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

Succumbing to Baez Reporting
2006-01-14 16:45
by Jon Weisman

In their first trade of a major prospect in nearly two years, since Milton Bradley came over from Cleveland, the Dodgers have sent two - pitchers Edwin Jackson and Chuck Tiffany - to Tampa Bay for relievers Danys Baez and Lance Carter.

Sentimentally, this isn't a pleasant trade to hear about. Jackson was the Adrian Beltre of this micro-generation, a struggling Dodger prodigy still young enough to turn things around and nice enough to root for. Tiffany, a Southern Californian, was a promising Dodger draftee as well. This isn't going to go down in history or even in Sunday's papers as trading Paul Lo Duca, but it shows that Dodger general manager Ned Colletti isn't going to be a bleeding heart for the Los Angeles farm system.

Objectively, the trade isn't hard to understand, but it may be hard to support. It is safe to say that Baez is an above-average reliever - more consistent than and superior to the recently departed Duaner Sanchez, albeit two years older. Carter is being touted as a former All-Star, which I have to admit was news to me - and frankly, borders on intellectually dishonest. He was a default choice for the Devil Rays in 2003 thanks to nothing more than 15 saves, 30 strikeouts in 47 2/3 innings, and a 4.05 ERA in the first half of that season. Carter is 31 with 122 career strikeouts - the kind of guy you take a waiver flyer on and hope for the best, like Giovanni Carrara. Mike Sharperson, R.I.P, was a truer All-Star than Carter.

So this trade is about Baez, about whether he can augment the Dodger bullpen in 2006 and stand as a worthy alternative to Eric Gagne should the supercloser succumb to injury or free agency.

As it happens, the Dodgers will owe Baez $4 million in the process - and face his own impending free agency at the end of the season. Because of this, the long-term prospects of the trade clearly favor Tampa Bay. Jackson and Tiffany are 22 and 21 years old, and while there are no guarantees for their futures, the teams that have them will have in the neighborhood of six years to find out how valuable they are - at a combined cost that won't approach Baez's 2006 salary for at least three seasons or so. We've seen what Jackson can do when his mind and body are healthy; Tiffany has averaged nearly 12 strikeouts per nine innings in his minor league career. I've seen worse bets.

The argument for the trade, then, is that it improves the Dodgers for 2006. But does it? If you turned Jackson into a one- or two-inning pitcher the way Baez will be used, limiting Jackson's exposure and need to master multiple pitches at a young age, and then parlayed the $3.65 million of leftover salary elsewhere on the roster, what has more value? Baez or Jackson plus $3.65 million. You can make the case for either. And then you're reminded there's the long-term to consider.

It's been more than four years since the Dodgers traded a starting pitching propsect for a reliever. In December 2002, Los Angeles sent Luke Prokopec and Chad Ricketts to Toronto for Cesar Izturis and Paul Quantrill. That trade turned out to be a steal for the Dodgers. It was also the first trade where I can recall noticing that the Dodgers were unloading a starting pitcher whose strikeout ratio was less impressive than his ERA, and figuring that the team was selling high. Jackson, if he hasn't been affected by injuries, may fit the Prokopec profile. Furthermore, some, such as Bryan Smith of Baseball Analysts have suggested that even with his high strikeout rate, Tiffany is a flawed prospect. Odds are the Dodgers won't miss Jackson and Tiffany in 2006, and it's very possible that the Baez acquisition, combined with a healthy Gagne and some stalwart pitching by Yhency Brazoban, Jonathan Broxton and/or others, will turn Dodger games back into the six-inning contests they were during the great pitching year of 2003.

But this trade still makes me uneasy. For season after season, the Dodgers have found relievers cheaply - and only in 2005 did the bullpen falter. (The Devil Rays themselves picked up Baez off waivers following his release by Cleveland in 2003.) Relievers are often starting pitchers who couldn't cut it, while good starting pitchers are gold. The more legitimate starting prospects you have in your system, the more likely you are to turn up one in the majors. Surrending the Jackson and Tiffany poker chips for a 70-inning pitcher seems like an expensive play.

* * *

Of course, those given to speculation and familiar with falsely optimistic medical reports coming from the Dodgers in recent years are free to wonder whether this is a signal that Gagne is not entirely healthy at all.

Tampa Bay executive vice president Andrew Friedman made an interesting comment, according to The Associated Press.

"We didn't seek this out, but after an in-depth exploration it makes sense for us,'' Friedman said.

* * *

While I'm thinking about it, how about the $4 million for Jackson, Tiffany and Luke Hochevar instead of Baez?

* * *

AP is reporting that the Dodgers will also get a player to be named later, adding a minor suspense element to the news.

* * *

Morning Update: Dodgers player development director Terry Collins talked to Tony Jackson of the Daily News about the latter's namesake:

"I really believe Edwin Jackson was ... so good that he tried to become a polished major-league pitcher before he was ready to handle it," Dodgers player development director Terry Collins said. "He wanted to try to sink the ball and cut the ball and worked very hard at trying to (paint) corners. Because of that, he changed a lot of things he did mechanically and backed off that great fastball he had trying to get the ball to sink."

Collins, who went from managerial candidate to twisting in the wind when Paul DePodesta was fired as general manager in October, was the flattered and interested subject of a "Come Home" column by Chris Stevens of the Midland Daily News in Michigan today:

There's a name from Midland's glorious sports past, and, get this, he's interested in coming back to be a part of Midland's new Class A baseball team.

"I'd be very interested," Collins, 56, said Saturday by telephone when asked if he'd have any interest in working with the new team. "Without question, absolutely."

Collins' father, Bud, still lives in Midland, as does his sister, Connie Altimore. He'd love nothing more than to come back to Midland. ...

Although Collins has spent most of his adult life in places other than Midland, he's still considered a hometown sports hero and has strong local ties. He was a gifted three-sport athlete at Midland High, won a national baseball championship at Eastern Michigan University, and was player-manager of Midland McArdle when it won the national softball championship back in 1979.

* * *

As a footnote to Saturday's trade news, the Dodgers invited non-roster minor leaguers Tony Abreu, Edwin Bellorin, Chad Billingsley, Matt Kemp, Justin Orenduff and Eric Stults to Spring Training. For more information, consult The Dodger Thoughts Comprehensive, Non-Definitive 2005 Minor League Report.

* * *

Rich Lederer offers his own take on the Dodger offseason over at Baseball Analysts.

Comments (550)
Show/Hide Comments 1-50
2006-01-14 17:43:40
1.   Rich Lederer
There are obvious positives to this trade, IF money and the future beyond this year aren't factors. I'll have more to say on this subject in a short while.
2006-01-14 17:46:00
2.   Curtis Lowe
The Dodgers will also recieve a PTBDL in this deal.
2006-01-14 17:46:50
3.   caseybarker
I n a way, Baez is a lot like Jackson. They were both considered promising starters. Both have a number of different pitches. I often wondered what Jackson would be like as a closer. I wonder, too, if Baez will be tried again as a starter.
2006-01-14 17:49:09
4.   Just One of the LADz
I find it a bit strange that Bryan Smith is so critical on Tiffany but still ranks him as his 72nd best prospect.
2006-01-14 17:49:33
5.   Andrew Shimmin
2. That's disputed. Official press releases don't mention it, but some news reports do.
2006-01-14 17:49:49
6.   Robert Daeley
2 In those PTBDL deals, doesn't it sometimes happen that you get the same player back?
2006-01-14 17:50:08
7.   trainwreck
Now I am just depressed after realizing I will not get to see Edwin become the pitcher I think he will become.
2006-01-14 17:52:21
8.   Jon Weisman
4 - It's all relative. The criticisms simply are what kept Smith from ranking Tiffany the way his K/9 ratio and other strengths wouls suggest.
2006-01-14 17:53:30
9.   caseybarker
You can wait for the interleague matchup...
2006-01-14 17:55:22
10.   trainwreck
Won't be for the Dodgers though. I still will follow him and hope he becomes a success.
2006-01-14 17:56:46
11.   das411
7 - Or the 2008 World Series...
2006-01-14 17:56:58
12.   Curtis Lowe
Maybe if we all close our eyes and wish really hard the PTBDL will be Huff.
2006-01-14 17:57:14
13.   the OZ
Assume that Carter and Baez are known quantities and Tiffany and Jackson are unknown quanitities. If both Dodger prospects realize their upsides, then the deal has to be viewed as a huge mistake (obviously). That's the worst case.

