Baseball Toaster Dodger Thoughts
Jon Weisman's outlet
for dealing psychologically
with the Los Angeles Dodgers
and baseball.
Frozen Toast
Google Search
Dodger Thoughts

02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

09  08  07 
About Jon
Thank You For Not ...

1) using profanity or any euphemisms for profanity
2) personally attacking other commenters
3) baiting other commenters
4) arguing for the sake of arguing
5) discussing politics
6) using hyperbole when something less will suffice
7) using sarcasm in a way that can be misinterpreted negatively
8) making the same point over and over again
9) typing "no-hitter" or "perfect game" to describe either in progress
10) being annoyed by the existence of this list
11) commenting under the obvious influence
12) claiming your opinion isn't allowed when it's just being disagreed with

Could Beltre Return?
2005-11-09 14:07
by Jon Weisman

Many of you know I don't put much stock in idle chit-chat, but I have to make note of this, courtesy of Ken Gurnick at

The Dodgers might find that bat by assuming all (or part) of a contract another club would like to unload through a salary-dump trade. Names that come to mind include Todd Helton, Jim Thome, Aubrey Huff and Adrian Beltre. With the removal from the payroll of Darren Dreifort, Shawn Green and Jeff Weaver, among others, the new GM could have a net of $25 million additional to spend.

The Dodgers farm system is considered one of the most fertile in baseball and to get an All-Star type hitter, it likely would require the organization to swallow hard and dangle some of those jewels of the future -- Joel Guzman, Russell Martin, Chad Billingsley, Andy LaRoche, Edwin Jackson -- for much-needed help now.

Could you see the Dodgers trying to recapture the mystique of 2004 by reacquiring Beltre - getting a discount on his salary by giving up top prospects?

On the surface, a move as simple as signing Nomar Garciaparra to a two-year contract with incentives, to bridge the gap between now and the arrival of Joel Guzman and Andy LaRoche, might make sense - qualified only by questions about Garciaparra's health. But before people freak out in the good way or the bad way about the thought of bringing back Beltre, keep in mind that a) this remains unlikely and b) the value of any deal depends on the price. As I noted last week, there remain compelling reasons to value Beltre and compelling reasons to stay away from him.

Was it a mistake to let Beltre go? Man, I think you have to be awfully generous to Beltre to shout "yes" with any confidence. After all that's been said, Beltre was a flop in the first year of his new contract, worse than Drew, worse than Derek Lowe, worse than Brad Penny, certainly worse than Jeff Kent.

He wasn't worse than Jose Valentin - and look, if money is no object, I'll take Beltre 2005 over Valentin 2005 any day. But money is an object.

Within four years, we'll find out emphatically whether letting Beltre go was a mistake or not. I still think there's every possibility he'll return to All-Star status and make us rue the day (or continue to rue the day) that he left. But it pains me to say it that I'm less confident that day will come, and more open to the possibility that we were saved from witnessing a disappointing five years. After all, there was a time when I was not alone in thinking Raul Mondesi was going to the Hall of Fame.

But second acts do happen in Los Angeles. And like it or not, I suppose we should keep an eye out for Beltre, as well as any other True Dodgers who might be on the market.

* * *

Gurnick's article also mentions that Jeff Kent, "who met with ownership two weeks ago, has told teammates he would ask for a trade if (Milton) Bradley returns." Now, putting aside the fact that these two could still mend fences (Bradley would have to have his entire carpentry set out to remain a Dodger, anyway), ask yourself how much Kent could bring in a trade this offseason.

Comments (206)
Show/Hide Comments 1-50
2005-11-09 14:26:05
1.   Steve
Names that come to whose mind?

Jim Thome...please.

2005-11-09 14:28:41
2.   King of the Hobos
I'm guessing Gurnick was just writing an article because he hadn't in awhile and wanted to use those quotes. It just outlines what the Dodgers could do this off season, rather than actually claim someone wants Beltre, much less that the Dodgers have talked to Seattle
2005-11-09 14:28:54
3.   dzzrtRatt
It's a good thing people can't read the Internet while they're driving, is all I can say.

But you're right, Jon, there is no player a team shouldn't trade nor acquire if the exchange is in your favor and meets your needs.

I just want to be assured that Camille Johnston isn't polling on Beltre's approval ratings vs. Guzman's, and leading the team to make the decision based purely on what boosts the McCourt 'brand.'

2005-11-09 14:32:41
4.   FirstMohican
Seattle must be as knee-jerk as Los Angeles if they're already giving up on front-loaded Adrian Beltre after they just paid the front.
2005-11-09 14:34:31
5.   Bob Timmermann
It's a proven fact that Adrian Beltre would have played better if he had stayed in L.A.

100% proven.

Absolutely no doubt.

Bill Plaschke would not lie to me.

2005-11-09 14:37:32
6.   Xeifrank
Rotoworld has their free agent signing predictions up. Yes, they are just predictions which anyone of us could do, so take them with a grain of salt. But their predictions did have us signing Joe Randa and E.Loaiza (3yr/$18mil). Here is what they wrote up about Randa. vr, Xei

Joe Randa (Padres) - Previous prediction: Padres - one-year, $3.5 million
That prediction can be ruled out now that the Padres have acquired Vinny Castilla. The Dodgers, Twins, Devil Rays, Red Sox, Brewers and Pirates are among the teams that might be willing to give Randa a modest raise from the $2.15 million he made last season. Prediction: Dodgers - one year, $3 million

2005-11-09 14:38:40
7.   FirstMohican
Anyone else know that Mark Cuban wanted to buy the Pirates? That would've been interesting, but not going to happen apparently.

2005-11-09 14:41:18
8.   Xeifrank
Gurnick's article also mentions that Jeff Kent, "who met with ownership two weeks ago, has told teammates he would ask for a trade if (Milton) Bradley returns."

Hey, this was part of my "Firing of Paul DePodesta" conspriracy theory #83 a week or so ago. vr, Xei

2005-11-09 14:41:23
9.   Steve
But their predictions did have us signing Joe Randa and E.Loaiza (3yr/$18mil).

I'm going to go have a drink or ten.

2005-11-09 14:41:56
10.   blue22
I am most likely in the minority here, but I am not against trading Guzman. I think as long as he's considered one of the top 3 hitting prospects in baseball (at SS no less!), he should have insane trade value.

However, I think he eventually ends up at 3rd or the OF (diminishing his value), and I'm not sure what to make of his plate discipline.

Ideally this is the type of player that you spin off to a Milwaukee or Pittsburgh for a about-to-become-expensive pitcher (preferably) or multi-category, stud hitter.

Problem is, unless Milwaukee or Minnesota want to give up Sheets or Santana, I don't see an ace on a bad team that could be available.

