I remember an editorial stressing support for the stadium effort mentioned that L.A. needed a zoo and would one day have one, but first it needed this ballpark.

A zoo was one of the other ideas suggested for the Chavez Ravine land after it was deeded back to the city of L.A. But it never gained much traction. Nor did the idea for a really big cemetery.

Great stuff, looking forward to reading the Daily Mirror.

Thank you for posting this here Jon.

I love reading about los angeles history. This sounds great.

Bob, don't trust the boca haters!

A great Sunday morning read.

This struck me a little: My two sons (now 19 and 16) went with me to the Coliseum game against the Red Sox (neither had been to the Coliseum). Makes perfect sense in today's LA, even assuming Thursby's family is sports-interested and financially able to attend major sports events, but I hadn't really thought how the old stadium had come to that.

One of my shameful secrets is, as much as I love Dodger Stadium, the Coliseum is really my favorite LA sports venue. Coming through those long dark tunnels into the sun and the blazing huge green field, sodas with useless cling wrap on the top, the disturbing LA interaction of being a west la kid and paying to park on a Crenshaw's family's lawn, the huge sweep of the seating bowl, the Olympics, my always-traffic-free back route (Motor to National to Hughes to Jefferson to Rodeo to MLK). The Peristyle!

I hope it survives.

JtD signed by the Nationals.

http://tinyurl.com/6oyyzt

Joel Guzman. If only he could get his head straight. Once a Dodger darling only to be a minor leaguer for the Nationals.

The Dodgers are a big market team that consistently draws over 3 million people every year. The fans support the team, how about the team supporting the fans by putting the best possible product on the field. I don't care about the cost or years to bring in CC it's not like it's my money and ticket and parking fees are not going to go down. Lip service by Frank about wanting to win is great, but until the Dodgers become major players in the market for the best free agents I don't believe a word he says. They should re sign Manny and anybody else that will make this team dominant, after all that's what the fans are paying their hard earned money for.

Someone in the previous thread asked me why I thought Pat Burrell wasn't worth much more than Juan Pierre and I wasn't able to respond. The main reason I say this is that Pat Burrell's three year weighted UZR average is -1.5 wins. Burrell has much more value hitting wise, but after you park adjust his stats (playing in a hitters park) and adjust for baserunning between the two players, I come up with only a half win advantage for Burrell. I don't mind upgrading but at what cost.
vr, Xei

I've read somewhere that the reason Lowe wanted out was he wasn't convinced the Dodgers were serious about building a winning team. I agree with him on that. I think any team that gives Juan Pierre 5 years and balks at long term contracts for impact players are not really serious about winning. Can Hoffman and Johnson be far behind?

10. I would counter that they are serious about winning, or building a winning team, it's just that they (Colletti et al) did a poor job of building the team. It's a shame, because with all the good young players the Dodgers have under control, there is/was a great opportunity to take on some heavy payroll (good/healthy free agents) and put together the National League's best team. That special window of opportunity could be fading soon.
vr, Xei

Dodger Dawg, your posts illustrate everything wrong with Dodger fans. I am really enjoying how much people like yourself are suffering this off-season, frankly.

Originally, the lyric was:

That special window of opportunity could be fading,
I can feel that special window of opportunity fading,
Girl it's fading, away from me.

But Whitfield changed it because he thought love was more approachable.

My frustration with the Dodger management is not so much their failure to ink FAs as it is trying to figure out what their plan is, or if they have one at all.

The Dodgers inactivity with respect to restoring its bullpen is a case in point. Last year our relief corps consisted of Kuo, Park, Trancoso, Elbert, Wade, Proctor, Beimel, Broxton, and Saito. At the moment, it appears that half of that group will not be with us next season. I watch other teams signing or trading for relief pitchers, steadily depleting the pool of available and dependable relievers, while the Dodgers do nothing. I am not excited by the prospect of their picking up an aging, has-been like Trevor Hoffman.

We didn't see much of Elbert last year but his performance was hardly convincing that he can be a bullpen mainstay anytime soon. Does anyone really expect Kuo to fill the gap? His arm seems ready to fall off at any moment.

If the Dodgers are going to let Furcal and Manny go and they are not in the running for Tex, one would hope that they could at least fill their bullpen holes.

Do they know something about Troncoso's potential that we don't? What gives?

Yeah, the Dodgers are going to really regret not battling SF to sign Jeremy Affeldt and Bobby Howry.

And if Scott Elbert ends up a bullpen mainstay, that will be a very disappointing career for a guy who was supposed to be a Billingsley-level starting pitcher.

14 -- What are you assuming we DON'T know about Troncoso? It is obvious he belongs in the majors, and we should all know it: lots of K's, few walks, induces groundballs at a rate like Derek Lowe. The guy is going to be a stud reliever for us. I don't know what the plan is for Elbert, but maybe they have decided they want him in the MLB bullpen too. Maybe they want Eric Stults in the bullpen. They got rid of Beimel quick enough yet haven't said anything about bringing in a new lefty, so that tells you they plan on filling the role from within.

16 -- Is being a reliever really so disappointing, especially if one is an elite reliever? Mariano Rivera, Billy Wagner, Eric Gagne, Jonathan Broxton and just about every other really outstanding reliever was a starter in the minors. We may need Elbert as a reliever more than we need him as a starter, which means that being a reliever may increase his chances of being a Dodger rather than trade bait, and if that is the case, then let him be a reliever.

18

Well, if he's a great pitcher, it would be nice to have him pitch 180-200 innings a year, as opposed to 80-100. That's all I'm saying.

If Elbert is that good, an opportunity will likely arise where he gets a shot at becoming a starter. Nothing wrong with limiting the innings pitched from young hurlers by sticking them in the bullpen when they first come up. I don't see why a stint in the bullpen in his first full year would preclude him from becoming a starter. It will all play itself out.
vr, Xei

I find it strange that McCourt clearly cares as much as he does about PR, that Colletti is supposedly a PR guy, and yet the Dodgers have been terrible with PR of late. They don't do a very good job of communicating what their plan is, and that just isn't a smart approach in this business. We all know what the Yankees are going to do, we know what the Red Sox, and Angels, and A's are going to do, we've even got a pretty good idea of what the Mets, Cardinals, Cubs, Marlins, and Braves will do, year in and year. That makes it much easier to understand different moves by those teams.

But the Dodgers just give us platitudes about putting a winning team on the field and being committed to the kids, and blah, blah, blah.

Look, we all use to know exactly what the Dodgers were going to do: pitching, defense, decent hitting, and timely base running. Now we are all left to impose our own ideas, beliefs, and plans - only to be disappointed by a move (or non-move) that is inexplicable under our own ideology (for lack of a better word).

At this point, I just want a plan. Tell me what kind of players you want, tell me what you want to do well, what you want to be average at, and what you don't care about. You don't even have to tell me what players you are targeting, just let me know you have something in mind other than raising ticket prices and adding seats.

I don't really have a problem with Elbert relieving this year, or even next. I guess I'm taking the term "bullpen mainstay" as meaning his career, and I think it's too early to have already made that decision.

Elbert would need to show he can be healthy for a full year before any talk of him joining a starting rotation.

With the departure of our four established relievers, I can only assume that the Dodgers see Troncoso as a potential #3 guy in the pen.

If they are going to replace Beimel with a lefthander from within, is Elbert the guy? Does anyone really believe that Elbert can achieve Beimel's numbers, at least right away?

Saito is probably gone but the GM refuses to anoint Broxton as heir apparent. That suggests a trade or FA signing.

Maybe they expect McDonald to hold down a long-relief slot. Okay by me except that I was tremendously impressed by Mc late last season and would prefer to see him start over Elbert or Stults. Maybe they plan to sign the Rat or someone else and put Mc in the pen.