So what's the best case for the Dodgers, looking back in hindsight 6 years from now? We got a year of Baez for $4M (fair market value, probably) for nothing. For that to be the case, both Jackson and Tiffany must flame out and Baez perform at expected levels.

So, basically, the best the Dodgers can do in this deal is get market value from a good, expensive reliever and the potential downside is very high (losing the rights to young, cheap, talented pitchers).

I don't think you can call that a good deal, even in the short term.

2006-01-14 17:58:59
14.   bhsportsguy
Another thought:
With Boston often mentioned as a trading party for Baez, is it possible that Baez is going to be dealt for David Wells?
2006-01-14 17:59:26
15.   MartinBillingsley31
Anyone think that this is a prelude to another trade?

brazo for wells?
A combination of guys for a power hitting outfielder?
Or both, brazo for wells, then 1 of our top 3 starting pitchers (penny lowe perez) plus others for abreu?

2006-01-14 17:59:42
16.   caseybarker
And if Baez saves games 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 of the 2007 WS? (being facetious)
2006-01-14 18:00:15
17.   ScoobyGoo
I'm sure Bill Plaschke will love the move,
And that seems to be the Dodger Front Office Mentality these days...

I almost had to throw up when I saw this deal on, Baez for Tiffany AND Jackson? Come could have kept Duaner and went out and gotten a legitimate SP with those two prospects...I have no idea if it would have worked in reality but I would suspect that with Milton/Edwin/Tiffany they could have been close for a deal for Zito with another player or two..

I do hope though that this isn't a sign that Gagne is hurt worse than we think..

2006-01-14 18:05:04
18.   trainwreck
Please no Brazoban for Wells deal. Just as Brazoban is learning to use off speed stuff.
2006-01-14 18:06:19
19.   norcalblue
7-I share your funk.

Edwin represented a special kind of prospect...hope for a kind of dominance that just a few #1 starters ever attain. That September match-up with RJ in Arizona kept my stove warm for sure. Its hard to let go of that dream...particularly this fall/winter, when so much hope and optimism about the future has been lost.

2006-01-14 18:08:10
20.   Adam M
The Mutts were supposedly hot for Baez; if Colletti can flip him to NY for something, it could still turn out positive. But otherwise, I second what the OZ said. Yech.
2006-01-14 18:12:00
21.   Johnson
That would be a trick! Baez could be the Cliff Heathcote/Max Flack of the World Series!
2006-01-14 18:13:52
22.   caseybarker
Didn't you here about the switch to a nine game series next year.
2006-01-14 18:17:54
23.   alnyden
There is only one reason the Dodgers would make this trade: that we likely won't be seeing a healthy Gagne in 2006.
2006-01-14 18:19:24
24.   CanuckDodger
We now know who it was in San Francisco who was responsible for the Joe Nathan and Francisco Liriano (plus Boof Bonser) for one-year-of-Pierzynski trade. The trade today is easily as bad as Pedro for Deshields or Konerko for Shaw trades AT THE TIME THEY WERE MADE (just HOW good Pedro would become was arguably not foreseeable, but the signs that he would be good were certainly there). Trades can't just be judged in retrospect. Foresight is required. Jackson at age 21 was about as bad as Johann Santana was at age 21. We gave up two pitchers with promising futures for a reliever we didn't need who is a free agent after 2006 and a fungible bullpen lefty. Jackson and Tiffany are going to give the Rays twelve pre-free agency years as AT LEAST good starting pitchers. Broxton and Kuo would probably have been better in the Dodgers' pen than Baez and Carter. Neither Baez nor Carter has the "stuff," and demonstrabe K abilities, of Broxton and Kuo. Ever since the Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano rape, teams have stayed away from trading with the Rays, because it is now the Rays' policy that when it comes to trades there's a sucker born every minute, and they shrewdly hold off trading till they find their sucker. Colletti stepped right up. Colletti is like a lot of people when they get a new job. Deeply insecure. He feels compelled to "fix" things that are not broken, just to prove that he is not as slacking off on the job. Getting Mueller when Aybar would likely have done as good a job for us at 3B in 2006 was the first bad sign. Replacing Choi with Garciaparra was the next. There is a fetish among some people in baseball for the "proven" player that translates into an instant diustrust of young players who don't have the MLB record to serve as their credentials. Looking backward, at what players have done, instead of forward, at what players WILL do (under reasonable expectations), is the mark of an incompetent GM.
2006-01-14 18:19:32
25.   trainwreck
Or maybe Flanders is starting to show his Sabeaness.
2006-01-14 18:20:29
26.   Andrew Shimmin
If Gagne really is too hurt to play much of this year, and the rest of the pen falters, there's more marginal value in a healthy Baez. So, I guess what you've gotta ask yourself is, do you fell *un*lucky? Well, do ya?
2006-01-14 18:20:30
27.   Johnson
Wow! Are they going to move the mound to 50 feet and require six balls before a walk?
2006-01-14 18:25:53
28.   Andrew Shimmin
Has EJ really not racked up a full year on his service clock?
2006-01-14 18:28:43
29.   trainwreck
I do not think it is even close.
2006-01-14 18:29:08
30.   popup
I have not seen Tiffany and very little of Jackson. That said, I don't see this trade as a positive for the Dodgers. When Sanchez was traded I mentioned that I would be looking at Ned to see if he brought in a veteran, as opposed to letting one of the Dodger kids (Broxton or Osorio) take over Sanchez' role. I am still looking at Ned. Until this trade Colletti did a good job of keeping the kids. Keeping the kids is one thing, playing them is a whole other matter. Something tells me the Dodgers of 2007 and beyond are going to look a hole lot like the 2006 Dodgers.

Stan from Tacoma

2006-01-14 18:35:24
31.   trainwreck
Yeah, I am starting to worry just how many prospects we are going to bother to keep and play.
2006-01-14 18:46:15
32.   King of the Hobos
16 Then the Dodgers (or whoever Baez is pitching for) would be the first team to win the World Series 5-2

Baez will be a type a FA (Carrara was a type A player, it doesn't take much for a reliever), so we could get 2 draft picks out of this (assuming the new CBA doesn't change things)

Baez started in 2002, I'd prefer him as emergency starter over Sele...

And now we may be waiting for news on 2 PTBNL. Or we could just get some money.

2006-01-14 18:48:08
33.   Curtis Lowe
Why no we throw over Werth and we get back Huff.
2006-01-14 18:56:53
34.   King of the Hobos
Hanrahan was designated for assignment. We could lose 2 of the former big 3 in a matter of days
2006-01-14 19:06:19
35.   das411
WOW, more posts about this trade over at DRaysbay than here...

I think Jacob Larsen sums it up best: "Watch as Ned Coletti's solid bullpen explodes before our eyes...."

2006-01-14 19:06:20
36.   CT Bum
Up until now, I thought Ned was doing a decent job. Protecting the youth and getting vets as spot holders until the young-uns get off the farm.

I agree with CanuckDodger 24, this has all the tell tale signs of being another Pedro for DeSheilds blunder. I hope not, but I think Ned really shot himself in the foot here.

2006-01-14 19:12:00
37.   caseybarker
Man, this blog is sure run a lot better than the one over in Florida (Draysbay)
2006-01-14 19:16:19
38.   Uncle Miltie
Unbelievable trade. Colletti is showing what a true mastermind he is. 2 virtual unknowns for 2 all stars? I'll take that deal any day. Colletti is in the process of building a dynasty!
2006-01-14 19:20:51
39.   trainwreck
They were both all stars by default and are only all stars in name and not performance.
2006-01-14 19:20:52
40.   trainwreck
They were both all stars by default and are only all stars in name and not performance.
2006-01-14 19:27:17
41.   Mark
Did I really just see a comparison between Edwin Jackson and Johan Santana?