And I certainly don't want to see any more articles where "trading Guzman" and "Aubrey Huff" appear together.

2005-11-09 14:42:13
11.   fawnkyj
I hear that Ichiro is looking for a trade too. Id rather trade for him over Beltre and sign a big bat. I hear we are also interested in Konerko.
If we do get Konerko then we can package Loney to the M's to get Ichiro.

Or actually maybe that is why Loney has been playing outfield lately.

Pipe dreams?...

2005-11-09 14:42:40
12.   Xeifrank
7. Poor Mark would have to live with the likes of Jim Tracy as manager. Cuban is actually totally into stats for his basketball team. I'm sure he'd turn to a stats guy for his baseball team. Then of course there's Jim Tracy. vr, Xei
2005-11-09 14:42:41
13.   bigcpa
When a 37 yr old star with big trade value gives you an ultimatum regarding your 27 yr old would be-star with no trade value, what do you do? WHAT DO YOU DO?!
2005-11-09 14:43:34
14.   Vishal
[7] can we get him to do a hostile takeover of the dodgers? please???
2005-11-09 14:45:37
15.   Xeifrank
White Sox just offered Konerko 4 years at $52mil (radio). Rumor has the Angels offering a 5th year at well over $60mil. If the Dodgers are in the running for Konerko, I expect to see Steve in bars at closing time pretty much every night. vr, Xei
2005-11-09 14:46:37
16.   EricN
Actually . . . I wouldn't mind if Mark Cuban owned the Dodgers.
2005-11-09 14:47:15
17.   fanerman
13 - Keep Bradley, trade Kent for Beltre, throw Perez/Aybar at 2B, sign Giles, add another pitcher without giving any major prospects?

Oh yeah, may not be a bad idea to insert bone spurs in Beltre's ankle...

I'd rather not get Beltre. Just saying, if we had to trade Kent, I'd rather trade Kent for Beltre than trade prospects for Beltre. Prospects for Kent would be throwing in the towel, at least to Plaschkers.

2005-11-09 14:48:09
18.   fanerman
16 - Neither would I. Cuban has money, likes stats, and isn't related to Frank McCourt.
2005-11-09 14:50:25
19.   blue22
16 - Cuban would be a dream. He's a terrific owner.
2005-11-09 14:50:34
20.   natepurcell
trade both kent and bradley.
2005-11-09 14:51:15
21.   trainwreck
Kent to the mets for Petit and Milledge. I would be more than happy to do this trade. Kent is a great player, but I rather build for the future then just be mediocre for next season.
2005-11-09 14:51:40
22.   bigcpa
17 Hmm, I'd picture Kent going to a "win now" team like NY or Boston. The Mariners could use Bradley though.
2005-11-09 14:52:51
23.   FirstMohican
Another vote for Cuban.
2005-11-09 14:54:53
24.   dzzrtRatt
22 the Mets are a 'win now' team. Pedro's arm isn't getting any stronger.
2005-11-09 14:55:00
25.   bigcpa
21 That's such the DePodesta trade. You have to start thinking like an Old Schooler! :)
2005-11-09 14:55:53
26.   fanerman
22 - 17 wasn't something I would champion. Just with the Beltre buzz, one possible scenario.
2005-11-09 14:56:54
27.   FirstMohican
22 - If I were Kent, I'd try to pry my way into St. Louis. If they added Kent and Giles jeez.
2005-11-09 14:57:21
28.   natepurcell
a little bit of dreaming here:

*kent to mets for petit and milledge

*bradley and odalis to mariners for beltre+ 12 mil over 4 yrs

*sign nomar to 2 yr deal

*sign brian giles to 3 yr deal

*sign matt morris to a 2 yr deal


2b- aybar
ss- nomar
cf- drew
3b- beltre
lf- giles
1b- choi
rf- cruz
c- navarro


2005-11-09 14:57:52
29.   fanerman
Contact Mark Cuban here:

Actually, the page seems more like it's for the blog than Cuban directly, but on his blog, the link says "Contact Mark Cuban."

Now we can all ask him to buy the Dodgers. I wonder if Jon would mind if we all said we were from Dodger Thoughts.

2005-11-09 14:59:08
30.   blue22
28 - Is Petit farther along than "our kids"?
2005-11-09 14:59:17
31.   bigcpa
Soriano to the Mets seems inevitable. Let's construct a 3-way with Kent going to Texas, Soriano to the Mets and all the good stuff coming to us.
2005-11-09 14:59:41
32.   natepurcell
to add to 28, our AAA offense would be like this:

c- martin
1b- loney
2b- young
ss- guzman
3b- laroche
cf- milledge

haha, that makes me drool more than the big league club.

2005-11-09 15:01:01
33.   natepurcell
Is Petit farther along than "our kids"?

a little bit, not by much. petit reminds me a lot of livan hernandez. not the greatest of stuff, but durable and always seems to get people out. he could be a good change of pace guy to billz and jax.

2005-11-09 15:01:33
34.   Steve Saxs Sweaty Jockstrap
Ok, Im sold, bring back BELLY!
We miss you belly!
2005-11-09 15:02:04
35.   fawnkyj
28, 32

Send this to Ng ASAP!

2005-11-09 15:02:04
36.   natepurcell

thats a good idea fanerman. cuban can be the leader in our hostile takeover of the dodgers.

2005-11-09 15:03:58
37.   trainwreck
St Louis does not have much to offer.
Obviously I like the Kent deal and I think adding Beltre would be nice (means LaRoche is gone though), but I would not even bother to sign Nomar and Giles. Clearly we are building for the future if we trade Kent away so I highly doubt Giles would come here.
2005-11-09 15:06:39
38.   bigcpa
Petit was born 11/22/84 so a few months younger than Billingsley. He did get 3 starts in AAA this year. 11.2 K/9 vs. 2 BB/9. Dreamy.
2005-11-09 15:09:24
39.   trainwreck
I rather trade Kent right now. I think he can get us a lot in return that will help us in the long run. I really am not expecting anything great for next year so let's build for the future. Mets want a bat up the middle to replace Matsui (rumored to be after Furcal). Kent allows them to add a better bat and Reyes is perfectly fine playing shortstop. The D Rays were getting these players last year for trading Baez and Lugo so I think we can definitely get Petit and Milledge for Kent. Minaya has traded a lot of top prospects to get a big name for the short term before (the Colon trade when he was GM of Expos).
2005-11-09 15:10:13
40.   SiGeg
The first paragraph of Rob Neyer's latest:

"Last weekend, I attended (as a speaker of sorts) 2005 First Pitch Arizona, an annual fantasy baseball symposium organized by fantasy maven Ron Shandler. I'm contractually prohibited from revealing anything I learned that might be particularly interesting -- for example, the reason the Dodgers weren't all that interested in re-signing Adrian Beltre a year ago -- but I'm perfectly free to write about the four Arizona Fall League games we saw in two days."

