
Blake
DeWitt/Lorretta
Jones/Pierre

That lineup isn't going to be the best but it should be above average. That being said, I still think we'd need an additional good SP.

Per espn's winter meeting blog, Boras met with the Dodgers last night:

Scott Boras met with the Dodgers late Monday might to discuss the return of Manny Ramirez. Boras told the Dodgers delegation that Ramirez is open to coming back to L.A., but sources familiar with the meeting told ESPN.com that the Dodgers did not put their two-year, $45-million contract offer back on the table.

10 Does a Stults, Elbert, and Johnson/Garate (I admittedly don't know much about Johnson/Garate) match up with that?

28
I know that it is premature, but how great would a Furcal/Loretta/Blake/CC offseason be? Fill in Young in the OF in case Jones can't lay off the KFC, sign a bullpen arm (Chan Ho?) and this offseason would beat every expectation that I had for Nedders.

I would be happy if we added Furcal and CC now.

Furcal
Martin
Ethier
Kemp
Loney
Jones :)
Blake
Dewitt

Has there been any talk of upgrading at back up catcher?

31 I hate to admit it but I would almost prefer the Pads keep Peavy at this point. They aren't going to contend and they could potentially give Peavy to a team we'll face in October '09.

8 All discussions with Milton Bradley are intense.

Lowe has absolutely no interest in returning.

Lowe has disputed this, on the record. He says it's a myth. He came to believe the Dodgers had no interest in his return.

41
Yup, I would hate that Cub trade. As Eric pointed out that could be a killer rotation. Not bad for a team in chap 11.

Re: Lowe

http://tinyurl.com/5fbb32

43
They probably don't based on the fact he wants a four year deal. I'm sure they would be interested in a shorter term deal but he wouldn't be so that means he has no interest unless the market falls out from underneath him and he has to take lesser years.

So if the Manny offer is not back on the table, it would lead me to believe they are going to make an offer to CC.

I refuse to think that they are going to let both of these FA's go by. But they could...

Victor Garate is not getting a lot of work in the VWL but in his last game on 12/6 he struck out all six batters he faced.

I wonder how good of friends CC and Casey Blake were while they played for the Indians.

17 Saying "Nomar/Pierre" albatross struck me as a bit off, because those two situations have almost nothing in common. Pierre is an albatross. Nomar, though his second contract was a mistake, barely qualifies as such. Since Blake's reported contract will be of less value than even Nomar's, I think that's telling.

36 i hope i'm wrong...but it's looking more and more like the mccourts don't want to dole out those 10+mil contracts if they don't have to. we're stuck with the casey blake/jack wilson stopgaps, wouldn't surprise me if we go after jamie moyer or randy johnson at this point. it's not like anybody was gonna swoop in and steal casey blake away, i don't understand why cc and/or manny isn't more of a priority.

Jim Rome is "demanding" the Dodgers sign CC on the radio right now. Pretty funny stuff.

50
I am still in awe that we get a platoon infielder who can really hit lefties and play three positions and an average 3B for $8 million combined. Finding an even average 3B for that much is hard if you look at the deal Melvin Mora got.

51 I think of the winter meetings as a poker match. You don't want to show your strength too early, if you flop a great hand (contract offer) its usually best to play it slow rather than go all-in immediately.

51 Jack Wilson is a Dodger? That's news to me.

51 If the Dodgers can pull off the CC signing, there are some OF options available. They could do worse than signing CC and then adding Dunn, Abreu, Baldelli, or Burrell. Players who arent quite stop-gap but arent quite stars either.

I either forgot or never knew this:

http://tinyurl.com/55r56v

"Blake played most of the month of September with a badly bruised biceps muscle that hampered him hitting and throwing."

i would be happy with cc, no way the dodgers would add another big contract if they get cc...too many baseball fields left to be built

FYI - John Wooden is on the Jim Rome show right now.

59 - You mean now Wooden's demanding the Dodgers sign Sabathia?