21 -- It is possible to have a plan and yet believe that there is something to be gained by keeping it close to one's vest, like a poker player not showing everybody his cards. It is impossible to tell the fans what your plan is without telling every other GM and agent what your plan is, and that can put one in a worse position when it comes to negotiating either a trade or a free agent deal.

24 Beimel won't be able to replicate what he did last year. The dodgers want a lefty that can be both a LOOGY, and pitch full innings, something that Torre apprently felt Beimel couldn't do, despite having his best year with the Dodgers.

I'm okay with Elbert being the 2nd lefty out of the bullpen, but I expect him to get shelled. He's not going to have a pretty ERA like Beimel had in 2008.

KG16's point is mine as well. The relief question is just part of the picture. What is the plan? I suspect that, if there is a plan, it is to economize and then spin rationales for doing so.

24 -- If the idea is to make Elbert, at least for the start of his MLB career, a LOOGY, and that was the roll that Torre clearly wanted Beimel to fill, then Elbert can no doubt do that job well. Stats show that throughout his pro career lefty hitters have found Elbert nearly impossible to hit.

An army of pitchers - identities to be revealed soon - will arrive in February to compete for the bullpen spots.
Is it reasonable to assume that the Dodgers will wait until June to add any more front line starters?
Give the kids on hand a chance to spread their wings?
Gotta learn how to fly someday.

Once again, people are confusing planning with execution. If you don't use those terms correctly, you're talking in circles.

Last year, as I've said before, the Dodger plan couldn't have been more clear. Supplement the younh core with a few key veterans. To help execute that plan, they signed a 30-year-old outfielder who at the time was bound for the Hall of Fame to the highest salary in Dodger history. The plan was fine. The execution went awry.

I doubt very much the plan has changed for this coming year, though as far as executing the plan, the team may be limited by the mistakes of past years. In any case, it's still just mid-December.

I am with Canuck, I don't need to know the plan. In fact, I have no problem with them putting out misinformation if that helps in the free agent signing process. Asking for plans will only get you vanila responses and cliches.
vr, Xei

Was signing Gary Bennett a strategy or a tactic?

Certainly, worrying about who the Dodgers' No. 5 reliever will be in December is probably a bit much.

Bullpens really aren't worth fretting over because they usually can't be fixed by trades or free-agent signings, unless you're going to go all out and spend on Billy Wagner or K-Rod. Ask Lance Carter and Danys Baez.

We have some good-to-great young arms in there now, with Broxton, Kuo, Elbert, Troncoso, possibly McDonald and/or Stults. The rest of the spots will be filled with either veterans we never thought of (like Chan Ho Park last year or Beimel a few years back) or some other young guy we weren't expecting (like Troncoso last year).

All this who's the #3 and who's the #5 will be determined during the season, and, ultimately, the end result will be Torre finding two guys he trusts and then runs into the ground.

Okay. Let's assume that the plan is the same -- developing rookies while adding a few vets. We might conclude, with respect to execution, that the Dodger pen next season will consist of Broxton, Wade, Troncoso, Elbert, Kuo, Stults, and Trevor Hoffman (or a veteran like him).

I would like to feel good about that mix but cannot.

34
Great observation.

25 - I guess what I'm looking for is the dodgers baseball ideology. Are they a pitching-and-defense club, are they a team that wants to be aggressive on the bases or are they gong to sit on the home run and power alley doubles? Like I said, I don't care about names, I don't care if you're looking at CC or Loaiza, I just want to know that you have some governing philosophy through which the decision may be judged

Oh, and I totally forgot about Cory Wade. He'll be there, too, and he's the perfect example of a guy who we weren't expecting ending up a contributor.

I saw him pitch three innings in AA in April and barely looked up from my stale hamburger. By the end of the season, he was one of Torre top guys.

As long as we are talking about LOOGY candidates, wouldn't it be interesting if the Dodgers are still hoping Greg Miller can come through? Nobody talks about him anymore, like he is the tragic family ne'er-do-well. I have said myself that I have given up hope when it comes to Miller. Yet the Dodgers keep him on the 40-man roster, even though his minor league options are all used up. So it is do or die in spring training. He either makes the big cub opening day, or he is lost. Now he is coming off a Triple A season in which his ERA was over 7.00 and he walked more men than he K'd. But the Dodgers haven't cut him loose, so they must have hope yet. In 2008, against lefty hitters, his ERA was 4.91, and in 18.1 IP he K'd 23 and walked 20. But what really stands out is a GO/AO of 5.20 against lefties. That is simply other-worldly. Combine Miller's K rate and groundball rate and you are looking at a real lefty killer, if Miller could just limit the walks.

38 - hamburgers at a baseball game always strike me as strange. The ballpark is the perview of the hot dog

40

It was $1 hot dogs the night before. I needed a change.

12 Canuck his post is the same post you post about the dodgers knickle and diming draft choices. Or money not spent on scouting. We can agree on all of it. The dodgers in the 5 years since the McCourts bought the team have never went out and gotten a true franchise player, in his prime to go with these 8-12 great young players we have. There seems to me no long term thought to developing a winning orginization. Just a bunch of patchwork all the time.

We make so many excuse for our squad. The Phillies were a good example and the Cubs who we happen to beat, but each team had 2-4 in their prime stars. Maybe not like Manny (few are) but Armis and Lee and Soriano and Zambrano and Dempster all were stars in the prime years and all will be back again..Utley, Hamels, Howard, Rollins..4 more. Other than getting lucky with Manny we havent had any player we could say is as good as those guys in the McCourt Regime. Maybe Raffy in 06, but even then in 06 rollins had more runs, rbi, steals, doubles than raffy...

35

What teams have better arms in the pen than those guys?

41 - fair enough.

Alright off to Christmas shopping, if you have a deity, say a prayer for me

42 -- "...his post is the same post you post about the Dodgers nickle and diming draft choices."

The difference is that compared to elite free agents, draftees practically ARE paid in nickles and dimes. I criticized someone who criticized McCourt for not throwing around hundreds of millions of dollars (and his adding "I don't care because it's not my money" made it all the more insufferable). What I criticize is not throwing around hundreds of THOUSANDS of dollars. There is a big difference. The smallest market team in baseball can easily afford to spend big in the draft or the international amateur free agent market, so the Dodgers have no excuse to not do it.

42
Could you infer by the dollars invested that Jason Schmidt and Andruw Jones were intended to be "franchis players"?

45

It's too bad that it will probably take watching a Kyle Blair come up and be a star for another team before McCourt gets it.

I know that this is redundant on my part but;

This is the finest site on the planet.

42. Most of those players you name were not "went out and gotten" in their prime. Most were developed "in house". McCourt signed Furcal in his prime, Andruw Jones in (or very near) his prime, Jason Schmidt (near his prime) and traded for Manny Ramirez. It's not like they didn't try, and like Jon said the execution failed in the case of Schmidt and Jones.
vr, Xei

49

Yeah, I didn't see how Utley, Hamels, Howard, and Rollins could be used in 42 . All four are home-grown stars.

If you're still around Dodger Dawg, don't feel bad; having Canuck call you insufferable is pretty much a rite of passage around here. Actually, I'd put it in the trinity: the first time Jon responds directly to something you've said, the first time Canuck calls you insufferable, and the first time D4P asks you a presumptuous personal question.

51 You missed the first time Andrew tells you he hates your kids.

The first time Bob tells a joke that you get without Googling.

51 -- I called what he SAID insufferable; I didn't call HIM insufferable. You always seem to miss these fine distinctions. As a Canadian I am by definition polite, so I have to be acutely aware of them.

Good point, Canuck, re Greg Miller. I have to confess that I, too, had forgotten him. Yep, it would be fantastic if he recaptured his command this year. As far as I know, the velocity is still there. And, I can infer, from his number of appearances, that the arm is holding up. Anyone know anything more about Miller?