So, there was some sort of secret reason? No fair teasing us, Neyer!

This is completely uninformative, obviously, but I thought I'd throw it into today's Beltre thoughts stew.

2005-11-09 15:11:39
41.   natepurcell
re 40:

molokai was there!!! molokai, gives us the dirt on beltre!

2005-11-09 15:12:21
42.   King of the Hobos
Why are we all interested in Beltre now? Just because his name was mentioned in a standard article? Did 2005 not happen? I'm a little confused here, I must admit
2005-11-09 15:12:35
43.   trainwreck
He was on roids? That is something secretive. I hate when people say something like that. Do not mention it if you are not going to tell us.
2005-11-09 15:14:28
44.   King of the Hobos
molokai, where are you? Please tell us he knows...
2005-11-09 15:16:11
45.   FirstMohican
The real reason the Dodgers weren't that interested in Beltre is because they've learned through his son (currently a 17 year old prospect in the Dodgers' system) that Beltre is actually 38 years old.
2005-11-09 15:20:29
46.   Steve
I'll have another.
2005-11-09 15:20:51
47.   Jon Weisman
42 - The idea that Beltre might be available at a discount from his 2005 price. Other than that, you certainly don't have to be any more interested in Beltre than you already were.
2005-11-09 15:23:23
48.   natepurcell
these simulated press conference segments on espn are neato. i hope they do one for the dodgers.
2005-11-09 15:25:02
49.   JJoeScott
A couple of Beltre thoughts:

1. 2005 was his big salary year on his contract - $17MM, I believe. The balance of his contract would potentially be cheaper than market rate.

2. I recall that DePodesta made a vague allusion to Beltre in a discussion about there being certain players connected with steroid use that the Dodgers did not pursue.

2005-11-09 15:25:13
50.   trainwreck
It is a cool concept but there is not much substance to it. The Cubs one they just said we will add Furcal.
Show/Hide Comments 51-100
2005-11-09 15:25:42
51.   bigcpa
If Dodger Thoughts was around in 1999 I'm sure we all would've been theorizing about the Mike Piazza do-over too. Course in that case the stat-heads and the sentimental types were equally ticked off.
2005-11-09 15:34:03
52.   molokai
I'm not contractually obligated but you won't like what they said. Plus the person who delivered the info I'm very skeptical about. I don't think it is any secret but he said the Dodgers did not pursue Beltre because they felt his performance in 2004 was helped by outside factors. I'm surprised Neyer mentioned that. I found the source to be an idiot who seemed to want to appear on the inside with Dodger management(kim ng) by making a scoop. Neyer seemed smarter then that to quote a source like him. It may be true, I'm sure by the end of 2005 we all suspected it.
I posted other items about the conference at
2005-11-09 15:34:33
53.   sanchez101
51. Baseball Prospectus recently did a notebook on the Mets, in which they looked back at Piazza's contract, which shows that the Mets overpaid for Piazza by about $40 million. For most of his time with the Mets he wasnt worth the money he was getting paid. I dont think that the Dodgers were unfortunate to trade Piazza, it looked really stupid at the time, but in the long run the Dodgers won out.
2005-11-09 15:35:26
54.   D4P

Nate - You and Rocker used to mock me for

1. Not wanting Kent and Bradley on the team
2. Suggesting that Kent might very well ask to be traded this off-season
3. Suggesting that the Dodgers trade Kent this off-season

Now you're saying we should trade Kent and Bradley. You guys should really control your mockery and treat people better.

2005-11-09 15:37:47
55.   dzzrtRatt
Beltre, minus the insane upfront payment Seattle made to him for 2005, and minus whatever shekels we could extract from Seattle to take him off our hands, could possibly be had at less than his market value. Seattle being a last-place team that is desperate to improve, would be interested in a lot of the pieces that seemingly don't fit in LA anymore--Bradley, Choi, Perez.

As much as the Mets are in a hurry, they won't give up Milledge and/or Petit for one year of Kent. They might fear he's next year's Steve Finley. Milledge got a big write-up in the NY Times recently. Minaya just can't do that. The more likely scenario in my mind is to get the Mariners to take Bradley, Perez and Choi for Beltre plus money to offset his salary. Then work a deal for Thome that has Philly eating part of that contract. Give up LaRoche, or a couple second-level prospects, to do that:

Thome 1B
Kent 2B
Robles/Aybar/Izturis SS
Beltre 3B
Werth LF
Drew CF
Cruz, Jr. RF
Navarro C

Jackson or FA
Billingsley or FA
Houlton or FA

That's a team you could win the division with, while hardly causing a ripple in the prospect chain. I know Steve and others choke on Thome, but there's every reason to believe he can still hit. Don't like Thome? Substitute Helton. I'd rather pay stupid amounts of money to guys I know can hit home runs, than near-stupid amounts of money to guys who we think might (i.e. Dunn, Giles, Randa).

2005-11-09 15:40:16
56.   natepurcell
oh sweet. the dodgers simulated press conference is up next tomorrow on sportscenter.
2005-11-09 15:41:05
57.   trainwreck
Steve plays Dodgers GM tomorrow hahaha. First off let me say as the Dodgers GM I do not exist.
2005-11-09 15:41:06
58.   Uncle Miltie
40- I read somewhere that the Dodgers were worried that Beltre was juicing. Depodesta was looking for players who were obviously not taking steroids (like Lowe and Drew). No I would not want Beltre back. The guy left for the money. Let him rot on that terrible team.

Kent is showing his true colors. Didn't he say that he wouldn't ask the Dodgers to trade Bradley? Instead, he threatens them that he'll demand a trade if they keep Bradley.

Kent to the Twins for Francisco Liriano and Lew Ford

Andy Marte is on the block and is ready for the majors. The Dodgers could trade for him and if LaRoche pans out, Marte could move to 1B.

2005-11-09 15:41:23
59.   natepurcell
d4p, your reasoning for trading kent and bradley vastly differs from my reasons. you want to trade them because of "chemistry" and "character".

i want to trade them because i want lastings milledge.

2005-11-09 15:42:51
60.   trainwreck
I would love to get Lirinao not much of a Ford fan but I will take Liriano in a second.
2005-11-09 15:43:58
61.   D4P
But didn't you want lastings milledge back when you didn't want to trade Kent and Bradley? Why do you want to get rid of them all of a sudden?
2005-11-09 15:44:12
62.   trainwreck
It is very clear, you do not play Bagwell at first. These mock GM press conferences try to be too nice and diplomatic.
2005-11-09 15:45:23
63.   D4P
If you happen to visit the ESPN Dodger board, you may have read my postings there where I speculated after Beltre signed with Seattle that Depo may have known or at least suspected that Beltre had been juicing, and that such knowledge/suspicion reduced his desire to resign Beltre.
2005-11-09 15:46:30
64.   sanchez101
just to keep in mind: Beltre's salary(according to

-even if Seattle were to send along $12m/4yrs like nate suggested, that the Dodgers would be paying $35m/4yrs for a guy that is basically Vinny Castilla. Not to mention that he would block LaRoche and possibly Guzman and Dewitt. I really cant see a situation where Beltre being a Dodger is a good thing.