60
The oval of success!

Wooden should seriously think about hiring a flack. First Simers and now Rome? He needs somebody to keep these invitations in the circular file where they belong.

57 It was speculated that Blake was playing with an injury, but the Dodgers never publicized it, outside of saying that Blake needed to rest once in a while.

60 - shockingly yes. He said let the Wooden Classic take care of the ball fields, he wants CC!

Coach Wooden sounds amazing for 98 years old I must say.

12:12pm: The Dodgers have made re-signing Furcal their top priority, says Tom Verducci.

I wonder what this means for CC and/or Manny?

47 - well if the Dodgers put the offer back on the table for Manny, that only means Boras can take that and bring it to another team to beat it. As of right now there are no other offers that we know of so it's probably best to not to play that game with Boras.

59 I tried listening to the Jim Rome show once. It sounded like he was speaking a foreign language.

65 - totally speculating, but if they are truly after Furcal, I would guess that means they may be more serious about CC then Manny, (although nothing the Dodgers have said leads me to think they are after CC).

The potential (please make it happen) pursuit of CC reminds me of last time the Dodgers acquired a starting pitcher who debuted for the Indians at age 20*.

This previous ex-Indian acquisition by the Dodgers was 16th in MLB in ERA+ for his career up to that point (http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/sC7F) with a 115 ERA+.

Sabathia is 15th in MLB in ERA+ for his career (http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/PYtA) with a 121 ERA+.

This previous Dodger acquisition proceeded to go 87-42 (a .674 winning %) for LA for 6 of the next 7 seasons, with a 118 ERA+ (13th best in MLB over that time frame; http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/8FuN). However, despite his success this pitcher is more known for the season he missed (and subsequent surgery that bears his name) than the 6 seasons he pitched (quite effectively). He was also 3-1 with a 2.08 ERA in 6 postseason starts with the Dodgers.

*Point of note: Future Dodger Rudy Seanez also debuted with the Indians at age 20, but he wasn't a starter.

65 - I can see the Dodgers wanting to assemble a great defensive team to make them even more favorable to CC. Blake, Furcal, DeWitt/Hu, and Loney on the infield with Ethier, Jones, and Kemp in the OF is a top-notch defensive team.

I think it is the optimist in me, but I keep thinking we are getting ready to make a big offer to CC. I know there is no evidence for this...just the sucker in me.

For whatever this is worth, Verducci's latest SI column has Colletti tamping down the CC rumors. It's either a negotiating ploy, or he's trying to soften expectations:

>>Los Angeles general manager Ned Colletti denied reports that CC Sabathia told him, "I want to be a Dodger." But the two of them did speak casually and joked with one another in a chance meeting on Sunday night, Colletti said. The Dodgers do fit Sabathia's profile of a prospective employer: a National League team on the west coast. But Dodgers owner Frank McCourt has not yet authorized Colletti to get into the Sabathia sweepstakes, even to see what that NL West discount might be.

69
I always thought of TJ as a White Sox.

TUESDAY, 12:28pm: ESPN's Jayson Stark says the Dodgers have reached an agreement with Blake for three years and slightly more than $17.1MM. The Twins apparently offered two years, $14MM. He adds that Mark Loretta's deal is for one year and $1.25MM.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3756550

Stark saying the blake deal is done. 3 and $17.1

http://tinyurl.com/6c9xlv

73
My first real memory of TJ was as an Angel.

69
Also as much as I liked TJ, I would rather they kept Dick Allen.

Jon - if Blake hits .250/.310/.430 in 2009 and still has $ 11 mil remaining on his contract for '10 and '11, how is that not a clog to payroll especially as the Dodgers move into a period where they need to start locking up their younger arb-eligible players ? Due to the weakness of rest of NL West, Dodgers will certainly get away with this signing in '09. However, using the conventional wisdom of signing Blake as a "safe, solid" option at 3b ignores both his age and true submediocrity. DeWitt has a better glove at 3b and could put up #'s similar to Blake, freeing up 2b for another option such as Hudson. His per yr cost would only be slightly higher than Blake, he might be able to sign for 2 yrs due to his injury season in '08, he's 4 yrs younger, his OPS+ has been a virtual match to Blake these last few seasons, but his glove is much better. With the Dodgers revamping their pitching staff this year, it would pay for them to have the best IF defense possible...