54- Sometimes people uncharitably characterize the words of others to comedic effect. For example, I never actually said I hated Zappala's kids. I may have typed it, but I'm sure I never said it.

Also, I like it when you resort to the, "But I didn't say you were an idiot, I only said you were acting like an idiot." defense. Makes me nostalgic.

56

I think it would be pretty sweet if you went with the spelling Andruw Shimmin in 2009, as a show of support for D4P's favorite player.

56 -- But there is a difference. You can imply that it isn't a meaningful one, as you like, but I think it is.

The reason Rafael Furcal rejected the A's offer was that he wants to stay with the Dodgers, so says "one agent." Meanwhile the Dodgers appear to be daring Furcal to leave for a lesser club before making an offer.

That seems like a bit of a disingenuous strategy, no?

Wow, GWB showed some good reaction time in ducking those Iraqi shoes.

60. And more importantly, how did a guy with two shoes ever get past security?
vr, Xei

57- I would have more feelings of solidarity with him if he hadn't dropped the weight.

58- There's a big difference, so long as the person you're speaking to agrees that he's acting like an idiot, or said something insufferable. There's no difference if the person you're speaking to thinks he wasn't acting like an idiot, or didn't say anything insufferable. Then it's a matter of you calling something about the way he defines himself idiotic or insufferable; at that point the only difference is semantic.

My favorite part is that his main gripe was not signing Sabathia, a move that you were (in spite of yourself, perhaps) in favor of.

We could probably sign CC DeVille for pretty cheap.

59. If that really is what they are doing, but that is just the writers interpretation. It could be that they are waiting to see what the market for him is and will match any offer. There are some risks involved no matter which side of the ledger they are on with a strategy like this. You risk losing the player on one hand, and you risk vastly overpaying him on the other. vr, Xei

62 -- I didn't say anything about his desire for Sabathia, did I? Lots of people wanted Sabathia, including me, though I kept going back and forth with myself on whether we should do it or not. I didn't say anything bad about those people or their position. What I called insufferable (go back and look at the context in which I used the word) was the "I don't care what it costs -- it's not my money." Really, who honestly doesn't find that kind of attitude insufferable? An attitude that implies that one believes in saving bucks when it is one's own wallet on the line, but if it is somebody else, well, they're just a cheap bastard if they don't spend extravagantly? Another word for it would by hypocrisy.

I really don't see how telling people what the plan is is going to hurt us. Everybody knows what kind of players the Angels like, they aren't suffering for it. Everybody knows what kind of players Boston likes, they seem to be ok. If Ned came out and said he wants a team like the Angels it's not going to hurt us. If he says he wants an offense that takes walks and milks the count it's not going to hurt us.

It would just be nice to have some sort of insight. What kind of team does he want? Although I do think outside of taking a chance and hoping he bought low on a hall of fame player (Jones) he's already revealed his preferences. Panicking over Juan Pierre is pretty revealing.

66 -- But the Angels and Red Sox didn't SAY what their plan is, did they? People just WATCH what they do and infer what their philosophy is. So why demand the Dodgers spell out everything? You can deduce what the Dodgers plan is too, and that is building from within. In fact, the Dodgers HAVE spelled that out, numerous times, but in the past their actions have not always been consistent with that.

65- It's starting to get a little silky, but the actual context was calling what I took to be an off the cuff remark (within a broader appeal for more money to be spent on FAs) "all the more insufferable." Unless the "all the more" was an empty rhetorical flourish, you were calling the whole thing insufferable.

To further contextualize the context, the crack about it not being his money was immediately juxtaposed with an assumption that ticket prices and parking fees would not be relaxed. It was an appeal to a sort of fairness--if I have to keep paying what I paid to watch last year's hundred and whatever million dollar pay roll, it's unjust to cheap out on this year's pay roll and pocket the difference. It's not a point I'd put my name on (too many tenuous assumptions; also, I didn't go to a single game last year, so. . .), but it's not hypocritical.

68 -- The idea that McCourt should be expected to spend limitlessly -- the central thrust of that post -- I found insufferable. That he didn't care because it is not his money anyway -- that made it ALL THE MORE insufferable.

69- Limitless spending, or just status quo spending (again, based on the assumption that revenue will hold just because--another assumption--prices do)? I think you read too much into it.

I also think you have a low tolerance for suffering. And I'm not sure there are degrees of insufferability. But I just want to be friends... Plus a little extra. Also, I love you.

I believe it is against the rules for the Patriots to get a penalty.

70 -- "I also think you have a low tolerance for suffering." For the kind of suffering inflicted by people saying unreasonable things, oh, absolutely. For other kinds of suffering I have the patience of a saint. For instance, I laugh at Dodger fans who think going 20 years without a World Series is really suffering. They should try being Cubs' fans.

I get the feeling it is not the lack of an openly expressed plan that is missing but more our lack of trust of what Colletti might do.

I think the following team is considered to be a contender:

Martin
Loney
DeWitt, Loretta, Abreu, DeJesus
Blake, DeWitt
Furcal, Hu, Abreu, DeJesus
Pierre, Ethier
Kemp, Jones, Repko
Ethier, Kemp

If Manny signs for 2 years great and if he doesn't, this team will compete. The question might be how much does this team without Manny need a healthy Furcal.

Billingsley, Kuroda, Kershaw, McDonald, Stultz is good enough but should tire as the season goes on. Troncoso might be a starter and Schmidt might eventually pitch toward the second half of the season.

Wade, Kuo, Elbert, Broxton, Miller could be a great bullpen but health and command could rear its head unexpectedly and maybe even repeatedly.

I would like to give this team a try.

Ned's 2008 plan was to win enough games to save his job. His 2009 plan is the same, except he has to factor in fifty Dream Fields. But I really don't expect him to come out and say that.

CanuckDodger I'm not suffering at all but I still don't understand why a big market team that consistently draws over 3 million can't or won't sign top talent in their prime. While it's true big money doesn't always equal big wins, at least if the money is spent on the correct people you have a better chance of fielding a better club. If it doesn't work out that's another story but at least it's not for lack of trying. After all it's like I said earlier ticket prices aren't coming down any time soon. .

Suffering Bruin really needs to weigh in here.

75 -- Here's a question for you: how much of the payroll does the revenue generated from those 3 million fans (in ticket prices, parking, concessions, and merchandise) cover? I wish we had somebody with access to the numbers on that, but I think it adds up to a lot less than you think. The Dodgers are NOT a "big market team" in one crucial respect: they don't make much money from TV, thanks to the terms under which Fox sold the Dodgers to the McCourts. Also, the Dodgers have an old stadium that does not have the extra-revenue-generating bells and whistles of the new stadiums. Add to that the fact that COMPARED to teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Mets (that spend money on elite free agents) the Dodgers actually charge very LITTLE for tickets. When you think about the Yankees giving Sabathia a $160 million contract, think of it in connection with the fact that the Yankees' new stadium has seats that sell for as much as $3,500 PER GAME. When McCourt starts charging those prices, THEN I think you will have a right to demand the Dodgers give out contracts like the one Sabathia just got.

67 - no, the Angels and Red Sox front office and on field management have been saying for years what kind of teams they happen to be, and openly discuss the type of game that they play.

Canuck Dodger the Dodgers are considered a big market team, LA is a big market. The Dodgers have great fan support. Ticket prices and Parking go up every year. It's true they don't have TV revenue like other big market teams do. I agree with you that money should also be spent on players who are drafted like Kyle Blair. I suppose my gripe is that maybe Selig shouldn't have allowed Frank to buy the team in the first place with the way the deal was structured but that's a different argument altogether.Dodger fans are loyal and deserve a winner getting premiere players in their prime and surrounding them with the good young players we already have would go a long way to showing he's sincere about winning.

74 - sigh. you're probably right.