Good lord. Had he not beaten Randy Johnson in his first game, there wouldn't even be a question of how great of a trade this was. So long as Baez doesn't throw his glove at a batted ball, he'll be ten times better than Sanchez.

2006-01-14 19:28:25
42.   Bob Timmermann
I just have to say the Sony HD commercial where the Cal-Stanford "The Play" is redone as an electronic tabletop football game brought me to tears in laughter.
2006-01-14 19:36:05
43.   bhsportsguy
On Hochevar, just about every week, someone sends an email to Jim Callis of Baseball America on his chat about any chance of the Dodgers opening up negotiations with Hochevar and Callis slams it.

My hunch is that his source on this would be the oft-praised Logan White, whom probably has the biggest input on this decision in the Dodgers hierachy, and unless Boras accepts the normal bonus amount (for his draft slot) of $750K - $800K, I don't think the Dodgers will ever reconsider the deal.

While Jackson and Tiffany (and for that matter Hanrahan)were once highly rated prospects, they were not part of the Dodgers immediate plans and here is a short list of players that need to be added to the 40 man roster at the end of the 2006 season:
Chin-Ling Hu;
Cory Dunlap:
Matt Kemp: and
Tony Abreu.

And finally here are some comments from Alan Mathews during a Baseball America chat following their listing of the Dodgers top 10 prospects last month:
"But [Jackson is] still just 22, and has only pitched full-time since 2001, so don't give up on him becoming a solid middle-of-the-rotation starter in the future."
"Tiffany was in 12-15 (ranking) range. Most scouts believe Tiffany's ceiling is as a No. 4 or 5 starter, and give him a high probability of attaining it."
"Hanrahan's stock has slowly slipped... He was back throwing in the low-90s by July. He was working on his conditioning this offseason."

2006-01-14 19:36:40
44.   Dr Gonzo
Well, while it's more fun to bash Ned, this trade reveals three uncomfortable things:
(1) For every one of those Pedro-DeShields deals, there are six "hot-prospects-for-veteran" where the prospects never sniff the majors.
(2) Jackson's status as a gold prospect (Edwin for Manny! Edwin for DiMaggio!) has clearly dimmed.
(3) And yes, if Gagne is the closer on your fantasy team, you may want to pick up some insurance.

BOB: yeah, just saw that too... pretty funny...

2006-01-14 19:39:46
45.   Formerly R
Even though Jackson's stock has dipped a bit the past year or so, I find it hard to believe that the best the Dodgers could get for Jackson is Baez.

There's got to be another trade in the works.

2006-01-14 19:44:22
46.   caseybarker
The Baez trade also raises possibility of a mid-season trade of Baez or Gagne to a contender. Gagne will surely be back by the trade deadline. We could have a pretty good mid-season trading chip.
2006-01-14 19:48:49
47.   Daniel Zappala
42 I saw it too, and though I was mildly amused due to the use of the football set I used to play as a kid, any Stanford grad had to be groaning inwardly again.

45 I think too many people are over-estimating Jackson's worth at this point. The only way to get more for him would have been to hope he could do well in AAA this year, but chances of that happening were small due to AAA being in Vegas.

I see this as Tiffany for Baez, with the others thrown in as a wash. Clearly Colletti preferred strengthening the pen for this year as compared to the hope of a future 4th or 5th starter. I think this ends up being a mostly forgettable trade 5 years from now.

2006-01-14 19:50:42
48.   Jon Weisman
42 - What is this "Play" you speak of?
2006-01-14 19:50:52
49.   Bob Timmermann
There's a wee bit of Gagne news in the Griddle post on Team Canada.
2006-01-14 19:50:55
50.   Steve Saxs Sweaty Jockstrap
Big props go out to big Ned. I am optimistic this is a good trade. We bring in a couple veteran, proven arms to solidify our bullpen.

I think Ned was thinking our projected bullpen other than Gagne, and I guess you could throw Brazoban in there, were young and inexperienced. Granted these young guns have all the talent in the world, but have yet to prove themselves.

I like the move. Good job Ned.

I also think EJ had his chance with this organization, and was a bit of a failure. I know some of you agree with me, and some of you think I'm crazy.

EJ lost velocity off his fastball and his other stuff is not good enough to make up for this fact.

I think this trade will work out, but only time will tell.

Show/Hide Comments 51-100
2006-01-14 19:52:44
51.   Steve Saxs Sweaty Jockstrap
Are we having a HUGE offseason frenzy, or what.

I'm pumped up for the season to start.

Go Dodgers 2006!

2006-01-14 19:52:44
52.   das411
In other news, Champ Bailey = Luis Gonzalez
2006-01-14 19:54:46
53.   Bob Timmermann
"The Play" is the way in which we catch the ego of the Elway.
2006-01-14 19:56:12
54.   Steve Saxs Sweaty Jockstrap
Did you see Ben Watson run down Champ Bailey and absolutey blow him up.


2006-01-14 19:56:15
55.   trainwreck
I beg of anyone who likes this trade to please not call Lance Carter a proven arm or a all star caliber pitcher or any of this. The guy is garbage plain and simple. Show me some evidence for calling him a proven good pitcher or anything of that nature. There is nothing good about Lance Carter.
2006-01-14 19:56:22
56.   Bob Timmermann
The people still haven't scored how long Bailey's intereception return was. But I would think it's got to be the longest return of an intereception that DID NOT result in a TD.
2006-01-14 19:57:19
57.   caseybarker
How about the Rushing yards to rushing touchdowns ratio for the DB?
2006-01-14 19:58:12
58.   Vishal
but WHY?!?!1!@$!>?
2006-01-14 19:59:42
59.   Vishal
[50] don't take this the wrong way, but i don't agree with you on this one.
2006-01-14 19:59:50
60.   Andrew Shimmin
Quick show of hands: who liked EJ because he pitched well in one game? Anybody? Maybe two years ago there were people who did, but I don't think there are any more. I'm not going to be the one to call EJ our birthright. But I do smell soup; could be pottage.
2006-01-14 20:00:50
61.   caseybarker
It's over for the Pats, good riddance.
2006-01-14 20:00:51
62.   King of the Hobos
Billingsley, Orenduff, Stults, Kemp, Abreu, and Bellorin were all invited to ST.
2006-01-14 20:01:41
63.   Vishal
[48] i think he's talking about The Best Play In The History Of College Football (TM)


2006-01-14 20:02:37
64.   Izzy
What bothers me is not the trade of EJ and Tiff, but rather that we did it to get another reliever. I have alot of confidence in Logan White, not that my confidence matters for jack, but he must have had input on the deal. There's no way he is going to let it happen if he is seeing a real upside on either of them. Least I don't think so. You would assume Colletti is leaning on him and the other scouts in these things. So that leaves the question of why he went after a reliever, when it is fairly obvious that we need a frontline starter. I think Ned has even stated that. And when DO the kids fit in? The Gints have a solid history over the last few years of getting talent to the majors, with Lawry, Williams and Matt Cain all making it, and then the speedy center fielder who's name escapes me. I would feel alot better though if they announced a contract with Hochevar tomorrow.
2006-01-14 20:03:03
65.   Steve Saxs Sweaty Jockstrap
60- I think some are still enamored with that late 2003 call up against Arizona when EJ dazzled us. That was a long time ago, in a galazy far, far away. Time for us to move on.
2006-01-14 20:08:13
66.   Vishal
[65] first of all, it's not JUST that one game. and secondly, it really wasn't that long ago, and that galaxy is not all that far away. he's 22 and hasn't even had a full season in the majors, plus he's been battling minor injuries which hindered his effectiveness. why do you give up on a kid at such a young age who has been quite good when he has been healthy?
2006-01-14 20:08:41
67.   das411
61 , 65 - Speaking of "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away" anybody else thinking of that scene at the end of Return of the Jedi, when the Death Star II is destroyed and then they show all of the different planets are celebrating?