78 Vin's head would explode if Orlando Hudson was on the Dodgers. Thats a risk we cant take.

78 I'll take the power and "bad defense" at 5.7 million a year. If he gets outplayed by kids, he'll lose his job and be a decent bench player. With the huge Jones and Schmidt contracts off the books next year, I wouldn't be too worried about locking up the young 'uns.

78 - It's all relative. I'm not saying Blake is the greatest thing since sliced bread. But comparing $11 million over two years to Nomar's $8.5 million for 2008, much less Pierre's contract, just seems to me to be an overreaction.

3 years and 17.1 gets the Humma Kavula Seal of Whatever.

We at Humma Industries neither approve nor disapprove. Too bad about the third year, but 17.1 is remarkably low, low enough that even the worst case scenario -- that he needs to be DFAd in 2011 -- isn't so horrible.

We acknowledge the Blake signing, and with the exception of the two sentences above, we stand mute.

The next time Jamie McCourt mentions building baseball fields, she should be reminded that the Anaheim Angels are now called the Los Angeles Angels, thus they should be responsible for building half the fields in the Los Angeles area, saving the Dodgers 15 million, (enough to sign a Type A free agent).

Even though I agree with a point made by Canuck the other day--about how signing Furcal would block DeJesus, our best positional prospect--I still think we are determined to add one more impact offensive player. The player could be Furcal, Manny, or a FA outfielder.

If we sign Furcal, it means we have made an effort to shore up our offense, even if we go with Jones/Pierre at the third outfield position. This could free up some money for CC.

Any way you look at it, CC's a perfect fit for us. If the front office is in any way debating between Manny & CC, the answer has to be becoming clearer. If it's more a matter of payroll, I'm sure we'll find out in the end.

My guess is that Colletti is excited about the prospect of CC, but he's hedging his bets by not committing all his energy/focus into the pursuit. If McCourt says no, expect some Vlad-like vengeance from the fans.

78
Assuming a $110M payroll, Blake's deal would make up about 5.5% of that with almost 35% coming off of the payroll after 2009 (Jones/Schmidt) and Kuroda's 11% coming off at the end of 2011. Given that, Blake's deal may be annoying, but it still will be a very small fraction of the Dodger payroll.

Think of it as not having to sign a backup corner OF/IF for the next three seasons at $2-3M per year. In that light, the last two years will be akin to only having $3 million in overpayment.

All of this is also based on the assumption that his production will fall off of a cliff. Being optimistic, I think that he will outperform that contract in 2009, be roughly equal to his contract in 2010 and slightly underperform it in 2011.

78 You're assuming quite a bit there.

78 -- (1) Hudson's defense is slipping, (2) he is going to cost about $40 million to sign (i.e. more than double the cost of Blake, without having Blake's power), and (3) he is a Type A free agent -- and unless it is for the sake of signing Sabathia, we should hang on to that #17 overall pick instead of losing it.

12:38pm: Young is not as pricey as we thought - Ken Rosenthal says he's already been paid $20MM in bonus money from his new deal, leaving $60MM or so over five years (Heyman said something similar). But, Rosenthal says the Rangers are unlikely to seriously consider trading him.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

Would you pay 5 years and 60 million for Young?

88
Heck no.

88 You'd also have to give up big pieces in the farm so no.

88
I could see him being a better fit for the Twins or Orioles.

84.

The problem with not signing Furcal is Ned is likely to sign someone who is not even an upgrade over DeJesus's current capabilities -- for more years and more money.

Can we still sign Saito if we non-tender him on Friday? The thought of parting ways with Saito is a bit depressing.