78 -- Then it is funny that I don't see those statements from Angels' and Red Sox' people, as much baseball stuff as I read, though I certainly read a lot of stuff that people OUTSIDE those organizations say about them.

CanuckDodger I also think you took my earlier comment about it not being my money a little bit to literal. It was just an off the cuff remark about as long as prices for a ballgame remain high then the talent on the field should also be first rate not some old past their prime player or players.

79 -- I put the term "big market team" in quotation marks because I think it is actually wrong to talk about "market" size. That is a TV term, and you concede the Dodgers don't have much TV revenue. Do you realize the Oakland A's are in a "big market?" The TV industry considers San Francisco and Oakland to be in the same market. It is the 5th largest market in America. The Marlins are also a "big market" team. Miami is the 8th largest market in America. This is why is makes a lot more sense to talk about teams in terms of their "revenue" rather than "market." When you do that, you realize that the Dodgers are not at all in the same league as the Yankees, Mets and Red Sox. The Dodgers are little leaguers compared to them when it comes to raking in money, largely because of the TV factor. I don't think the Dodgers even make as much money as the Cubs, and the Cubs sell about a million fewer tickets per year than the Dodgers due to Wrigley's limited seating capacity.

83) your probably right and that goes to my other point about the way Frank was allowed to buy the team ,with Fox having to lend him the money to do so ,and with them holding onto TV rights for a few more years. It's just my opinion but I don't think Selig should have approved it, and that's one of the reasons I feel that the Dodgers won't go over slot on draft picks because Frank is repaying Bud for allowing him to purchase the team without having the finances to run it like a big market club.

Of course I sat Matt Cassell.

85
Why? He is playing the Raiders and the Patriots are not the type of team that stops throwing.

86 I have no idea.

85 I played him! Who did you start instead? I got docked 1 point when he took a knee 3 times.

No San Diego State job for DeWayne Walker.

Who's more pissed off, DeWayne Walker, or Greg Norton Jr.?

88 I went with Eli Manning.

Wow, Andre Johnson is a beast. I love him.

Walker could still become head coach at New Mexico State or become defensive coordinator at LSU.

Arizona helps UCLA and beats Gonzaga.

84 . Regarding big signings, the D's spent pretty good change on Pierre, Shmidt, Jones and Furcal. Furcal was great, DL'ed, great, DL'ed etc., more or less. The others were either terrible signings or bad luck, depending on analysis. They didn't execute, but it's not like they didn't try, or were cheap. I can't fault them at this time for failing to counter the Yankees recent extravagant signings, nor for balking at making Furcal or Manny ridiculous offers in terms of money or years.

93

Big time. Gonzaga still looks like the same Gonzaga as always. Lots of offensive talent, but not a great team. A team with all of those guys should be able to beat a short-handed 3 man team easily. Great win for Arizona, but I can't imagine their big 3 will be able to play so many minutes throughout the whole year. They'll still finish well in the conference because its so bad and make the tourney, but this is probably the highlight of the year for them.

95 - Gotta agree. As much as I would have loved to have CC, but once the Yanks set their sights on him... I think that once Tex signs several teams will be left out and looking for a big bat and Manny fits that bill. I hope that we can at least sign Rafi and at perhaps one SP.

When the talk turns to signing free agents in their prime, I feel Furcal is the only one we have tried, and he couldn't play at a healthy level 2 out of 3 years. Schmidt was obviously past his prime, Jones is apparently past his prime, and JP will not have a prime.

83 and 84

It would be great if one could find some sort of real revenue figures after salaries and ticket revenues. But if you did a real dirty calculation of 3million fans at an average of $50.00 per ticket you come up with a figure of 150million dollars.

That 150 which is very rough would cover most of the major league salaries for players and coaches, but without the local TV reveune and the money that McCourt owes Fox additionally, there isn't as much money there as there should be for a large revenue team. While Frank is also doing capital improvements which will bring in money down the line, over the next few years he won't see much of that money. Hence, this is one logical reason why we won't see any big long term contracts for big free agents over the next few years. If anything the Dodgers may be/ or should a bit more generous in buying out some of their younger players arbitration years to save money on long term costly contracts down the road.

It would be a neat project for this site to try and figure out over the next 3-4 years what the real operating revenue is per year. The fact that McCourt is so leveraged in so many places I think only complicates the situation.

Finally I am one of the people who does believe that Selig's choice of McCourt has put the Dodgers in a bind for at least the next five years, and his choice was made to try and depress salaries.

98 - don't forget the money they get for all those shirts, hats, and whatever else people by with the little interlocked "LA" or the old "B".

99 - there is a "u" missing somewhere in that sentence...

99

No question about that, but my main point as others have also stated is the fact that McCourt is currently leveraged and also owes lots of money over the next few years. That psychological impact must also shape some of the financial decisions.

I'm not disagreeing on the point that financially, McCourt was a terrible "pick" to buy the Dodgers. I just meant to mention that sports teams have other ways of making money beyond TV and tickets.

Homer at the Bat on Fox 11, right now. This is not a drill.

Our stupid affiliates only play newer Simpsons.

For discussion purposes. 2008 Opening Day payrolls divided by team revenues for 2007 per Forbes:

1 Detroit Tigers 80%
2 New York Yankees 64%
3 Chicago White Sox 63%
4 Toronto Blue Jays 62%
5 Seattle Mariners 61%
6 Los Angeles Angels 60%
7 New York Mets 59%
8 Chicago Cubs 55%
9 Los Angeles Dodgers 53%
10 St. Louis Cardinals 52%
11 Atlanta Braves 51%
12 Milwaukee Brewers 51%
13 Philadelphia Phillies 51%
14 Boston Red Sox 51%
15 Cincinnati Reds 46%
16 Houston Astros 46%
17 Kansas City Royals 44%
18 San Diego Padres 44%
19 Cleveland Indians 44%
20 Minnesota Twins 42%
21 Colorado Rockies 41%
22 Baltimore Orioles 40%
23 Arizona Diamondbacks 40%
24 Texas Rangers 40%
25 San Francisco Giants 39%
26 Washington Nationals 36%
27 Pittsburgh Pirates 36%
28 Tampa Bay Rays 32%
29 Oakland Athletics 31%
30 Florida Marlins 17%

AVG 49%
Median 46%

Look at those Red Sox.

105 Obviously debt service is a big variable in this. Stadium operations and front office overhead as well. I guess the metric people would like to see is payroll as a percentage of net cash flow after you've netted all the above from revenue. I don't think it's fair to expect your team to operate at a loss so long as revenues aren't being hidden in some sister company.

105. Thanks for that. And with that is hopefully the end of the discussion on the Dodgers and their cheap ways and McCourt's financial woes. The team is in the top 10 not only in payroll (where it has been in the top 5) but it is in the top 10 as a percentage of income. And as for why they won't sign big name free agents, as Jon pointed out, they DID. The fact that they stink is Colletti's fault, not McCourt's. If you don't like the choices, fine. I'm with you. But if you claim they refuse to spend money or don't have any, it is absolutely unsupported by fact. I, for one, don't want the Dodgers to be #1 in payroll. Let the Yankees lose with that or win with an asterisk.

McCourt did hire Ned and approve of the deals, so it is a little his fault.

110. That may be true but it is a completely different subject than discussing his ability or willingness to spend money.

So that list means that Detroit is spending 80% of team revenues just on player salary? That's astounding.

80% can't buy you pitching apparently.

The Tigers '07 payroll was $95M or 55% of revenue, and $83M and $69M prior to that. So maybe they built up some cash reserves after the WS run.

What is wrong with the Lakers?

The good news is, the Raiders scored 26 points today.

114
There is no good news when it comes to the Raiders.

115 - positives are all I have at this point.

116
All I have is hope that I out-live Al Davis.

117 If you aren't you need to be making arrangements now.

But there is a chance he can't die because he is Satan.