2005-11-09 15:47:02
65.   trainwreck
He gained a large amount of muscle in one off-season (the year before his free agency). I think deep down we all had thoughts he did it. I really thought he did.
2005-11-09 15:47:31
66.   Mark
Liriano looks like a poor man's Duaner Sanchez. No thank you.
2005-11-09 15:49:36
67.   natepurcell
Liriano looks like a poor man's Duaner Sanchez. No thank you.

liriano looks like santana.

2005-11-09 15:51:18
68.   trainwreck
This is what John Sickel's said about Liriano...
8) Francisco Liriano, LHP
Began the season as a decent prospect with good upside, ended it as the best LHP prospect in the game. Has always had a live arm, but he improved his command this year, and looks very much like Johan Santana during his breakthrough. Which doesn't mean Liriano will be another Santana, but that is the kind of ceiling Liriano has.

Does not sound like Sanchez to me.

2005-11-09 15:51:42
69.   sanchez101
Im open to the idea of trading Kent because he's old, and very unlikely to maintain last years performance. Even if the Dodgers retain Kent, your looking at a drop in production from 2B. If the dodgers can aquire some younger talent (i really like the idea of milledge), and replace Kent's bat with a secondary deal, i think it make a lot of sense, especially since it give us a chance to see what Antonio Perez can do over a full season.
2005-11-09 15:52:00
70.   Robert Fiore
I don't see how DePodesta could have "known" but I think that unless Beltre makes some kind of admission (if there's something to admit) it's going to be one of those things we'll always wonder about, like what the hell was really going on with the Clay/Liston fights.
2005-11-09 15:53:05
71.   natepurcell
But didn't you want lastings milledge back when you didn't want to trade Kent and Bradley? Why do you want to get rid of them all of a sudden?

some things d4p.

1- when i said "lets trade bradley and kent", i wasnt wholeheartily serious. the ideal scenario would be for both to stay, but if they cant, then why not, lets rebuild.

2- back then, we had a GM who had a plan going into the offseason. things have changed as you know.

3- i would trade anyone on this team if the return warranted it.

2005-11-09 15:53:24
72.   sanchez101
I think all of this steroid speculation about Beltre is way, way off course. So far no one as anything close to evidence, just idle speculation.
2005-11-09 15:54:48
73.   Robert Fiore
How about Kent for Beltre with the Mariners picking up a third of Beltre's salary?
2005-11-09 15:55:15
74.   trainwreck
How many pounds of muscle did he claim to gain in the off-season? That can tell you right there.
2005-11-09 15:55:34
75.   sanchez101
70. Depodesta let Beltre sign with Seattle because he didnt want to pay $65 million to a guy that could (and did) go back to hitting like Vinny Castilla.
2005-11-09 15:57:33
76.   sanchez101
73. I still cant see it. Kent will probably hit better than Beltre next season, and 2006 either Laroche or Guzman would be ready to play 3B.
2005-11-09 15:59:36
77.   Mark
Liriano turning into Santana is as likely as Joey Ballgame turning into Jeff Kent. Sorry to burst your bubble.
2005-11-09 16:01:24
78.   trainwreck
He will still be better than Duaner Sanchez.
2005-11-09 16:02:54
79.   fawnkyj
Isn't a non-steroids Laroche better than a non-steroids Beltre?
2005-11-09 16:02:57
80.   King of the Hobos
77 Out of curiosity, why? His stats were great, and most prospect people love him. How often does someone post a 1.72 ERA in the PCL?! Not to mention he has consistently had 10+ K/9 throughout his minor league career
2005-11-09 16:03:04
81.   dzzrtRatt
There are lots of other reasons for Beltre's drop in performance last season. Big contract jitters, new league, lost plate discipline (did those bone spurs really help him, or is that a joke?). He didn't lose a bunch of weight like some other suspected ex-roid users did.

He's an emotional player, in a bad way. He needs to be relaxed to play up to his full potential, but peace of mind has been difficult to find during his career for many reasons. I think Seattle got the worst possible end of that deal. They probably should keep him; I think he'll be much better in '06 now that expectations for him will be lower.

2005-11-09 16:03:29
82.   King of the Hobos
80 In case you huys are picky, I meant 1.78 ERA
2005-11-09 16:05:26
83.   sanchez101
77. Do you even know who Liriano is? There is of course no guarantee that the best LHP prospect in the game will develop into Santana-level dominance, but the thurston-kent comparison if laughable.
2005-11-09 16:06:12
84.   natepurcell
Liriano turning into Santana is as likely as Joey Ballgame turning into Jeff Kent. Sorry to burst your bubble.

i still dont understand this. Liriano has amazing stuff, good control and is just filthy. his 96mph fastball is his 3rd best pitch. what are your claims to back it up that he is nothing more than duaner sanchez?

2005-11-09 16:07:13
85.   natepurcell
re 83, im starting to believed hes getting liriano mixed up with some other pitcher.
2005-11-09 16:08:31
86.   molokai
Francisco Liriano's only resemblance to Duaner Sanchez is that they are both Dominican. There is not a prospect in the Dodger chain I would not trade for Liriano except for Billingsly.
2005-11-09 16:10:33
87.   jasonungar05
When I look at Beltre I don't see a decline in 2005 performace. I just see 2005 being the same as every other year except 2004.

15, 20, 13, 21, 23, 48, 19

one of these numbers do not belong I am sorry to say.

2005-11-09 16:10:58
88.   sanchez101
81. you seem to assume that Beltre's 2004 was his established level of production. Look at his career, and 2004 is the outlier, in 2005 Beltre reverted to the hitter he was in 2001-2003 when he didnt have to adjust to a new league or have big contract jitters.
2005-11-09 16:11:23
89.   natepurcell
the numbers

15,20,12,21,23, and 19 dont belong.

the number 48 is the true measure of his ability.