88
No, not a big Young fan.

78
Blake might be pricey in 2010/2011 as a bench piece but it will be nice having a guy who can play all corners of the diamond and give you some punch off the bench while doing so. I fully doubt he will be our starting 3rd baseman for more then 1/2 the contract. As Bob Barker said the "price is right".

I endorse these baby steps. By mid 2010 we will know more about Bell/Gallagher/Baez.

93
The club could still sign Saito, but it would be as a free agent so they'd have to possibly compete with other clubs for his services.

92
The Dodgers have already come out as uninterested in Orlando Cabrera/Jack Wilson.

I am not worried about years and money as much as I am prospects for someone like Bartlett or Michael Young.

I fully doubt he will be our starting 3rd baseman for more then 1/2 the contract

I fully doubt (player signed by Ned) will be our starting (position) for more than 1/2 the contract.

Are the parameters of the new market being framed by the numbers that Blake is accepting - if and when he signs?

Non-tenders:

Brazoban
Repko
Proctor?
Saito?
Berroa?

3 years $17.1 for Blake? Let's see how that breaks down. I have him at 1.5 WAR for 2009, adjust for age the last two years of the contract, puts him at...
2009: 1.5 WAR
2010: 1.0 WAR
2011: 0.5 WAR

2009 estimated value of 1 WAR is $5mil.
2009: $5Mil
2010: $5.5Mil
2011: $6.0Mil

Gives us (1.5 5) (1 5.5) + (0.5 * 6)
which comes to $16Mil. Maybe dock it down to $15Mil for the security of the 3 year deal. If I am a little low on my 1.5 WAR then the deal is probably spot on.
vr, Xei

92
I don't see Ned offering any of the available free agent SS anymore then two years. With these deals I bet he does not go after Cabrera which was my biggest worry. He knows he'd be better off overpaying a little for Rafy and saving his number one pick then losing it for Orlando.

I'm with Canuck, at this point the only A free agent I'm' willing to give up our number one pick for is CC.

Hate to be the team who signs Varitek, or Juan Cruz and loses their pick for them. I like Cruz but the draft picks make him a pricey proposition.

Sadly, this is probably the right thing to do, just have to hope he doesn't fall off a cliff.

94 - I also like veteran RH-hitters that can boost younger LH-hitters' value by consuming at-bats against tough lefty pitchers.

Periodically resting Loney, DeWitt, and/or Ethier against tougher left-handers in favor of Blake and his favorable splits can really give a boost to the offense.

Colletti should have offered the Blake money to Blagojevich for the Senate seat. Assuming he would have kept his mouth shut, everybody involved would be better off.

We're about 30 minutes away from the Torii Hunter press conference here at the Bellagio when the Angels centerfielder will announce The Torii Hunter project.

It is an education initiative that will provide college scholarships and character development curriculum to students in four cities: Anaheim, Pine Bluff, Ark., Las Vegas and Minneapolis.

http://blogs.pe.com/prosports/

Some people say they're going to build 50 fields, others just give out scholarships, and send out a press release.

101 Assuming:

1. Signing Manny pushes Pierre/Jones to the bench, or even -- dare to dream! -- off the roster; and
2. Manny's deal would be for three years only; and
3. Signing Sabathia would push Stults or whoever into AAA; and
4. Sabathia would sign for six years and cost the Dodgers their draft picks;

Does that change anyone's preference as to which of the two they would prefer to see on the team?

99 - Would like to still have Saito and Proctor but the rest can go. If we are able to move Pierre or Jones then I would rather give the 5th OF job to Paul than Repko.

105

The Torii Hunter project

Last 30 seconds of this: Torii Hunter standing at The Big A, back to home plate, staring, staring, staring at the right field fence.

106 The bottom line for me (and I imagine most people) is who helps the team the most. Not who gets pushed off the roster.

Personally I think 6 years of CC is a better bet than 3 years of Manny.