114 - there's nothing wrong with the Lakers, they are just cruising right now. Cruising to the tune of at 20-3 start. They are very, very good, but they aren't looking to shut down every team, every night, which isn't a bad thing. They're going to win 65 games, or so (if they hold on tonight, they will be on pace to win 71 games). They are going to have the top seed in the West, they might even end up with home court in the Finals. There is simply nothing to worry about - people forget that there really isn't a whole lot of difference between the best team and the worst team in a professional sports league.

120 Frantically knocks on wood.

120
Not in football.

122 ie, not in sports where one of the participating clubs is the Oakland Raiders.

122 - well, the Lions are horrendously, historically bad this year.

The NBA season is far too long for a league that has half its teams make the playoffs.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2008/dec/13/padres-notes-winter-meetings/?padres

I also must say, it does warm my heart that the Raiders and Rams are a combined 5-23 this year. Not that I'm one to hold a grudge.

125 - same length as the NHL that does the same thing in allowing half their teams in the playoffs.

126 - I've got $20 bucks, who else wants to throw in to buy the Padres?

128
That is too long too. At least there are more upsets in hockey.

Alright, Pau, you have 4:30 to get 4 assists and finish the triple double. you can do it.

who'd have thought at the beginning of the year you'd be better off playing Ariza on your fantasy team instead of Odom?

We didn't offer Saito arbitration...we are bad at baseball.

133 - eh, I'm not all that worried about not going to arbitration with Saito. With as overrated as saves are, it would have been a big number, and quite frankly it's time for us to find out if Brox is for real or not.

133- I'll bet you a thousand dollars he doesn't win a Cy Young for another team. I'll even give you 2:1 odds, if you want.

135 So the only pitchers worth offering arbitration are the ones that win Cy Youngs?

135
Saito is no Mark Davis.

129

Hehe

133 -- I think it was absolutely the right decision. To review: Saito tore an elbow ligament last year and the Dodgers' doctors wanted to perform Tommy John surgery. Saito didn't want it, opted for a brand new kind of procedure, came back and pitched badly. Now he CLAIMS he is fully healthy. Just how much are the Dodgers supposed to invest in Saito's word that he is back to normal? They decided to wage $2 million that they weren't being sold a bill of goods. Saito said no because he wanted to go to arbitration and possibly get $5 million. The Dodgers said that is too much to bet on an elbow that may still need Tommy John surgery. A completely sensible position. That is being GOOD at baseball.

Saito is old & coming off an arm injury.
I've got no problems not offering him arbitration.

Throwing 5 mils at a guy like that isnt the worst thing in the world, but I think not offering is a better option.

I agree with Canuck. I love Sammy and what he did for the team, he was a pleasure to watch. But it would be way too risky to offer him more than he did. That's a good way to be burned, to burn money. If he doesn't get a better deal and ends up coming back to LA after all, I'll very happily welcome him back and root for him. But at his age and with the elbow, the odds are too risky...

139 Yeah, we could use that three million on a different bad reliever.

The difference between 2 million and five million in free agent dollars is nothing. You can't get anything worthwhile with three million.

142
That money will help buy us Trevor Hoffman.

Woo..hoo. :(

With all the Saito talk bumming me out, I am cheering myself up by watching the Pete Carroll piece on 60 Minutes.

Win forever. Always compete.

142 -- We don't know how that $3 million would be spent, but that is actually irrelevant. It might be wise to not take ANY chance on a 39-year-old elbow that may need Tommy John surgery, but if you resolve to do so you have to put a maximum price on that trust and resolve not to go above it. If you say $2 million is your ceiling of trust, stick to it.

If two million is your ceiling of trust, you aren't going to get anything better than the Alan Embrees of the world.

I'd much rather take a chance on Saito than go with someone that could be easily replaced by Troncoso.

Hey, that $3 million can buy 6 baseball fields.

I don't care who you are, that's just funny.

Coletti didn't exactly give Brox a vote of confidence..

"He's shown signs he can do it and he's shown signs he's not ready to do it yet," Colletti said -- and have expressed an interest in signing Trevor Hoffman.

146 -- The Dodgers have said all along that they want to go out and get one veteran reliever. Are you thinking that they now intend to get two? They have not said that, and I have been assuming that their plans have not changed.

Ned Coletti loves his vets. That said, its not as if Hoffman blocks Broxton from pitching. Broxton's just moves to the 8th inning set up role, where its more likely he pitches in higher leveraged innings, and even more importantly, when he does warms up, he enters games. That's what I think is missing from the conversation, where last year Torre had Broxton warm up on consecutive days, and still didn't use Broxton because the 'save' situation didn't appear in a game.

The difference between 2 million and five million in free agent dollars is nothing. You can't get anything worthwhile with three million.

Sure, but if you apply that philosphy to 3 players, that comes to 9mils. And 9mils can buy a good player or help buy a good player.

I'm thinking that there's no way the Saito money will be spent on something more worthwhile than Saito.

Unless Mark Kotsay gets your hard a-racing.

The money saved on Saito (5mils), Beimel (4 mils) could get a good player if the Dodgers had a creative GM.

152 But we didn't. If we have to choose between Saito and Ethier or something, sure. But there's no way that those three million are going to be used on something that makes any difference.

Is 153 a Rule 1 violation?

Saito's betting he's not done. Colletti's betting that he is. One of them is right. Baseball players are not particularly famous for knowing when they're playing days are (or ought to be) over, but it's still a pretty close call, to my eye.

I can't tell whether I hope Colletti's wrong more because I'm petty, or because I like Saito. It's certainly some combination of the two, but which is dominant I couldn't say.

155- The Dodgers being frugal with their relief core (Beimel & Saito) could benefit teh team by using their 9mils on something more reliable.

If Saito was a position player,I may have a different opinion. But I just have no respect for relievers.

That 9 million could be spend by the Dodgers on extending Andruw Jones' stay with the team.

I have no respect for dentists. But that's just me.

153 That was an awesome typo. ;-)

Just got back from a cool little benefit at the Ricardo Montalban Theatre. 5 bucks (or a toy) to see Patton Oswald, Greg Proops, Doug Benson and others. And free beer, too.

151 - part of me really hopes the Dodgers have no save opportunities next year. but I doubt they're going to win 162 by 7 runs and their starting pitchers going 9 innings.

162
That would have been sweet to go to.

Yankees enter Teixeira fray

>> "If they can't get Teixeira, they are right there on Manny," an official with knowledge of the Yankees' plans told George King of the Post.

"[Chairman] Hank [Steinbrenner] wants him, but he isn't alone in the organization," the Post report added, alluding to a source. "They need somebody to protect Alex [Rodriguez]."

At the controls for both Teixeira and Ramirez, agent Scott Boras is known for his ability to play clubs against each other in long, high-stakes games that test everyone's endurance. <<

http://tinyurl.com/584xqk

Not only would it really suck to lose Manny, but to lose Manny and not even get a first round pick in return would really suck.

165 - can't Selig use the "best interest of baseball" card to remove the Steinbrenners from control of the Yankees?

We could end up not getting any of the draft picks we envisioned.

162 Yeah, it was a great show. Patton Oswald said it looked like a gathering of people who survived some sort of ecological disaster (poking fun at the Hollywood hipstery crowd), and it was so money.

Looks like there are some quality teams in the hunt for Milton.

169 A gathering of the only people remaining on Earth, I should add.

169 Dunno why I spelled his name with a d.

(Cycle! Yay!)

Stella performing at Cobbs in January!!

I must go!!

But who will protect Casey Blake if Manny is off protecting A-Rod

174
Starting shortstop Orlando Cabrera.

167 . Selig already used the Best Interests of Baseball card to make the McCourts owners of the Dodgers.