There are gonna be crazy parties tonight in: St. Louis, Carolina, Philly, Indy, Pittsburgh...

2006-01-14 20:08:47
68.   Bob Timmermann
The last New England coach to lose a playoff game was Pete Carroll.

That bum.

2006-01-14 20:09:40
69.   PennyJavy
Im pretty sure most people have forgotten that performance and see Edwin has a young pitcher that has potential
2006-01-14 20:10:38
70.   caseybarker
Spoke too soon?
2006-01-14 20:12:08
71.   Steve Saxs Sweaty Jockstrap
66- why do you give up on a kid at such a young age who has been quite good when he has been healthy?

Healthy is the key word in this statement.

A power arm such as EJ's depends on his fastball. He's lost velocity and he's only 22. That makes me very nervous. An early history of not being able to stay healthy also worries me.

2006-01-14 20:12:24
72.   caseybarker
67 - don't forget #1. Oakland...
2006-01-14 20:13:04
73.   Andrew Shimmin
65- Right. You think there are such people. Where are they? Unless your argument is that they don't recognize their own motives. That'd be pretty cheeky of you.
2006-01-14 20:15:07
74.   trainwreck
We will not celebrate a Bronco playoff win.
2006-01-14 20:15:51
75.   caseybarker
Yeah, this was a tough game to watch.
2006-01-14 20:16:50
76.   CanuckDodger
64 -- Logan White works for Colletti, not the other way around. White is powerless to stop Colletti from ignoring his advice if that is what Colletti chooses to do. Baseball America says that White is "convinced" that Andy Laroche and James Loney are ready for the majors right now, and if those two are ready, we have quite a few other prospects who are at least as ready, if not more so in my opinion. Colletti is going out of his way to keep every young player we have off the 2006 team (outside of Navarro), so if he is taking White's counsel in some areas, he clearly isn't in others.
2006-01-14 20:17:19
77.   caseybarker
Kind of like a giants-yankees WS.
2006-01-14 20:17:27
78.   trainwreck
I hate both teams, but I hate the Broncos more. In fact the Colts are the only AFC team left that I do not hate.
2006-01-14 20:18:27
79.   D4P
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have listed below what I believe to be the changes in the bullpen from 2005 to 2006 (not counting injuries). So, which group is better: the group that was lost or the group that was gained?



2006-01-14 20:18:44
80.   caseybarker
Haha, I hate them, too.
2006-01-14 20:18:53
81.   Vishal
[71] so when you're recovering from a strained forearm you're still expected to throw as hard as possible every time? there's absolutely NOTHING i've seen that suggests that whatever velocity jackson might have lost for a stretch could be permanent. and from what i understand there were some instances in which he was throwing his normal velocity this past season when he was healthy, so i really don't think his stuff is suddenly lost and gone forever.
2006-01-14 20:20:46
82.   Steve
So I pinched myself, woke up and found out that we traded Duaner Sanchez and Steve Schmoll for a legitimate starting pitcher. Then I went back to sleep and found out that we traded two highly ranked starting pitching prospects for Duaner Sanchez and Steve Schmoll. Object lesson: Giving the benefit of the doubt is for chumps.
2006-01-14 20:21:13
83.   King of the Hobos
Rosenthal says we will be getting cash in the deal, but it will be under $1 million. So no PTBNL. But we can still be excited about the Yankee PTBNL (or cash)
2006-01-14 20:21:34
84.   Steve
Trading Edwin Jackson is ok. Trading him for middle relief garbage is decidedly not ok.
2006-01-14 20:22:57
85.   D4P
Is there a less fan-friendly trade acquisition than "cash"?
2006-01-14 20:23:55
86.   Steve Saxs Sweaty Jockstrap
81- I don't remember suggesting while recovering from a forearm injuy you should try to throw as hard as possible every time.

Maybe he's lost his stuff forever. Maybe he comes back, makes the Rays opening day roster and wins 20 games this year.

It was a calculated risk that Ned took.

2006-01-14 20:25:27
87.   Steve
Trades are not about what you give up, they are about what you get. We got nothing.
2006-01-14 20:26:10
88.   das411
77 - Or a Giants/Angels WS? :)

82 - Steve, just enjoy the downfall of the Evil Empire.

!!!!! And Brady throws it away AGAIN, he's looking more and more like McNabb with every play!

2006-01-14 20:30:49
89.   Bob Timmermann
It's clear that we have to blame this on poor public schools, bad parenting, or Chris Douridas.
2006-01-14 20:30:55
90.   caseybarker
The Angels never stole a championship from the Dodgers.
2006-01-14 20:31:59
91.   King of the Hobos
89 What about global warming?
2006-01-14 20:32:49
92.   Steve
I suppose Lance Carter's parents could be blamed for birthing him.

Seriously, what are we supposed to do with Lance Carter? We can invite 100 Lance Carters to spring training.

2006-01-14 20:33:29
93.   caseybarker
Brady's high school and its inability to recognize his talent was brought up. But he probably went to private school.
2006-01-14 20:37:46
94.   caseybarker
Wait, can both the trade AND the Patriots downfall be blamed on public schools?
2006-01-14 20:39:22
95.   Steve
Did Ned Colletti even go to school?
2006-01-14 20:40:06
96.   D4P
The DRays just took him there.
2006-01-14 20:41:58
97.   Izzy
On second thought a Baez-Brazoban-Gagne 1-2-3 punch does seem to alleviate a few of our starting pitching issues. I think it was Bill James who brought up the idea of a pitching staff made up of all relievers. It is an interesting idea, that could even have a few dollar advantages as well. But, it is way out of the box.

76-Holding back LaRoche and Loney a year or less even, is hardly a sign of Ned exercising his dictatorial tendencies. Keeping a kid down a little longer is almost never a bad thing, while bringing one up too soon, can very much be.

2006-01-14 20:42:06
98.   Steelyeri
I have now lost respect for colleti, atleast temporarily. I don't even want to think about it anymore. Colleti hurts my head.

74 this is one of those games where I wish both teams could lose. I think I hate the broncos and patriots equally.