2005-11-09 16:16:15
90.   Mark
You're basing all of your drooling over Liriano over his August performance. Whatever happened to sample size around here? Check his September performance for a better dose of reality. I have no doubt that the kid is great in AA, and could even be great in AAA in 06, but to trade a 60-VORP 2b for him and Lew fricking Ford? Can I have a small helping of that big bowl of crack that you're smoking?
2005-11-09 16:19:03
91.   Paul B
I had never really thought about Beltre juicing until now, and agree there is nothing but juicy speculation. I admit also that the thought of getting Beltre back at a cut-rate had a certain knee-jerk appeal to it. Still, and notwithstanding the myriad of explanations available, these numbers of Beltre's caught my eye: (Year/ABs/OPS+)

2001 515 93
2002 635 98
2003 608 89
2004 657 163
2005 650 90

It's, uh, eye-catching if nothing else. Wow.

2005-11-09 16:20:58
92.   overkill94
Beltre is the last person I want back in a Dodger uniform (okay, not last, but close). It could have been steroids, but my hunch all along has been the big contract thing. It's a common practice in fantasy baseball to target guys going into a free agent year because they have a lot more incentive to put up the best stats of their career. True it only applies to players with questionable focus, but I think Beltre would have to be the poster boy for that one.

Mark, I'm not sure where you're coming from, but Liriano has always been tabbed as a superior prospect, the only hang-up being him staying healthy. Lefties who throw as hard as he does with his amount of stuff don't come around too often.

Finally, who's to say Kent has all that much trade value? He only has one year left on his contract so he would have to go to someone like Boston who has a need at 2B and wants to win now. Getting Milledge and Petit is veeeery optimistic, those are the same names being thrown around to get Manny, and Manny's considerably younger with a lot more years left on his contract. Not to mention he's one of the best hitters in the game while Kent is only one of the best hitting second basemen in the game.

2005-11-09 16:21:00
93.   King of the Hobos
90 Your opinion is based off his September call up? And you're using smaple size as your counter argument when it's clear that September was likely a sample size problem (not to mention adjusting to the majors for the first time)
2005-11-09 16:21:04
94.   trainwreck
If Kent wants out we have to trade him and I do not see us getting better deals then dealing for prospects. Face it next year we are not goin to be World Series contenders or anything so we should build for the future. Also if you are into numbers then you should realize minor league numbers translate to the majors.
2005-11-09 16:24:12
95.   sanchez101
90. 60-vorp 2B is one way to describe kent, another is to call him a 38-year old with little defensive value and one year left on his contract. We're just throwing names of top prospects on teams that would be interested in Kent. This skeptisism on Liriano is odd, though, especially considering that both scouts and stat-heads really like him.
2005-11-09 16:24:17
96.   jasonungar05
your crazy 89 but if you belive that, then cool. It was only a few years ago the dodgers had to motivate Beltre by bringing in the likes of Tyler Houston and Robin Ventura.

Go look at Richard Hidalgo. Same thing on him. He hit 44 HR in 2000 and OPS 1.036. He has hovered around .750 since.

2005-11-09 16:25:27
97.   overkill94
90 Mark, I think you're the one on crack. If you polled all the GMs and asked if they'd make that trade I think you would get an emphatic yes from just about all of them. To get a 22-year-old flame-throwing lefty with a career K/9 over 10 for a 37-year-old 2B with maybe 2 years left in him (only one of which is under contract) would be considered one of the biggest coups in recent history.
2005-11-09 16:26:29
98.   sanchez101
96. nate was certainly being ironic
2005-11-09 16:26:51
99.   fanerman
90 - Wouldn't looking at just his September numbers when he got his (presumably) first call-up be looking at small sample sizes? (I admit I know nothing about Liriano, just saying he only had 23 innings at the major league level).
2005-11-09 16:27:37
100.   natepurcell
re 96

my 89 comment was me joking around. i guess its hard to convey that on a blog.

Show/Hide Comments 101-150
2005-11-09 16:28:54
101.   blue22
90 - But would you trade him for AJ Pierzynski?
2005-11-09 16:29:08
102.   sanchez101
90, 97. no one here is on crack, i would hope. Mark has a point; pitching prospects are risky, hes just dragging that notion past its logical extreme. That said, i think it would be highly unlikely that Minnisota would give Liriano up.
2005-11-09 16:30:14
103.   overkill94
To take a step back, does anyone really think PR McCourt would allow the trade of his best player from this last year? Sure it makes sense if we had a sane owner who could see that this will be a rebuilding year, but when he obviously wants some immediate results to save face, I think the possibility of a Kent trade is remote.
2005-11-09 16:31:06
104.   jasonungar05
thank god nate! I am thinking to myself, I like what Nate writes normally. LOL
2005-11-09 16:31:11
105.   trainwreck
I really do not think we are going to have immediate results. I think that was just spin to reason the firing of DePodesta.
2005-11-09 16:31:50
106.   King of the Hobos
99 You are correct, that was his first call-up.

He gave up some runs, but still only allowed 19 hits in 23 innings, and had 33 Ks. If that's his true colors, I'd still trade for him.

2005-11-09 16:32:47
107.   FirstMohican
Was there any spin to the firing other than he didn't meet the McCourts' "expectations?"

The media was so busy celebrating DePo's departure that it didn't bother grilling the McCourts on the issue.

2005-11-09 16:33:09
108.   Mark
Now Kent has "maybe 2 years left in him"?

Holy god, I give up. The inmates are running the asylum. Feel free to have all the discussions you like about completely bankrupting the team for 22 year old kids that may or may not pan out. I only have three words for you: JOSEPH WILLIAM THURSTON. I know, let's trade JD Drew for Andy Marte while we're at it!

Good night.

2005-11-09 16:34:01
109.   dzzrtRatt
88 I don't think we know that for a fact. He's still young. I wasn't willing to pay $17 million to find out, even after the 48-HR season. But I might be willing to pay $11 million. We'd have to drive a hard bargain, but Seattle might be a willing player in a "I'll take your problems, you take mine" kind of deal.
2005-11-09 16:34:15
110.   natepurcell
To take a step back, does anyone really think PR McCourt would allow the trade of his best player from this last year?

but would it be a step back if in his second move, he trades for a player that was the best player on his 2004 team? I would think that move would outweight the kent trade in the PR war.

that said, i give all of this of happening at a 2% chance.

2005-11-09 16:34:46
111.   jasonungar05
Gosh what i would pay to sit down with Paul and just ask him stuff. I'd promise him not to tell anyone but you guys.
2005-11-09 16:35:21
112.   natepurcell
I know, let's trade JD Drew for Andy Marte while we're at it!

where can i sign up for that?

2005-11-09 16:35:46
113.   trainwreck
It is not like we are bankrupting the New England Patriots haha. If Kent refuses to play here we got to trade him. We know he is going to leave after this season we might as well get something for him. 2006 is not our season in my opinion. We are a team that is building for the future, unless we start trading all the prospects away.
2005-11-09 16:36:23
114.   overkill94
105 I wouldn't be so sure.