Oh joy. At a time when the economy is down and ownership is believed to have a stated preference, if not an outright mandate, that the club's player payroll be reduced somewhat, Colletti admitted that the uncertainty of what it will cost to fill the shortstop hole is part of what is holding up his effort to address the team's other needs.

http://tinyurl.com/66qsaj

177 - Keep in mind that there was no new news in that article. That sentence was someone's interpretation of a quote from Colletti that's a few days old. The "believed to have" indicates that the writer is speculating just like anyone else.

Chan Ho Park holds press conference in Korea to say he's a Phillie.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/12/136_36170.html

I don't know that this is official as far as the Phillies are concerned, though. "Park will fly to the United States to take a physical in January. "

What does the economy being down have to do with payroll for the club? Maybe I'm dumb but I don't see the correlation .If payroll is based on last years profits ,I doubt they lost money last year. It's possible the economy will effect attendance but nobody knows that for sure. I have a hard time believing that the Dodgers will draw less than last year, and if they do is that because of the economy, or because of ticket prices, or the team itself? Are the Angels worrying about the economy by offering Texeria 8 years and all that money? I just think after all the bad signings that Ned did they're just gun shy about spending any more on big contracts.

180
The Dodgers will know very early in January how many season ticket holders re-upped. Given how a large % of season tickets in the good seats are businesses and that LA is right now in a serious downturn I don't think it is unrealistic that the renewal rate will be less then norm.
You can point to other recessions and how the season ticket holders stayed steady, but prices have never been as high and when you look at your yearly budget for places to prune and you see a 10,000 - 20,000 season ticket cost, it might not be such a hard decision.

181- I know the economy is down with the stock market consistently down, and the auto industry in trouble, unemployment etc. but here on the East coast if you go into Best Buy or Walmart or even a BMW dealer you would never know it, those places are jammed. I just think that if there is a good product on the field people will continue to support it.

165 This was also referenced on MLBTR re the NYY and Manny, coming a bit later in the day:

>>3:26pm: Ken Davidoff has a different opinion on the subject of Manny's future in New York, as well as a couple of other interesting free agent names. From his Sunday update:

"I would not bet so much as a penny on the Yankees acquiring Manny Ramirez, Ben Sheets or Mark Teixeira. Andy Pettitte can come back, and Mike Cameron will come aboard if the Brewers take Kei Igawa. If deals involving those two guys can't happen, then maybe a starting pitcher/centerfielder in those price ranges (one-year investments for about $10 million) will wind up in the Bronx. But that's about it."<<

178 Sorry, I guess I missed Ned's "admission" that other deals depend at least in part upon what he spends at short.

180 A severe economic downturn will impact the Dodgers. Not only will attendance and ticket sales be depressed, but in-stadium advertising and TV/radio contract revenues will be reduced as well. And as Canuck stated upthread, the Dodgers do not have the huge additional revenue streams that the Axis of Evil teams (Yankees, Sox, Mets) have. The Dodgers are more dependent on ticket sales as a percentage of their revenue than those teams. And in a recession, discretionary entertainment spending is one of the first things that gets curtailed by consumers.

McCourt's big idea for an alternate source of revenue was the re-development of Chavez Ravine into an all-season shopping/dining/entertainment destination. I wonder how the "Great Recession" is going to impact those plans.

182 , not to venture too close to Rule 5 territory, but aren't CA and Arizona (aka, the Dodgers' new spring training home) two of the states hardest hit by the housing downtur...um, i mean contractio..., no, I think the DT-approved euphamism is "puppies not petted"?

181 I can tell you that I am a season ticket holder with two seats behind home plate, and I am seriously considering not renewing this year given the state of the economy and how is it affecting my business.

It was a good weekend. Another 3 days passed without a Jon Garland signing.

188 By the Dodgers, that is.

185 from what I have heard, the renovations and development have been pushed back a year, but I wouldn't swear to it, just what I have heard thru the grapevine

184 - Didn't mean for you to apologize. I guess I've got people on the defensive.

190 - It's on the record. They said they postponed it because they wouldn't be done in time for the WBC in March. The economy certainly didn't help.

fortuitous timing of the WBC for the Dodgers I would say

Given the state of things, I really would not mind if the Dodgers cut payroll somewhat. This would put us in a unique position for next season with only Kuroda/Blake/Pierre mading better than $6M, and we could maybe bring in Holliday if they drop their whole three years or less thing.

My issue is that McCourt does not have the stones to stand up to the media and say it or even infer it except through Colletti. He could score a lot of points with me (and others I think) by making a token gesture (lowering concession prices by 15% or parking by $5) and simply being honest about how he thinks the economy will affect FA signings.

I just hate not knowing if we will have the dollars to sign anyone. If we are going to field a team with 6-8 minor leaguers, just tell me...

Is it my imagination, or was the preferred parking $200 lower than last year on their 2009 season ticket invoice?

186 I think states dependent on the Big 3 (obviously the most being Michigan) are in the worst shape. CA has a real estate problem, but the upper Midwest has a livelihood problem.

187. If anybody is looking for more anecdotal evidence, I know two other people with Field seats between the bases in the first 8 rows who are considering not re-upping. In fact, if anybody here would like to buy seats like that for a quarter or half season at face value, I'd be glad to put you in touch. That is not a good sign for Dodger revenue.

197 I didn't think I was the only one who would be seriously questioning re-upping. It's become alot of money, and the economy what it is, there are more important things to spend my money on.

I would think that for a lot of people, not renewing would be automatic except for losing your seat location if you decide to come back in future years.

What is the deal for TV rights that Fox put into the sale of the team? When do those rights expire or, in other words, when can McCourt start making good money on TV rights?

So if the Yanks, Mets, and Sox are the only ones raking in the TV revenue, how does someone like Arte Moreno have the funds to sign Tex? Something is not adding up here. You don't hear anything about the Angels cutting payroll.

201 I am sure it has nothing to do with him buying a team in the same market as the Dodgers for $250 million less than the McCourts....

201
If Moreno had a pipeline to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, the Angels would have re-signed Francisco Rodriguez AND gone after Mark Teixeira.

The Angels don't make as much from the TV/radio contracts as the Dodgers. But billboards are big money.

191 I'm a very happy camper, no worries.

203 I don't think money was the issue with KRod...I think they felt he was no longer needed

200
I believe starting in the 2014 season the Dodgers can strike new TV deals.

206 meaning their timetable for big FA signings and being a World Series contender is 2012

2012 could be the exodus of a huge group of Logan Draftees. Hopefully that won't happen.

208 but just think of all the draft choices we will get back, so we can finally begin our youth movement

208
But after 2012, so we're still good. :)

199 That's a very big "except". Getting to seats like that means 30 years+ of devotion. I haven't checked recently but I believe that if you wanted to buy in the same price range with no seniority, you'd be way down the line and half way back. Then again, I'm basing that on the last time I was a season ticket holder which was 10 years ago. Our family had seats in the 2nd row of Field 49 and it took 21 years to get there. Price increases may have changed the landscape dramatically.

211 - I agree with you. It took us well over a decade to get our seats where we like them on the Loge.

Crazy year for NBA coaches. Reggie Theus is out in Sacramento, making a total of 6 coaching firings this season. No link yet, but it has been reported on ESPN Radio.

In a related story, look for new episodes of "Hang Time" next summer!

Josh Wilker interview:

http://scottsimkus.wordpress.com/2008/12/15/interview-josh-wilker/

213 And none of the firings are of guys named Dunleavy.

215 that is because the GM and him are tight

215 216 And yet Donald Sterling hates Dunleavy's guts!

2013 lineup?