2006-01-14 20:42:09
99.   Andrew Shimmin
Let's not be too hasty. Colletti's batting 1/3 in trades, so far. If he can keep that up over his career, he'll be in the hall of fame. Right?
2006-01-14 20:43:05
100.   King of the Hobos
92 We could invite them, but I guess Colletti wanted to replace Carrara with a former all star with a major league contract. Even Gurnick compared Carter to Carrara, and said it as if it were a positive thing
Show/Hide Comments 101-150
2006-01-14 20:43:10
101.   das411
94 - Did Bill Simmons go to a public school? Can't wait for his "Nooooooo!! The Pats are NOT the Worst. Dynasty. Ever." column...
2006-01-14 20:43:32
102.   Bob Timmermann
Tom Brady went to Serra High in the Bay Area. Same place that produced Barry Bonds and Lynn Swann.
2006-01-14 20:44:18
103.   trainwreck
Tom Brady went to San Ramon High which is not far from where I am from. Same high school that Barry Bonds went to.
2006-01-14 20:46:16
104.   the count
Yes, Lance Carter.
2006-01-14 20:46:39
105.   Bob Timmermann
Jim Nantz said Serra High, so it's time to check out to see who's right.
2006-01-14 20:47:06
106.   Steve
I keep reading this nonsense about how great Jackson and Tiffany are. How great do they have to be? Look at the utterly dehumanized garbage getting embarrassingly huge contracts just because they pretend to be starting pitchers. And now we just traded away two starting pitching prospects who can do what pitchers like Eric Milton can only dream of, for two utterly, utterly replaceable middle relievers -- one of which we will either 1) get one year out of, regardless of how he pitches or 2) have to sign to an embarrassingly idiotic $40 million dollar long term contract, #2 being more likely since, as with the hideous Jeff Shaw trade, it will have to be done so as to allow Colletti to save face after this disaster is all said and done. Meanwhile, the other one is our first candidate for a DFA.
2006-01-14 20:47:40
107.   Bob Timmermann
It's Serra High in San Mateo.
2006-01-14 20:48:01
108.   Vishal
[86] okay, that's a statement i can agree with, then. before you were just leaving it at "he's lost velocity", period. and i didn't think that was exactly fair.
2006-01-14 20:48:09
109.   Andrew Shimmin
Quick, we need four more (after this one) comments to cover up my spelling error.
2006-01-14 20:48:34
110.   Bob Timmermann
2006-01-14 20:50:45
111.   trainwreck
Yeah I meant Juniper Serra, I have made that mistake before. I always think San Ramon for some reason.
2006-01-14 20:52:16
112.   trainwreck
There is no reason Lance Carter should even make our roster.
2006-01-14 20:52:57
113.   King of the Hobos
106 I think Hamulack has that honor. Or maybe even Cody Ross. But Carter is definitely top 3
2006-01-14 20:54:25
114.   Bob Timmermann
San Ramon. San Mateo.
You obviously wouldn't care what name the A's use either.
2006-01-14 20:58:40
115.   Andrew Shimmin
Baez isn't quite garbage. He ERA+ed 151 last year, over a whopping 72 1/3 innings. Gagne was 150 over 13 1/3. With his arm falling off. Closest recent Dodger comp. looks to be 2002 Paul Quantrill. But as was pointed out near the top of the thread, the only way this pays off for the Dodgers is if both prospects totally bust.
2006-01-14 20:59:29
116.   D4P
Once again, the team with more rushing yards but fewer passing yards won both playoff games today. That seems to happen a lot.
2006-01-14 21:01:21
117.   Steve
hmm...He could be useful as a starter...
2006-01-14 21:01:27
118.   trainwreck
Defense wins championships. Sadly Al Davis has not learned this yet.
2006-01-14 21:03:44
119.   trainwreck
I guess the first step would be for him to realize you need a defense PERIOD. Not just a bunch of track stars and giants, who lack talent.
2006-01-14 21:06:03
120.   Steve
Guillermo Mota had an ERA+ of 203 in 2003. Last year it was 85.
2006-01-14 21:11:43
121.   Andrew Shimmin
Clubhouse cancer Mota had the gaul to be hurt last year. Also, he's four years older than Baez.
2006-01-14 21:13:07
122.   Steve
Who is Baez going to be playing for in four years?
2006-01-14 21:15:48
123.   D4P
Dodgerblues on JD Drew:

Furcal will become the second Dodger in a week to go under the knife, with Jeff Kent slated to have scar tissue removed from his ailing wrist. In addition to Furcal and Kent, the Dodgers have five other guys coming off of the operating table: Eric Gagne (elbow), Cesar Izturis (elbow), Jayson Werth (wrist), Kelly Wunsch (hip and ankle), and J.D. Drew (shoulder, wrist, and vagina). Good times.

2006-01-14 21:16:05
124.   King of the Hobos
122 Newark Bears? Maybe that's Lance Carter...
2006-01-14 21:20:26
125.   Andrew Shimmin
Taking Steve's side, somebody who actually knows anything about Baez:
2006-01-14 21:20:59
126.   Steve
I just can't believe that the D-Rays would say, "We want Jackson and Tiffany for Baez" and that Colletti's response would be "Well, add Lance Carter to even it out and you've got a deal." I have gone out of my way to believe that he was not this stupid. And apparently, yet again, I was wrong.
2006-01-14 21:22:32
127.   T Money
In the interest of remaining fair-minded, I decided not to judge this trade until I looked up the stats of Lance Carter, a player previously unfamiliar to me.

Now that I have, however, I hope to stop weeping by morning...

2006-01-14 21:24:37
128.   Steve
We traded two starting relief prospects for Bob Wickman. I didn't really need the numbers to tell me that, and I can't believe anybody else would either. With his K rate, Baez has Dan Kolb written all over him.
2006-01-14 21:25:35
129.   trainwreck
That Kolb trade was sure worth it for the Braves
2006-01-14 21:30:58
130.   Steve
Dan Kolb ERA+ in 2003: 223
Dan Kolb ERA+ in 2004: 139

I'm particulary excited by Baez's 30 walks in 72 innings, which just screams Cy Young, if not Kaz Ishii.

2006-01-14 21:31:56
131.   trainwreck
Surprised Nate has not been around to comment on this. Perhaps he hung himself after hearing the news.
2006-01-14 21:37:29
132.   D4P
Nate has been having computer problems lately. Maybe he hasn't heard yet.
2006-01-14 21:40:14
133.   natepurcell
checking in. just heard about the trade. words cannot describe how mad i am. words cannot describe the hatred running through my veins. words cannot describe how much i want to murder ned colletti. what the &#&# is he thinking? ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. time to get drunk. :( :(

i hope in 3 yrs, jackson and kazmir are forming one of the best 1-2 punches in the bigs and the dodgers are still looking for young starting pitching.

2006-01-14 21:40:47
134.   das411
123 - LOL!

131 - I am surprised the body count has not been higher, although this may change as soon as Lance Carter appears in Howard Fox's kitchen.

I still haven't seen Bob tell us when Lance Carter made his MLB debut...

2006-01-14 21:41:08
135.   D4P
time to get drunk.

Are you old enough for that Purcey?

2006-01-14 21:41:22
136.   Steve
We could have gotten Craig Wilson for either one of them.
2006-01-14 21:41:43
137.   trainwreck
Imagine not knowing what is going on in sports for a few days and then once you get back on the net you find out one of your favorite players was traded...for lance carter. Reminds me of when I was staying at my cousins for a few days only to look at the morning paper one day and see that Piazza was no longer a Dodger.
2006-01-14 21:42:52
138.   Bob Timmermann
Why am I in charge of Lance Carter's debut? Was it because I linked an article about the 1999 Royals earlier in the day?
2006-01-14 21:43:09
139.   Andrew Shimmin
Listen: be as upset about the trade as you want. But don't you ever put frowny face emoticons after the phrase, 'time to get drunk.' That cannot be tolerated.
2006-01-14 21:45:54
140.   oldbear
Maybe everyone in baseball believes Edwin Jackson sucks. I sure do. I doubt his value is anything at all.

Baez for Chuck Tiffany.

Hmmm... Better trade would be to include Tiffany in a trade for someone more useful than a middle reliever.

This trade is a 'meh' trade for me. I'm not upset because I dont believe EJ or Tiffany will ever amount to anything.

Mr. Ned's Brett Tomko signing, and Milton Bradley trade were alot worse than this one.

2006-01-14 21:48:09
141.   oldbear
If anything, hopefully this move pushes Jonothan Broxton back to the starting rotation.

Broxton, Billingsley, Orenduff, and Elbert all have much higher upsides and track records than EJ/Tiffany.

2006-01-14 21:50:28
142.   caseybarker
Sept. 15, 1999--9th inning, gave up a 2-out homerun to Erstad. He took the loss, 1-0.
2006-01-14 21:55:40
143.   Xeifrank
If Gagne is healthy then I am going to say that this trade favors the D-Rays 65/35. Giving up two young pitchers, both with live arms for an average relief pitcher and a below average one. It could add some depth to the bullpen, but I don't want to see Carter on the 25 man roster. If there is something about Gagne's health that we aren't privy to, and it's unclear he will be healthy next year, then I ask, why did you trade Sanchez? When EJ or CB probably could've filled the role as your 5th starter. I guess that's why Flanders gets paid the big bucks?
vr, Xei
2006-01-14 21:56:16
144.   Scanman33
If this trade was a poker hand, Baez is pocket jacks while Jackson/Tiffany is King-Queen suited. Baez is better now, but Jackson and Tiffany carry many more possibilities to win out in the long run. Ned's in the lead now, but he has to dodge the flop, turn and river in order to win and that's a lot of bullets to weave through. Of course, when you have a lot of chips (prospects), you can gamble on marginal hands. It will be interesting to see if Baez, who surely doesn't want to set-up heading into his FA year, even stays in a Dodger uniform come spring training.
2006-01-14 21:56:42
145.   willhite
All together now........................