109 It's possible that replacing the first "who" with "which signing" is better.

109 "Pushes off the roster" is a bad way to put it for a lot of reasons. You're right to point that out. But I do think that you can consider the roster as a whole with each signing, rather than only a direct comparison of the two players.

106 - Getting Manny means Jones/Pierre's roles are greatly reduced, and LA has their end-of-season offense back together (assuming Furcal comes back to). Ned can always sign Randy Johnson or some other starter to fill out the rotation.

Signing CC means that Pierre/Jones are starting, as I haven't seen anything to lead me to believe that anyone short of Manny Ramirez (Burrell, Dunn, Abreu, etc) will regulate that duo to the bench permanently.

Therefore, I'll take (if this is an option):

Manny, Furcal, and "veteran starter"

over

CC, Furcal, and Jones/Pierre hitting 8th.

111 You're right also. I mean to say, I think we should disregard whatever animosity we have for any particular outfielders, and think about which signing (and whatever its repercussions) will actually help the Dodgers the most.

112 - in other words:

Furcal
Martin
Loney
Manny
Ethier
Kemp
Blake
DeWitt

Billz, Kuroda, Kershaw, McDonald, "Unit-like" substance

OVER

Furcal
Martin
Loney
Ethier
Kemp
Blake
DeWitt
Pierre/Jones

CC, Billz, Kuroda, Kershaw, McDonald

106
Would it be wise for the Dodgers to acquire two more pitchers who can perform at or above the level of Kiroda?

106 Sabathia would sign for six years and cost the Dodgers their draft picks;

But aren't the Dodgers getting picks for losing Lowe? And wouldn't they also get picks if Manny signs elswhere?

I realize it would be nice to have the 4 picks for Manny & Lowe plus their own pick, but signing CC only costs them their own 1st round pick. Not picks. Or am I missing something?

115 Not many pitchers, prospects or otherwise are going to post a 116 ERA+ in their first year. Chad Billingsley did it, but there's few that can do it and whom the Dodgers can promote/acquire.

After the 2009 season is over, I would be in favor of offering Kuroda an extension if he can produce a similar or better year, next year.

114 The elephant in the room WRT those two lineups is Furcal.

If he is to be a Dodger, I definitely see the argument for the second set. The pitching would be so strong that we could carry Pierre/Jones and (likely) DeWitt as below-average contributors. The other spots would be average or better. I can root for that team.

But if Furcal is not a Dodger and instead we have Hu or DeJesus... if the rotation is CC/Billingsley/Kuroda/Kershaw/McDonald but the bottom of the lineup is Blake/DeWitt/Pierre-Jones/Hu-DeJesus, well, I think that would be a frustrating lineup in 2009.

While 6 years of CC is better than 3 of Manny, I still want Manny. Sometimes more fun is just worth it. Yes, I know winning is supposed to be the most fun of all but I can't take another season of 2-1 games. I want offense. Let's face it a box of Ding Dongs may not be the best thing for you but they sure taste good going down.

at this point it's difficult at best to say which would be better, Manny for three years or CC for 6 years. There are too many other variables to consider that are not in place yet. If Manny were signed instead of CC, then what other starting pitcher(s) would be signed? It could be Pettitte, Johnson, Garland, Lowe etc..., who knows. If all you want to do is compare knocking Pierre/Jones out of the starting lineup by signing Ramirez vs knocking Stults out of the rotation by signing CC, then I'd take CC as Pierre and Jones do have some value, especially on defense and Pierre on the bases. Ramirez gets knocked down for fielding and he is getting up there in age.
vr, Xei

115. What two pitchers would that be, and how much would they cost us? $10Mil+ per pitcher? vr, Xei

112 - "relegate" not "regulate", dummy.

I also have to say that I'm preparing myself for neither Manny nor CC.

There are 30 teams in the league and every one of them has fans that are demanding that their team sign one or both of those two guys.