C: ???
1B: Andrew Lambo
2B: Tony Delmonico
SS: Ivan DeJesus Jr.
3B: Josh Bell
LF: Austin Gallagher
CF: Devaris Gordon
RF: Kyle Russell

#1: Clayton Kershaw
#2: Ethan Martin
#3: Chris Withrow
#4: Nathan Eovaldi
#5: James McDonald

Closer: Josh Lindblom

The Andy LaRoche Marching and Chowder Society may not be happy if this happens.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08350/935200-63.stm

218 I'd be really surprised if the Dodgers let Billingsley or Kemp get away.

218 - C: Six time all star (and former Red Sox Captain) Dioner Navarro! ;)

219 Pedro Alverez would have more of a beef, I would say.

222
Is Alvarez going to even see time in the majors in 2009?

223 By September maybe? He's already on the 40 man roster, and a major league contract. If he's ready, I can't see the Pirates trying to stash him away after the threat of a Super two situation passes.

"You know, Goodrich once told me that if Pete hadn't retired, he would have gone to Cal," Cal graduate and longtime publicist Bob Steiner is quoted as saying in Jenkins' Newell biography. "Think of that chain reaction. They don't win the first championship. They don't get Alcindor. I've always been [upset] about that. But I don't know who I'm mad at, Goodrich or Newell."

Goodrich, living in Connecticut, laughed when he was read the quote.

But he didn't deny its veracity.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-crowe15-2008dec15,0,6248692.column

224
I don't think the (potential) Wigginton signing will have any affect on Alvarez. I doubt Alvarez sees any MLB time until September. If it is sooner (due to Alvarez tearing up the minors) they can always move or trade Wigginton.

225 And if Jackie Robinson didn't break a NCAA recruiting rule and call Lew Alcindor to convince him to go to UCLA, who knows what would have happened?

I remember the first time I read that Cal won a NCAA title and I thought, Cal?

226 I applaud Pete's work in South Central, I think he should leave his day job and commit his full attention to those causes.

227
Jackie Robinson, closer.

First Tommy Davis, then Lew Alcindor. Probably many others.

The official story on Chan Ho Park:
1yr 2.5 mils.

http://tinyurl.com/694426

Not sure what the Phillies are thinking this off-season. You put Park in that home run inducing park, and then let Burrell go to sign a 37yr old Ibanez.

199
I would think that is the number one reason why you renew if you are a long time season ticket holder. For them losings one's seniority is a killer, so I think the people who don't renew are those who have decided they will no longer be season tickets holders, not just in 2009 but in the foreseeable future.

227
I always wondered why Kareem left NY for UCLA. Had no idea that Jackie was doing some recruiting.

Apparently Oakland's offer to Furcal is 4/$40m.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3770877

If the Dodgers don't want to offer a 4th year, I wonder what dollar amount over 3 years will get it done. 3/33? 3/36?

230 What other kind of starting pitcher are you going to get for 2.5 million?

What are the A's going to do with Bobby Crosby if they sign Furcal?

http://www.japanball.com/news.phtml?id=13581

Kuroda and Saito are pitching for Team Japan in the WBC.

235
Platoon at 3B with Chavez, depending on which one is on the DL at any given time?

Trade Bobby Crosby to the Padres. They need a SS after Greene was traded away.

That's like asking what the Dodgers would do with Juan Pierre if we sign Manny.

Trade Juan Pierre to the Padres, they need one after Jody Gerut is traded away for spare parts.

I wouldn't go 4 for Furcal, but I bet 3 years somewhere in the 30's gets it done. Once again, if you don't resign Raffy or Lowe, then we aren't going to be very good next year. Fine, but then why waste the money on Blake.

I'm ok with letting Furcal go if they want to give Berroa/Hu/DeJesus a shot and save or spend money elsewhere. I'll be pretty upset though if they pass on Furcal, but then sign Cabrera or trade for Wilson while guaranteeing him a 2nd year, when they could likely have Furcal for 3.

238
The Padres aren't looking to take on salary. Greene's $6.5m salary for 2009 was basically the only reason he was jettisoned.

Crosby is set to make $5.25m, so Oakland would have to eat a substantial chunk to unload him.

240
Also, the Padres' 2009 OF is pretty much set, with Headley in LF, Venable in CF, and Giles in RF.

What are they doing with their best player?

243
According to reports and talk down here, it seems like Peavy is staying put. Maybe Towers has finally decided to stop giving progress reports to the media and is secretly working with either Atlanta or Chicago, but it seems like Peavy will return, at least to start 2009.

241
I've been able to let Furcal go.
Would it be responsible to give a guy $30,000,000.00 when you just finished giving him $39,000,000.00, he really didn't play much last year because he had surgery on his lower back, and your team seemed to do just fine without him last year?

There is no question that Furcal has displayed talent.

I'm very comfortable in allowing another club to "guarantee" him more money.

Let's sign and rely on some "healthy guys".

The "incentive" laden option with Furcal is the only one that makes sense to me - Given his recent back surgery.

According to Howard Eskin of WIP 610 in Philadelphia, the Phillies re-signed Jamie Moyer to a two-year deal.

Guess that rotation is set.

http://www.610wip.com/

246
One of my D4P's more puzzling enemies will not be a Dodger I guess.

232 http://www.magazine.ucla.edu/features/admissions-crisis/index7.html

245 Our team most certainly did not do fine last year without Furcal. Between the time he went down and when we acquired Manny, the Dodgers' offense was totally lifeless.

246
That's my favorite Tripon link yet.

Pettitte's "people" claim he has an offer of 3/$36, not from the Yankees.

http://tinyurl.com/56oklj

I meant Jody Gerut.

I am finding myself caring less and less about our situation this off season. Right when we lost in the NLCS, I was paranoid about wanting to keep our nucleus together, now I'm just totally ambivalent. I noticed there was a discussion in a prior thread about the Dodgers' "lack of asserted philosophy" this offseason versus it being a situation where we're "not showing our hand." Playing hardball or whatever. From my standpoint, I think Colletti and the gang suck at both. So, it's irrelevant to me which side of coin we evaluate this free agency period from. Regardless of who is put on the field, I'll watch faithfully next season. I've just resolved myself to not get annoyed by it. Seems like a waste of energy at this point.

249
Just a question:
How much did Furcal add to the offense once he finally returned?

Has anyone heard anything about any teams being interested in Brad Penny? I haven't, but I may have missed it.

I thought I read something about Penny and Toronto (?), but it was just in passing...

255 Yep, Frisco.

Only 3 pitchers have thrown 100 IP in a season at age 46 or older, including Phil Niekro thrice!

http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/VVc9

Moyer turns 46 next season.

256 - Seem strange that he would get such little interest. I'd love to know what the 'word' is about him. I sense it is not good.

255

(Typically vague) rumblings from Boston.

He was so terribly flat in his final outing at Dodger Stadium, velocity down, control off... I get the sense he's a lesser Jason Schmidt lying in wait for a contract, only to produce virtually nothing in the next 2 seasons. But I'm in an apathetic mood today, so I could be totally wrong about that.

259 probably like with many others...sign with the Dodgers...incur career threatening physical problems

Jays are out of the Furcal race.

It's down to Oakland (who he likes the least), KC and us.

Source: NY Post

I'd offer Furcal 2/$21M, with a $15M vesting option unlocks after 1000 ABs in 2009-10.

I'm always worried about incentive laden deals based on plate appearances. If almost makes the player ignore his injuries and play hurt since his lack of productivity is less important to him then his plate appearances.
On the other hand a incentive laden deal based on productivity metrics would mean the smart player would sit when not at full strength which in some cases is good but not always. A sore Furcal would still be a better bet then a healthy Hu. I guess I'm just not a fan of incentive laden deals even though on the surface they seem to be a good idea.

264
Toronto Turf and a tender back - not a good combo.

Cold & Damp Oakland is another tender back combo that may not be a great match.

KC - When was the last time they won - when Brett was playing?

Your offer is very generous.