You guys are in a total state of panic. Wait about a week or two to see how this plays out. I don't think Baez will be on the roster by Feb. 1.

2006-01-14 21:58:28
146.   dsfan
Some of you guys need to come in off the ledge. And if there are any sharp objects near CanuckDodger, he or others are in grave danger.

This trade should inspire some skepticism, but it's a little early and rash to say things like Ned got "raped" or that it's comparable to the Pedro-Konerko fleecings.

If the LAD have doubts about Gagne for 2006, none of which they will divulge, they needed to find another late-inning pitcher in a sellers market.

They found one. Baez isn't great, but he's a pretty good late-inning guy (so was Sanchez, but Baez has done it longer as a closer, and getting Seo for Sanchez was a pretty good move).

The AL East has to be one of the toughest, if not the toughest divisions for a pitcher. Baez did pretty well there. Not unreasonable to expect him to do a tad better in the NL West/Dodger Stadium.

Beyond any health concerns the LAD may or may not have about Gagne, it's not unwise to add another major league closer who has a decent track record. Say Gagne has a good year. What's it going to cost to keep an aging fan favorite who's had major elbow injuries and inspried Vitamin S rumors? Oh yeah. Boras is his agent, and the free-agent market for closers is brutal.

It's being said that Ned should've "gotten more" for EJ and Tiffany. Oh really. Do you have inside information as to what the market will bear? Have you been talking to GMs? Say this for Ned the gadfly: He's plugged into the industry. Fair to say he's at least decent at coaxing valuations out from all potential buyers.

The LAD probably have been gauging the interest in Jackson for more than a year, dating to the Jackson-Perez-Hudson trial balloon in December 2004.

I'm on record saying the LAD thoroughly botched EJ's career track, spiking his work load way too much in 2003 and Tracy a year later, to EJ's obvious discomfort, proclaiming him the No. 5 starter in spring camp (I won't even get into the ridiculous scene last season, when Jackson finally had a good game at Vegas and the next day Lasorda is having him throw a bunch of curveballs.)

I feel for Jackson. He's probably better off with the fresh start. That said, scouts who saw him with Jacksonsville in 2003 said he's never gotten back to that special level. They feared the LAD were overcooking the goose that September; even when Jackson was doing well in the majors, they said his arm angle was showing fatigue. Jackson since has popped some high-speed fastballs, sure, but arm damage can reflect decreased command and decreased "late life." Scouts say Jackson didn't fully regain the skills that had made him special.

Right now, EJ has below-average major league command of a fastball that has above-average speed. The fastball isn't touted for "explosiveness". Nor do hitters/scouts say EJ's fastball benefits from deception.
His secondary pitches are unreliable. Doubtful that he's the next Pedro or Santana or even close, but I'd love to see the kid have a great career.

2006-01-14 22:03:35
147.   das411
138 - Bingo. If Colletti somehow brings in Jeff King or Felix Martinez, we may have to ban Bob from mentioning horrifically bad teams like that ever again.

143 - What if this deal had been made at the trading deadline last season though? Granted, Baez's value was much higher at the time, but wasn't EJax's as well?

My $.02 says this is part of an attempt at building that killer 3-inning bullpen that Mister Ned saw worked so well for LA in 2002-04, with the added benefit that it may well be Grady-proof also.

2006-01-14 22:05:25
148.   dsfan
Any chance Boras/Weaver take the LAD to arbitration? Maybe they declined. Just checking. Seems unlikely, but Boras/Maddux did zap the Braves.
2006-01-14 22:05:53
149.   oldbear
Xeifrank: (Reasons for dealing EJ/Duaner)

Mr. Ned thinks Baez is better than Sanchez. (I can buy that)
Mr. Ned believes Broxton, Jay Seo, Billingsley are all better than EJ for the 5th spot. (I fully agree)
This is all he could get for EJ. (I buy it)
There is no role for EJ on the Dodgers. (Agree)

Why trade Tiffany?

--Thought Mr. Ned should have gotten more for him, but maybe he's not that highly valued around baseball. Does he have more value to the Dodgers if we kept him, rather than including him to get Danny Baez at the MLB level? Possibly. But Tiffany wasnt a top notch guy. He's LHP and a high draft pick, lots of tools, but he doest have the production to back it up. Way too many home runs and hard hit balls.

2006-01-14 22:06:23
150.   Andrew Shimmin
It's a short sighted deal that kind of sucks even in the short term. But, who's to say Baez isn't exactly what the 2006 team needs to go all the way?

I don't see anybody saying, "the sky is falling," still less, "THE SKY IS FALLING." Let's not turn this in to a new false dichotomy, now that the Choi Wars have calmed down.

Show/Hide Comments 151-200
2006-01-14 22:08:32
151.   dsfan
Doubt Edwin Jackson's trade value was mcuh last summer. He'd been demoted after getting blasted in the PCL. He wasn't lights out in Double-A and for the Dodgers he did more harm than good.
2006-01-14 22:08:37
152.   Bob Timmermann
Weaver declined arbitration a while back and did not re-sign in time. Weaver cannot re-sign with the Dodgers until May 1.
2006-01-14 22:09:44
153.   King of the Hobos
148 They declined awhile ago. At this point, if Weaver wants to be a Dodger, it won't be until May
2006-01-14 22:11:45
154.   oldbear
"But, who's to say Baez isn't exactly what the 2006 team needs to go all the way?"

Well thats part of the argument. Baez IMO, isnt the difference making player in whether the Dodgers go all the way or not. He's just sort of there. I think a true difference maker is a legit Left Field Big Bat, or a front line starter.

Tiffany+EJ+??? for Barry Zito or Bobby Abreu is what I would have preferred.

2006-01-14 22:12:04
155.   dsfan
Thanks. We'll have to see what Weaver's contract is, but getting two draft picks for him probably is a good move. White's probably happy to get the extra picks. His 20005 draft looks pretty weak -- although it's so early to judge it.
2006-01-14 22:12:59
156.   Scanman33
154-Maybe Zito or Abreu don't fit the budget at this point.
2006-01-14 22:13:25
157.   Steve
What's more than zero?
2006-01-14 22:17:12
158.   trainwreck
I really have no aspirations of reaching the World Series this season.
2006-01-14 22:17:14
159.   dsfan
Not to speak for Billy Beane, but getting Zito would've required a total stud -- say, Billingsley -- if the rest of the package was EJ/CT.

For me, a big part of the story here is that LAD just didn't handle EJ that well. Maybe the kid just doesn't have what it takes. But I believe he'd have been much better off coming up with Oakland.

The fact remains that the LAD haven't produced a homegrown major league starting pitcher worth a darn in at least five years. Maybe Billingsley will turn it around, but the track record is uninspiring.

2006-01-14 22:17:55
160.   Andrew Shimmin
Both EJ's and Tiffany's trade values were likely lower now than they were last year. Isn't that a pretty good reason not to sell them now? Since keeping them costs virtually nothing? I don't hate Baez, but there's no great reason to suspect he's better than his numbers, since his peripherals aren't. It'd be nice to think that he might be a poor man's Gagne, but there's little to recommend doing so.
2006-01-14 22:22:44
161.   das411
151 - Thanks, this actually helps my point in that perhaps EJax was valued higher by this board than by most MLB GMs.

154 - Those two plus most of the current LAD roster short of Kent or Drew would not be fair value for Abreu or Zito.

Mr. Ned has swapped two of the lower-rated SP prospects in the system for one above-average and one serviceable arm. Perhaps park effects will help mask Baez's peripherals until he is swapped at the deadline and/or Gagne returns?

At worst, barring another injury epidemic there is a now much more accomplished and reliable backup to close out games for the LAD in 2006 than the team had in 2005. Perhaps Robb Nen's three-plus year recovery taught Colletti to always have at least one more quality reliever than you think you need?