I see the offseason progressing with an ill-fated prospects-for-big-name trade, signing of another big name (Nomar?), and paying too much for an average pitcher (Morris?).

This will probably result in enough to win the division, taking the heat back off McCourt, but ultimately restricting the evolution of the organization.

2005-11-09 16:36:55
115.   blue22
109 - Also, a ton of Beltre's value this year was locked up in his defense. If he can hit just a little more, he's a very valuable player.
2005-11-09 16:39:20
116.   sanchez101
108. When was Joe Thurston considered a great prospect? Some people didnt bother to notice that he had no dicipline, or that he was hitting in an extreme hitters park. But Thurston was never considered a great prospect, he never cracked BA's top 100 list.
2005-11-09 16:41:01
117.   Bob Timmermann
It was a dark period in 2002. We either had to hope for Joe Thurston or Wilkin Ruan to pan out.
2005-11-09 16:42:24
118.   overkill94
108 Why does Joe Thurston's name keep coming up? He wasn't regarded as much of a prospect until he had a good season in hitter-friendly Las Vegas. People were excited about him because he was the heir-apparent at 2B, but he didn't have half the trade value that Liriano does right now.

And what's so crazy about saying Kent only has 2 years left in him? How many 40-year-old 2B do you remember in your lifetime? Sandberg lasted until 37 and wasn't very good after 33. Carew went to 39, wasn't great after 37. We're not talking about Barry Bonds here, Kent has remained steady throughout his career, but players like him can break down at any minute?

2005-11-09 16:43:23
119.   overkill94
118 One too many question marks there.
2005-11-09 16:45:02
120.   blue22
119 - Kent has remained steady throughout his career, but players like him can break down at any minute?

Oh, I was going to answer that one.

"Um, yes?".

2005-11-09 16:47:24
121.   trainwreck
I do not think Nomar and overpaying for Morris will make us a contender. Of course that depends on the big name you say we would acquire. Bradley is gone in my opinion. I think we are going to end up non tendering him. That leaves us with a Drew, Cruz, Werth outfield (ie not good). Nomar if he comes here I do not think will do as well because of the supressing of doubles and this being a pitcher's park (I know I gave an optimistic view for Nomar before, but I was planning on him not coming here but going to Milwaukee or somewhere like that). If you go by last year Weaver was 66th in VORP and Morris was 119th so we become worse there. Odalis Perez stinks so that really does not help us. I think last year is around what we can expect from Penny and Lowe. Fifth starter I guess would be Houlton and I am not expecting a ton from him. A slight improvement but nothing major. Who knows what is going to happen with first base I think that is the position where we would add the "big name" you mentioned. Our pen I think will be solid. So basically I think our outfield will be worse, our starting pitching will be worse, and our infield is a wild card. So I really do not see us being contenders for the World Series (that should be our goal if we are mortagaging the future). So I rather trade away someone like Kent and just build for the future and add pieces around our minor leaguers.
2005-11-09 17:01:14
122.   overkill94
121 Who said anything about the world series? ;)

Considering the west will most likely be weak again, if we add a few parts and are less injury-prone I don't see why we won't buy ourselves a ticket to a first-round exit.

I'd put Morris and Weaver at about even. They're both solid innings-eaters who don't strike out a ton of guys. I think Morris' ERA would be helped by pitching in Dodger Stadium, leaving him in the mid-high 3's. Casual fans will think we made a significant upgrade because Morris is a bigger name. In reality we'll just be overpaying for a Weaver clone.

2005-11-09 17:02:31
123.   jasonungar05
So I rather trade away someone like Kent and just build for the future and add pieces around our minor leaguers.

My guess is Depodesta said this to Frank and Frank went Trump on him

2005-11-09 17:04:41
124.   trainwreck
Your right I got my priorities messed up. I should be thinking overspending to try to win a terrible division instead of winning world series ;). My expectations are high though I mean really how long has it been since we really were World Series contenders and had a legit shot to win it? We should have that mindset but we do not.
2005-11-09 17:06:59
125.   Steve
Liriano is a starter, right?
2005-11-09 17:07:18
126.   trainwreck
2005-11-09 17:10:22
127.   D4P
While I have long advocated trading Kent (for a variety of reasons), I never once thought that Depo intended to do so.
2005-11-09 17:11:48
128.   Steve
Then why would the Twins trade him for one year of Jeff Kent?
2005-11-09 17:13:03
129.   trainwreck
They probably would not we are just coming up with dream trades for Kent or at least trades we would be willing to trade Kent away for.
2005-11-09 17:15:56
130.   D4P
I'd like to see Kent traded to the Giants. They deserve each other.
2005-11-09 17:17:52
131.   trainwreck
The Lakers never played a 4 minute stretch last year as well as they did to start this game. I know it is extremely early in the season and there will be definite bumps in the road but this team looks completely different from last years. Thank you Phil haha
2005-11-09 17:18:40
132.   natepurcell
I'd like to see Kent traded to the Giants. They deserve each other.

if liriano was still in the giants org, i would say "yes, kent to the giants for liriano"

but i guess we would have to settle for cain.

wow imagine of sabean wasnt an idiot? he would have cain and liriano.... thats a scary thought.

2005-11-09 17:19:20
133.   Uncle Miltie
They wanted Soriano at the trading deadline, so why not Kent. Soriano is only under contract this year and Kent is a better player.
2005-11-09 17:19:42
134.   D4P
I was just thinking the same thing. I'm not watching the game, but I see they're up 11-2 and haven't missed a shot yet. Phil is the man, although I don't expect this to continue all season long. Brown and Mihm need to step it up.
2005-11-09 17:19:45
135.   blue22
129 - Both Boston and NYM have decent farm systems and a need for a 2B. I think you start there.

Of course, I don't think we should trade Kent. I think we can easily contend in this division next year, but not if we trade Kent. Call me crazy, but I'm not sure how we become WS-contenders by trading our best hitter and MVP.

2005-11-09 17:20:07
136.   natepurcell
i am contemplating buy league pass this season just so i can watch all the laker games.

then i realized i am broke so that wouldnt be possible.

2005-11-09 17:20:25
137.   Bob Timmermann
Boston has Alex Cora. They have the ideal second baseman.
2005-11-09 17:21:38
138.   blue22
134 - Kobe is playing better, but I think the biggest upgrade is Smush for Chucky Atkins.

They still aren't playing a lick of interior D though. That'll catch up to them eventually, unless Kwame starts sharpening his elbows.

2005-11-09 17:22:25
139.   D4P
Just as well. You have homework to do.
2005-11-09 17:22:52
140.   trainwreck
Last year they did not play defense so any is a large improvement.
2005-11-09 17:23:22
141.   D4P
Bob - Did you see that 18-pitch AB HR in 2004? You can't place a dollar value on that kind of magic.:)
2005-11-09 17:25:41
142.   gvette
92--"Beltre is the last person I want to see back in a Dodger uniform (okay, not last, but close).)