The only reasons we have to believe that either one might like to sign with us is that:

1. Manny ended last season as a Dodger and
2. CC has reportedly said that he wants to be a Dodger.

Both of those are fairly weak tea.

aren't we kidding ourselves when we suggest a hu/dejesus situation next year, neglecting the 2003 AL rookie of the year who, for reasons we all know, seems to get a pass for his bad hitting because he's a supposed PVL?

According to Scott Miller of CBSSports.com, Scott Erickson wants to attempt a comeback. The Twins told him to prove himself in winter ball first. Erickson, 40, has been out of baseball since '06.

123 That's more hope than the Nationals or Marlins (or a bunch of other teams), right?

While I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up with neither, I'm holding out a realistic hope that we end up with one. I mean, we're the Dodgers. We're in a better position than most, our current situation and all.

I am concerned that if we don't resign Manny that he will sign with the Giants and he will then summarily destroy us every time we play them.

Totally off the subject, but I haven't seen this anywhere else:

City News Service
LOS ANGELES (CNS) - The Los Angeles Dodgers today sued an insurance
company in Los Angeles federal court over starting pitcher Jason Schmidt's
debilitating 2007 shoulder injury that kept him from pitching for the team in
2008.
According to the complaint for breach of contract, Ace American
Insurance Company has failed to pay the team more than $9.2 million owed as a
result of a policy insuring the Dodgers against the risk of Schmidt becoming
unable to play.

Can't link to it because you would need a password to get through.

Gimme CC over Manny. It's tough, but Sabathia in his prime is hard to pass up.

Odds on McDonald posting a sub 3.50 ERA?

128
Such suits aren't that uncommon. The Dodgers were in litigation over Paul Shuey's injury too.

128 - Thanks for that. Here's a link:

http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_11176249

New post coming up top.

119
In the immortal words of Deion Sanders in a commercial meeting with Jerry Jones ($15 million or $20 million?), "both."

130 Starter or releiver?

Starter- 9-1
Reliever- 6-1

132 I'm in commenting limbo!

For what it's worth, The odds of the Giants going after Manny seem very, very weak. I think they've said as much.

Like Kavula, I am more than prepared for a CC/Mannyless winter. But it's fun to dream.

I like scenario (A) in 114 over scenario [B].

123 The Dodgers have competitive edges with regards to signing CC and/or Manny that other teams don't have. Specifically: CC has indicated that he wants to play in LA, while Manny has already played here and seemed to have a positive experience.

These two factors would mean that not acquiring either would represent a complete failure on the part of Colletti and McCourt from a PR perspective at the least, and likely from a competitive perspective as well.

The more I think about Sabathia the more the length of the contract and his weight concern me. Do we really need an albatross contract for the next 6+ years? I know many people are claiming that signings like this happen once a decade but it seems to me that Santana and Peavy have become available over the last couple of seasons. I don't really have confidence that CC will be worth the $$$ for the duration of the contract and overpaying for him now could cost us Kemp, Martin, Ethier, Billingsley etc in the future.

NPUT

If it indeed is a CC/Mannyless winter, I'm done with baseball.

RE 100 and the math on Blake. PECOTA has him pretty close to your projections. Most people are suspicious of their defensive stats though. Let's take Win Shares Above Bench. Blake's over the past 4 seasons are -2, 3, 0, 8. That's basically 2-3 WSAB per season. Their free agent calculator has 3 WSAB pegged at $ 2.6 mill of value, so Blake already is overpaid by $ 3.5-4 mil for one of his typical seasons. In fact, most of his positive value came from his first half of '08 which was fueled by an unsustainably high BABIP. In the pursuit of the illusion of vet safety and solidarity, Blake could easily reward Colletti with a replacement level season or worse for $ 5 mill more than a pure replacement player would have cost. As someone said, in the context of $ 120 mil payroll, a $ 5 mil waste may seem trivial but who knows what future decisions the Dodgers might forego because it might cost an extra $ 5 million per. Wasted payroll almost invariably has consequences.

105 - no matter what the Angels' other failings may be, Torii Hunter goes a long way as a kind of salve for them.