As replaceable as closers may seem in the offseason, they are surely MUCH harder to come by during the season as soon as the howling begins from the first blown save by not-Gagne.

2006-01-14 22:25:03
162.   Xeifrank
I agree with Jon's statement that EJ+Tiff+$4mil > Baez for one year and Carter. I think Broxton, Brazoban, Gagne is just as good as Brazoban, Baez, Gagne. Baez isn't really that good. Saves is a flawed stat, and that's the only stat he has going for him. He has pretty much shot his baseball wad and I'd rather we kept EJ as a member of our bullpen. Carter is cr##. Tiff? Who knows, but that great K/IP ratio it would be nice to give him a shot. I'm not against trading some of our young pitching prospects, but Baez/Carter?? I'll wait and see what happens before I really say much more than that. vr, Xei
2006-01-14 22:26:19
163.   caseybarker
I just saw an older (Jan. 13) rumor at mlbtraderumors about a four-team trade involving the Astros and Diamondbacks as well as the Drays and Dodgers.

Perhaps Baez is intended for Arizona or Houston.

2006-01-14 22:26:20
164.   Jon Weisman
I think there are a couple of comments that could be considered "sky is falling" comments, but by and large I think/hope people are keeping things in perspective. I agree with 150 - I would hate this discussion blown into more than it needs to be.

I think part of the disappointment is that, no matter what happens to Jackson and Tiffany in their careers - whether they are destined for success, failure or mediocrity, no one can really be happy that these two hale fellows well met are merely the equivalent of Baez and Carter.

But all the anger that was displayed on this site in 2005 - and don't get me wrong, I agreed with some of the opinions - was ultimately exhausting. It's going to be a long year if people start wanting to murder the GM in January.

So without trying to turn you all into Stepford Fans, I appreciate that for the most part, we've been able to advocate both sides of this trade without hyperbolic hyperbole.

2006-01-14 22:26:56
165.   caseybarker
...or maybe Baez was intended for the Dodgers all along.
2006-01-14 22:27:01
166.   Jon Weisman
2006-01-14 22:27:34
167.   oldbear
160. True. Thats why I was wondering if it'd be worth more to the Dodgers to keep Tiffany this year, rather than deal him for Baez.

However, the 40 man roster, Rule V comes into play.

With all the guys coming up, maybe Tiffany didnt have a spot. The minor league guys on this site would know more about this than me. But I'm pretty sure it was gonna be a tight squeeze to fit everyone on. Dodgers just ax'ed Hanrahan off today.

At the very least, acquiring Baez isnt a negative IMO. He's a known reliever, that might be better than whom he's replacing. He's had success in the recent past. He's still relatively young.

Tomko's signing was a much bigger waste of money bc his ability is not up to standards. Baez OTOH, I think will add quality to the bullpen.

2006-01-14 22:28:43
168.   Strike4
Stock the Dodger bullpen, then... Gagne for Bonds.
2006-01-14 22:29:40
169.   trainwreck
I do not see how Edwin and Tiffany are lower-rated SP prospects in the system. Broxton is probably not even considered a starter. Miller is a question mark. Orenduff does not have the stuff of either Edwin or Tiffany and I think they will both be better than him. Billingsley and Elbert are for sure higher-rated.
2006-01-14 22:30:33
170.   trainwreck
We really are not that deep in SP.
2006-01-14 22:33:20
171.   oldbear
"Orenduff does not have the stuff of either Edwin or Tiffany and I think they will both be better than him."

His peripherals would say otherwise. His production would say otherwise. And isnt that the whole point?

I hope Broxton is moved back into starting. He's started his entire career, and was only moved to the bullpen last year bc the Dodgers were so crappy.


Those 4 at AA+ I can deal.

2006-01-14 22:33:51
172.   Steve
The correct perspective to have is that we traded good prospects for crap.
2006-01-14 22:39:50
173.   King of the Hobos
171 Orenduff's pitches aren't considered as good as Tiffany's or Jackson's. He just knows how to use them, and has very good control. He's one of those guys who has great stats without great stuff.
2006-01-14 22:45:52
174.   trainwreck
Orenduff struggled though in the second half of this season and Tiffany strikes out a ton of people, which is very good sign. I do agree that production is what matters, but prospects are a different story than major leaguers. I will pay attention more to scouting and other things when it comes to prospects, because there are so many that end up producing even if they lack numbers in the minors.
2006-01-14 22:46:19
175.   oldbear
173. Greg Maddux is a good hurler. So is Tom Glavine. I dont care what the radar gun says. I just look at pitchers that can K people, not walk people, and do not give up HR's.

This sort of thinking "Stuff over results", is what leads people into believing Jeff Weaver is a dominant type hurler.

Not so. Jeff Weaver's pitches may move all over the place (and they do), but he still blows.

2006-01-14 22:51:10
176.   dsfan
Good prospects? Edwin Jackson is a questionable prospect. Tiffany is a good Single A prospect who happens to be a pitcher.

As for Orenduff/Jackson and "stuff" and "pitch quality."

Jackson has shown a fastball that has above-average speed, but is pretty straight and lacks deceoption and explosion.
Orenduff doesn't throw as hard, but he reputedly has more movement -- good sink. Their secondary pitches need work.

Jackson struggles to hit his target. Isn't that a big part of pitching?

2006-01-14 22:53:09
177.   trainwreck
If prospects have good stuff, then that at least gives the team time to teach the guy how to "pitch" and harness his stuff.
2006-01-14 22:55:07
178.   Steve
I don't understand this rate the prospects fixation. Who cares who is better than who? We could have traded Grabowski and Repko to the D-Rays and this would have been a garbage trade. We got Danys Kolb and Lance Erickson. At 4.5 million dollars between them. Why does it matter who we gave up to get them? If a guy offers to give you punch in the face for ten dollars, and you bargain him down to five, does that make you some sort of Warren Buffett?
2006-01-14 22:55:21
179.   dsfan
In 2003, the hype machine was humming.

Greg Miller and Edwin Jackson were touted as frontline pitching prospects with a high probability of succeeding. Joel Hanrahan was projected as a "solid" starter whose sinker/loose arm projected as a No. 3-4 guy.

Maybe it's true: There's no such thing as a pitching prospect. None of these guys is now a good bet to have a good major league career.

Might be wise to temper the expectations for Billingsley/Elbert/Orenduff/Broxton.

Every other team in the NL West has done a better job producing homegrown starting pitchers in the last five years.

2006-01-14 22:56:01
180.   trainwreck
2006-01-14 22:57:42
181.   King of the Hobos
174 Orenduff's ERA struggled more than he did. He still K'd people at 9 per 9 IP, had the lowest walk rate in his professional career, while allowing homers at a decent .81 HR/9IP
2006-01-14 22:58:41
182.   dsfan
So Steve, are you backing off your statment that the LAD just traded "good prospects?"

I doubt there's a major league GM who thinks Baez is purely "crap." He's a pretty good late-inning guy.

2006-01-14 22:59:20
183.   trainwreck
We also lacked talented prospects for a few years, so that was a problem.
2006-01-14 23:02:14
184.   dsfan
Not true that Broxton was moved to the bullpen soley because LAD bullpen was struggling.

When Broxton was an amateurs, some scouts projected him as a major league reliever. It wasn't unaminous. Nor was it a big slight. Some liked the ideal of funneling him into brief stints. There were also doubts about his ability to develop a third pitch.

I'll grant you that, given Gagne's medicals, it seems wise to see if the LAD can cultivate a young closer.

2006-01-14 23:09:35
185.   oldbear
I understand Steve's skepticism on Danny Baez. I just happen to believe Baez is a better relief pitcher than Duaner Sanchez. Sure he makes 4 times as much, but who really cares? THe McCourts are paying out the wazoo this year.

The only way this hurts the team is if we cant come up with the budget to pay a superstar, bc our middle reliever is making 4mils.

I doubt that will be the case.

2006-01-14 23:10:06
186.   Steve
I am not backing off of anything.