Personally,the last person(s) I want to see back in a Dodger uniform would be
2) any number of Dan Evans pickups (Baldwin, Burnitz, Henderson,Mulholland, McGriff),
3) any number of outfielders that Tracy thought were "scrappy" (Repko, Edwards, Romano,Kinkade),
4)Kevin Brown, and
5)Gary Sheffield.

Beltre, even with his inflated contract, and now reverting to his natural level of (pre '04)performance, would still be pretty far down the list.

2005-11-09 17:25:49
143.   Bob Timmermann
Cora can't have an AB like that anymore since he and Matt Clement are teammates.

Gammons always says that Cora is supposed to be one of the smartest guys in the game. But I remember when he was breaking in, Davey Johnson would always complain about Cora couldn't do fundamental skills well (such as giving A-Rod a concussion on a DP attempt).

2005-11-09 17:29:27
144.   trainwreck
I would take Sheffield back in a second haha. I am a Raider fan so I am use to the notion of caring more about talent than character.
2005-11-09 17:30:30
145.   natepurcell
oh joy, i found online radio site that i can listen to the lakers game for free.
2005-11-09 17:30:57
146.   D4P
What's the web address, Purcey?
2005-11-09 17:31:33
147.   fanerman
145 - What's the site?
2005-11-09 17:34:16
148.   natepurcell
2005-11-09 17:35:21
149.   fanerman
148 - Thanks Purcey. You old pole cat, you old so and so.
2005-11-09 17:35:39
150.   natepurcell
23-14 after 1.

wow, defense!?!?!

Show/Hide Comments 151-200
2005-11-09 17:37:39
151.   D4P
8 boards for Kwame. That's more like it.
2005-11-09 17:41:35
152.   natepurcell
6 pts 7 boards from kwame so far. could this be his first double double as a laker!?!?
2005-11-09 17:43:35
153.   natepurcell
the only reason i like mychal thompson is because hes a vikings fan. thats about the only quality about him that doesnt annoy me.
2005-11-09 17:44:47
154.   gvette
143--Didn't Johnson use the "fundamental skills" argument for getting rid of Eric Young and Grudzielanek? Johnson was an okay second baseman, but as a manager must have held his infielders to a higher standard.
2005-11-09 17:46:20
155.   natepurcell
laron profit is kobe lite!
2005-11-09 17:46:38
156.   Uncle Miltie
153- Thompson is a moron
2005-11-09 17:48:19
157.   D4P
Chris Mihm* gets no respect from the refs.

*Neither do most 7-foot white guys.

2005-11-09 17:49:04
158.   natepurcell
mihm's home and away splits are soriano like.
2005-11-09 17:50:47
159.   D4P
That Mark Madsen sure is scrappy...
2005-11-09 17:52:31
160.   natepurcell
madsen: lakers

lo duca: dodgers??

2005-11-09 17:54:07
161.   fanerman
I wonder what Kurt at Forum Blue And Gold thinks when we have "Lakers Thoughts" here.
2005-11-09 17:54:08
162.   D4P
Madsen: Heart

Lo Duca: Soul

2005-11-09 18:02:15
163.   bigcpa
Just stumbled on this gem from Gary Sheffield, Feb. 2001. It would have fit so well under Jon's piece on the Dodger Way:

"They always like to talk about the Dodger way. Well, the Dodger way ain't
working too good. They'll never win, not unless they change everything. I mean,
look at it. Just look at all of the constant mistakes they keep making. They've
got the highest payroll in baseball. There are no prospects. And they've got a
whole team full of guys with contracts that nobody wants."

2005-11-09 18:04:02
164.   trainwreck
He spoke the truth hahaha
2005-11-09 18:16:44
165.   bhsportsguy
prediction: Friday 12:00 p.m. press conference - Kim Ng announced as first woman to run traditional (baseball, football, basketball) franchise in sure seems that is where we are headed...
2005-11-09 18:18:21
166.   fanerman
163 - Gary Sheffield for GM!
2005-11-09 18:26:59
167.   Bob Timmermann
Lawler's invoked in Washington.

Of course there are 24 seconds left.

2005-11-09 18:27:37
168.   Uncle Miltie
Lawler's Law
2005-11-09 18:28:19
169.   Uncle Miltie
Didn't even see your post Bob.
2005-11-09 18:29:41
170.   Uncle Miltie
Clippers are 4-1. Huge game from Elton Brand with 33 points and 13 rebounds.
2005-11-09 18:30:14
171.   natepurcell

i guess theres a live feed of our AFL team...

2005-11-09 18:35:45
172.   Sam DC
A little memory lane:

No one panic now, but Lawler's Law was broken today! The Clippers reached 100 points first against Philadelphia today, but lost anyway.

Yet, the planet is still here.

Posted by: Bob Timmermann at February 6, 2005 12:47 PM

2005-11-09 18:35:50
173.   natepurcell
sweet! the video works!

bad news: only loney is in the lineup :(

2005-11-09 18:35:53
174.   D4P
Enough live feeds, Nate. You need to hit the books.
2005-11-09 18:37:42
175.   natepurcell
yea right i have a 3 day weekend coming up. anyways, i hope kemp PHs or something, i want to see him!!
2005-11-09 18:39:08
176.   natepurcell
the desert dogs will be streamed online on saturday as well. so we can all watch them then.
2005-11-09 18:40:24
177.   Uncle Miltie
nate you must be working really hard right now in school
2005-11-09 18:47:11
178.   Bob Timmermann

I tend to know about Lawler's Law mainly because I rarely watch an NBA game before the 4th quarter.

I'm not as dedicated to the NBA as MLB.

2005-11-09 18:51:41
179.   natepurcell
drew just launched one over right field
2005-11-09 18:56:02
180.   trainwreck
Lakers have reverted back to their old ways. I completely jinxed them.
2005-11-09 19:04:24
181.   blue22
172/178 - SI did a little research a few years back on "Lawler's Law".

3 guesses as to which team violated Lawler's Law the most (got to 100 points first but ended up losing the game)...

2005-11-09 19:04:52
182.   dzzrtRatt
Boy did Tracy ever do a number on Hee Seop Choi. is running a poll right now, "Which position should the Dodgers address first this winter?"

After 4,745 votes, here are the results:
First base 38 percent
Outfield 7 percent
Starting pitcher 29 percent
Third Base 25 percent

The fans picked the one position where the Dodgers actually have enough players!