With the way the offseason is going, I think you bring back Raffy and Manny and you guarantee yourself the division. No one else outside of SF is going to get better, only worse, and we have enough arms to see how it goes, and if we are really in it then trade for a pitcher mid season.

264 But why would Furcal take that if Oakland is offering him the same annual salary for twice as long?

265
If a need is felt to offer an incentive laden contract, then maybe it's really best to give someone else a try?

I'd give an incentive laden contract to both Furcal and Manny...guaranteed two years, with ability to guarantee years 3 and 4 based on performance and ABs...

that way they could have 4 year deals, and it would be up to them

I'm pretty sure performance based options aren't allowed.

so call them incentive laden

I agree with Toy Cannon on the incentive-laden deals. Furcal already helped wreck our 2007 season by stupidly playing the whole year while hurt. Why would you want to encourage that behavior even more?

If you really want the player, make the money guaranteed. If you don't want the player that badly, say thanks but no thanks. Either way, I don't see the point of offering incentive clauses.

268 Because if he's healthy, there's a chance to earn a nice $12M salary and become a FA earlier.

273 maybe you want the player when healthy, but "fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice, shame on me"

275 I guess what TC and I are trying to say is that getting at-bats is not necessarily an indicator of being healthy.

that I agree with

273 I could be very, very wrong, but I thought that Furcal's 2007 playing-while-hurt was on the up-and-up...

That is, I thought he told the Dodgers he was hurt and that he would probably only get better by resting, but that he was willing to play through the pain... and that the Dodgers, who didn't have another option at short, said that he should go ahead and play?

Last I heard someone said "fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice, won't get fooled again."

278 I believe that characterization is correct; the team condoned it. Whether they did so eagerly or reluctantly is a matter of speculation, but I believe I remember quotes from Collett saying that he'd broached the subject of the DL with Furcal and been rebuffed.

One thing that's emphatically wrong is the lack of options at short; in fact, the Dodgers had the best shortstop in all of minor league baseball that year playing for their AAA team.

Re: 278 , here's the line I was thinking of.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/19/sports/sp-furcal19

For the most part, however, he suffered in silence. Although the Dodgers' trainers and confidants such as infield coach Mariano Duncan knew he was in pain, few others, even teammates, knew how badly he was hurt.

So he "suffered in silence" and "few...knew how badly he was hurt," but "the Dodgers' trainers... knew he was in pain."

I am done parsing whether the Dodgers knew he was injured or not.

279 I believe that was the hu?

Even he probably could have matched Furcal's .688 OPS, since that was what now appears to be his career year.

Hu was a beast in 2007.

279 Meet the new GM. Same as the old GM.

everyone is so so serious here lately...sign of the times?

my Hu reference had nothing to do with Furcal...

AAA shortstops in 2007:

Wilson Valdez 361 AB 848 OPS
Tomas Perez 132 AB 613 OPS
C-L Hu 192 AB 842 OPS
Joseph Becker 2 AB 1015 OPS

How can someone have an OPS of 1015 with 2 AB, isn't that statistically impossible?

Sorry. 2 games. 7 AB.

If a player is able to earn an incentive, then he would also be able to earn a new contract when the old one expired. So it seems like a worthless addition, and it makes sense that a player would judge a contract solely by how much was guaranteed.

Athletics Nation had a poll on what did you want the A's to get done this off-season.

Making sure they get rid of Bobby Crosby won handily.

*what do...

291
Amazing how quickly what looked like a great left side of the infield for years to come in 2005 fell apart within two years.

293 we talking A's or Dodgers

293 For a second I thought you were talking about Hu and LaRoche.

293 The Dodgers see your two years and raise you half a season of LaRoche-Hu.

I kid, I kid! I'm still rooting for both of those guys. But...

18 seconds!

great minds

Funny, I thought we were talking Izturis and Beltre.

That would have required thinking Izturis is great.

Actually, I guess we did think that for that one half-season when he was leading the league in hits.

Speaking of LA Times and history, looks like they've got their archives from July 1997 onward for free:

http://articles.latimes.com/

See "In the Archives" at right.

300 That was tongue-in-cheek.

Team for sale.

http://tinyurl.com/teamforsale

The Furcal negotiations are shaping up to provide some interesting insight into whether a player will take more money and years from a team that is less competitive and not his first choice, or less money and years from a more competitive team. It seems like players almost always choose more money, so I'm curious how this will shake out if the Dodgers don't budge from 2 or 3 years.

Sigh, the Crow is being re-made.

Why they need to re-make a movie that has a different character in each sequel, I do not know.

305
My advice: buy blanks.

303 If he's able to sell it for close to $400 million, that's 5 times his initial investment. Not a bad business to be in.

303 - Too bad. I like their current situation.

304 It may be hard to know unless the Dodger's final offer gets leaked. If the Dodgers last offer is so far off, it's really hard to blame the guy for taking money. If it gets confirmed they're a year apart and close in money, it would be more telling.

304
I would have more confidence in the GM in Oakland than the one in LA.

Via @latimes Twitter:

"To clarify we haven't promoted http://articles.latimes.com since it's still beta. Our goal is to go back to 1985"

http://twitter.com/latimes/statuses/1059288909

I'm working on a remake of The Punisher, so I can win the all-time pointless remake award. It's only been done like, what, 3 or 4 times? And scarcely worth one attempt. But I bet I could sell it, by gum!

That's after I finish my new "Ringu" remake and "The Maltese Falcon '09."

312
1985 is the earliest date that full text searching of the LA Times is available now.

MARVEL should just do a Power Pack movie and be done with it.

Ringu is terrible. That is one where the American remake was actually better.

Would Bobby Crosby be worth a look if he could be had for next to nothing, assuming no Furcal?

Crosby was ok in 2004 & pretty good in 2005.
Then just nosedived 06-08.

Is he just not a good player that got lucky his rookie/2nd year?

317
He cannot hit or field. He is absolutely terrible.

You think Matt Kemp swings at sliders and curveballs off the plate in the dirt.

If somehow Jamie Moyer reaches 300, will he be the first 300 game winner not to make it to the Hall of Fame?

319
Ask Roger Clemens in four years.

319 People only lived that long back in Old Testament times. No way Moyer does it.

Will Raffy Palmeiro be the first 3,000 hit MLB player to not make the hall of fame?

Pete Rose excluded.

321
Old Testament times? Wasn't that when Walter Alston came back every season on a one-year contract?

Speaking of Marvel comics, see if you can beat my 18 outta 24 (many of you probably can):

http://www.sporcle.com/games/herologo.php

http://tinyurl.com/6ktmhy

Boras demands for Lowe(at least 4 years at 16.5 million is drying up demand for Lowe fast.)

326 With those kind of demands, I think the Dodgers are actually smart to not try to jump into this market. I think Boras etc. know this might be the last year for awhile to get massive contracts and are going for it. Next year's free agent class, if the economy continues its current slide, will pay the price.

325
This "experiencing technical difficulties" test sucks!

321 LOL.

328 - It seems back up, try again.

Gosh, I wonder if the Dodgers play the waiting game long enough, how many of their ex-players coming will end up coming back on short term contracts?

325
22 out of 24. Hawkman and Robin I missed.

Friggin, Robin.

327 Lowe (or Boras) seems to be chasing dollars that aren't there. The biggest market team just signed two FA pitchers, the Mets spent their money on a closer, and the Red Sox doesn't have any real needs this off season. They would like Texiera but they can live without him. Seems like Lowe should have found a team that was really interested in him, and jumped first.

331 How could you miss Robin?

1) Robin sucks.

2) That is some newer logo I have never seen. Give me old one with a yellow R in a black circle and I get it.

325 I got 20/24

NPUT

322 - Palmeiro also has 500 HRs, PEDs or not, that is a combo that seems very hard to keep out given a 19 year career. The .288 average and lack of awards might hurt him though.