2005-11-09 19:07:52
183.   trainwreck
Kobe is going back to last year where he is trying to do everything by himself.
2005-11-09 19:08:45
184.   trainwreck
I voted for outfield because I figured we are going to lose Bradley.
2005-11-09 19:10:19
185.   trainwreck
2005-11-09 19:10:57
186.   Steve
Only seven percent got the right answer. And there you go.
2005-11-09 19:23:07
187.   Sam DC
178 Me too (mlb, not nba) -- I found your quote through google when I went to find out what Lawler's Law even was.

182 Is Portland on the list?

Watching Heat/Pacers right now for a minute -- Jason Kapono appears not to be wearing a headband.

2005-11-09 19:28:32
188.   dzzrtRatt
Want to feel like you're trapped on Gilligan's Island?

Here's Bud Selig on the mess at Chavez Ravine, according to the AP:

He (Selig) is not worried about turnover in the Dodgers' organization under Frank and Jamie McCourt. ``Everybody wants to do the best for their franchise. I know the McCourts do, too. I'm sure that they'll get the train on the track. I don't have any great concerns today.''

Yeah. No need to send a rescue plane. Only football players dressed like cannibals live on that island.

2005-11-09 19:34:14
189.   trainwreck
Selig likes that we have decreased payroll and he sees Anaheim doing well and we still are getting high attendance so he sees no problem right now.
2005-11-09 20:29:21
190.   YLT
Hi there, gentlemen. Long time listener, first time caller.

Isn't anyone nervous that we haven't really heard anything in the past few days about the GM search? I have a sinking feeling that Hart is about to be named the winner.

He'll quickly trade LaRoche and Billingsly for Thome and Beltre. Can't wait.

2005-11-09 20:32:06
191.   trainwreck
Yeah my wish is Hart does not want the job like Tom Hicks said and will go back to Texas because I think Frank wants to give him the job if he can not get anywhere with Theo.
2005-11-09 20:56:14
192.   molokai
Lakers Lose
Clippers beat unbeaten Wizards in Washington to remain in 1st place.

Who will be on the front page of the LA Times?

Probably not my boys. The Clips start is starting to remind me of our Dodger 12-2 start when everything was right in my world. Cassel/Mobley have been crap since the 1st game but Brand is carrying them on his back.

2005-11-09 20:58:06
193.   bokonon42
I'm a couple hours late to the party, but I have to share in Mark's outrage. I can't believe you crack-addict computer nerds want to trade Jeff Kent for Nelson Liriano. What is he, 50? And he was never any good. Maybe your computers all have viruses, or something.

Wait. You mean Francisco Liriano? Oh. Never mind.

2005-11-09 21:02:14
194.   Bob Timmermann
Believe it or not, Nelson Liriano is just 41.

I also forgot he played for the Dodgers in 1997.

As for the front page of the LA Times sports section, it will be the L.A. Kings who lost to Detroit 5-4 in OT.

2005-11-09 21:06:38
195.   bill cox
Why would we want to trade prospects for old Jim Thome with his bad back.Or take on Helton's monster contract and declining skills? Might as well trade some of the kids for Shawn Green.
Thurston was overhyped because he was a one eyed man in the land of the blind.Our farm system was peopled by scrubs like Bubba Crosby,Glenn Davis and Brennan King.Now we have real prospects and a drooling owner and advisor Tommy Dementia...uh I mean Lasorda just waiting to clean out the system for gimpy vets.We need divine intervention!
2005-11-09 21:07:38
196.   molokai
The Twins don't make bad trades and the AJ trade for Nathan/Liriano/Bonser may be one of the best in the AL in the last 15 years that didn't involve John Hart giving away Giles or Sexson. Even Bonser is considered to have major league ability. Can you imagine picking up 3 major league pitchers for an average catcher in his walk year. As a Dodger fan we should be sending platitudes to Ryan since I'm sure if the Giants had Nathan in 2004 they would have won the division.

However releasing David Ortiz is their Pedro/Delino. You could almost say that they might have won a playoff in 2003 or 2004 if they had Ortiz and the Sox didn't. Roto players knew the Twins were crazy when they wouldn't play Ortiz but none of us imagined him to be a 40 home run hitter. When everyone sloughs off Choi I think of Ortiz. If we do trade Choi I would think the Twins would be very interested. They need LH power big time and they have an opening at DH. I would be curious if Ng believes in Choi.

2005-11-09 21:13:50
197.   trainwreck
Clippers really need Maggette and Livingston back. Two things I have observed from watching the Clippers this year. Cassel will be the difference because he wants to be the go to guy in crunch time, which is something the Clippers really needed. The second observation is that Cuttino Mobley is a really limited player. He defends and he can shoot but his driving ability and ability to create his own offense is terrible. He also seems to be very streaky. He is not a go to guy at all and is just a complimentary piece which is why they need Maggette (who can score and rebound) and Livingston (who can score and create for others and possibly a lot of others things).
2005-11-09 21:15:54
198.   bokonon42
Huh. Does the earth supporting Nelson Liriano rotate around the sun more slowly than the rest of the world? I would have sworn he was forty during his Dodger stint. Alright, I've change my mind: trade Kent for Nelson Liriano.
2005-11-09 21:21:48
199.   D4P
Kent for Nelson.

2005-11-09 21:29:35
200.   molokai
197-Livingston can be the difference between the best Clipper team since Larry Brown was here or fighting for the 8th spot. Sam looks like he can only handle 25 minutes a night and while Ewing is playing very well for a 2nd round draft pick we need the Kid to get healthy. Mobley has shot very poorly other then opening night against the Hawks but he made some clutch shots tonight near the end of the game tonight. Once he gets his stroke going you'll be glad he's on the team. Can you believe how well Brand is hitting the 18 footer and he is just blowing by the other power forwards. Kamen is still the big dufus and I have no hope for him. Rather see Rebracca starting. That pass tonight should get him some pine time.
Show/Hide Comments 201-250
2005-11-09 21:33:14
201.   Jon Weisman
199 - Ah, my junior high classmates.
2005-11-09 21:43:07
202.   D4P
Was the talent obvious even back then?
2005-11-09 22:24:59
203.   Jon Weisman
202 - We knew who their Dad was, but beyond that, no. They were pretty quiet guys.
2005-11-09 23:09:19
204.   dzzrtRatt
Ricky Nelson was way better than he ever needed to be. He had a great back-up band--James Burton on guitar.
2005-11-09 23:15:35
205.   bokonon42
Simer's piece for tomorrow is up. He thinks Ng gets the GM job by default (the two sweetest words in the English language).

2005-11-10 00:37:08
206.   dzzrtRatt
6-4-2 links to a gossip item involving Shannen Doherty, a prominent Dodger executive who is probably too young to know any better, and Matt Leinert.

T.J. Simers--buy a lottery ticket, today. Your luck could not possibly get better.

This LA episode is turning out to be Frank and Jamie's Bogus Adventure.

Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.