1) Jackson and Tiffany are real-live starting pitching prospects who anyone can certainly imagine at least giving you league average innings and whose upside is significantly higher than that. For months last year, people were begging us to trade for garbage like Kip Wells. We just gave a steaming pile of dog dung 9 million dollars. The Boston Red Sox want Jonathan Broxton for a 300 lb., 43 year old. To blithely dismiss Jackson and Tiffany, when the major leagues are rife with ragarms that equate to the very worst of Tiffany and Jackson's downsides, at significantly more expensive rates, is short-sided and absurd.

2) Baez is garbage. His peripherals are terrible, he is protected, like other bad closers, by the easy situations he pitches in. His numbers yield no major differences from Sanchez's. He is the classic middle relief nobody turned closer for a crappy team, turned around and sold like pyrite to the first yankee idiot who comes west looking for a claim.

3) Don't even get me started on Lance Carter.

4) If bad trades were art, this would be the Mona Lisa. The undisputed masterpiece of the genre. Starting pitching prospects for middle relievers, who, even if they pitch their best games (a big if), provide very little value to a baseball team anyway.

The sky is falling, and it appears that the rope that I gave Colletti was sufficient only to hang himself with.

2006-01-14 23:11:45
187.   oldbear
181. Thats a good point Hobos, and also it was Orenduff's 1st year at AA. Billz and EJ were in their 2nd yr there.
2006-01-14 23:16:35
188.   Steve
Baez -- 72 1/3 IP, 7 HR, 30 BB, 51 K, 1.33 WHIP

Sanchez -- 82 IP, 8 HR, 36 BB, 71 K, 1.35 WHIP

I know you well enough, oldbear, to know I don't have to tell you how wrong it is to compare relief pitchers by their ERA

2006-01-14 23:20:08
189.   Steve
Sanchez was also more valuable in that he has not officially been tagged as a "closer" (TM), which means he could be used in game-important situations and in close games when behind. Since Baez is, embarrassingly enough for major league baseball, considered a "bona fide" closer, he is only going to be used in the same brain-dead way that Mota was used, in games with three run leads, while Lance Carter comes into games where we are losing 3-2 and there are two runners on and one out.
2006-01-14 23:26:47
190.   trainwreck
Great point Steve. Never made sense to me why not use your best relief pitcher at the most important situation in the game.
2006-01-14 23:33:24
191.   Steve
And while we're playing "Name that crappy middle reliever you have for one year before free agency that you traded two starting pitcher prospects for", we might as well throw in his Fielding Independent ERA, courtesy of The Hardball Times.


Higher than Sanchez's, of course.

2006-01-14 23:37:07
192.   das411
188 - So when Baez and Sanchez put up numbers this similar, and one does it while facing the Yankees and Red Sox while the other pitches in a Bonds-less NL West, how does swapping Sanchez for Baez not improve that slot in the bullpen?

189 - And how many times has Grady Little used a "smokejumper" Steve? Or for that matter, had any opportunity to manage a bullpen, since the one night in 2003 when everybody on the planet learned how foolish trusting his best pitcher was?

186 - Completely off topic but your last sentence just totally brought back this quote from Peggy Noonan's column this week, on the Alito hearings: "I think senators feel that their words, when strung together, become little bridges. I think the White House feels that their words, when strung together, become little nooses." Apply as necessary.

2006-01-14 23:39:10
193.   oldbear
188. I'm not judging them by their ERA. I'm judging them based on career K/9, bb/9, HR/9, their minor league splits, AND taking into account the league they each played in, in addition to age.

The only thing that alarms me about Baez is his decreasing K/bb ratio.

But the guy's hr/9 is still good, and he has played in a very tough division.

Duaner had a career year last year enshrouded in his k/9, which he'd never touched in his minor/major career before that season.

2006-01-14 23:43:03
194.   Steve
Because 2 * 0 remains 0.
2006-01-14 23:46:26
195.   Xeifrank
185. Cuz that $4 mil could be used to sign Hochever. vr, Xei
2006-01-14 23:56:17
196.   molokai
And Sanchez's K/9 improvement was a very small sample size and nothing in his history shows that improvement to have been anything but illusionary.

Baez had a strand rate of 82% last year meaning his ERA should have been around 3.82 instead of 2.87. In 2001 he also posted an 82% strand rate but his norm is 76%. The K/9 rate has dropped 3 years running as has his command. He should post around a 3.50-3.75 ERA for us with a whip of 1.30. He is not the top pitcher his saves would indicate but he should be a decent setup man. However he shouldn't be making 4 million and he shouldn't have been targeted by Ned.

Would have been nice for TB to throw Dukes into the deal so we could be having the same MB conversations we've had over the last two years in two years.

2006-01-15 00:17:07
197.   Steve
I guess I'd rather just have the illusion of climbing K/9 rates than the reality of falling ones. But middle relievers are useless as a class -- to say that Duaner Sanchez compares to Danys Baez is not to quibble about which one is better, but to simply note that both are middle relievers; therefore, both are inherently of little value and as predictable as a cat on meth. I would certainly not argue that we should have traded Tiffany and Jackson for Duaner Sanchez. In fact, middle relievers should not be traded for at all, which is why acquiring multiples of them makes this trade dumber than had Colletti simply acquired Baez alone.
2006-01-15 00:17:18
198.   LAT
I am disappointed in the trade for many of the reasons identifed above, but I am also disappointed becasue I was invested in EJ. I got excited when he stepped up in what was an important game at the time and beat the Big Unit. (Much the way many here were excited when the Bull took Prince Albert apart). I sank when EJ could not regain that form whether it was injuries or being rushed. I was again excited when he looked like himself at the end of last season. Was he finally healthy, was he mature, did he pick up another pitch would it all come together this spring? I feel like I have been reading a book off and on for the last two years only to find out the last chapter has been torn out.

Don't get me wrong for the right price I would be willing to give up on my sentimentality, but Baez and Carter are not that price. I would have rather taken a flyer on EJ and seen the story all the way through. Indeed, I could understand the deal if Baez had more than one year becasue I assume we will lose Gagne next year but the fact that Baez is a FA makes this all the worse.

2006-01-15 00:21:20
199.   Andrew Shimmin
It's not the Mona Lisa, but it could be Jackson Pollack--bad idea, willy-nilly execution. It doesn't portend well for the future and it fits too comfortably in what seems to be Colletti's willingness to throw away valuable players in favor of big name mediocrities. Steve: if the deal were Baez for Cody Ross would it still be bad? Baez isn't worth what was paid for him, isn't worth his salary, and might not be worth the roster spot that Carter will stink up. But he's not wholly worthless.
2006-01-15 00:27:30
200.   Andrew Shimmin
Oops. 197 makes it pretty clear that you'd disapprove of Ross for Baez. Well. There you go. At least Mr. Ned probably won't go after any more middle relievers. For a while, anyway.
Show/Hide Comments 201-250
2006-01-15 00:29:12
201.   Andrew Shimmin
If there'd been a cat on meth in Munich, I might have liked the movie better.
2006-01-15 00:32:33
202.   trainwreck
Why didn't you like it?
2006-01-15 00:35:08
203.   LAT
Andrew, was it really that bad? I really wanted to see it.

I was outvoted and forced to see Last Holiday. It was awful-not at all funny. Queen Latifa can keep my $9, I want those two hours back.

2006-01-15 00:39:45
204.   das411
203 - Now now, it could have been worse, King Kong stole 3 hours from me.

Where is Xei when we need him? :)

2006-01-15 00:42:21
205.   Andrew Shimmin
Becaue I'm a big fan of vengeange. The whole point of the movie was how vengeance is just as bad as the original crime, no matter what form the vengeance takes. The historical revisionism wasn't great, but, really, even if the facts had been played straight, I would have bristled at the message. Don't take my word for the entertainment value, I'm sure I don't represent anything like a fair POV. I hated Chocolat, too, for similar reasons.

Plus, how cool would a meth adled cat be?

2006-01-15 00:44:36
206.   Xeifrank
205. I'm here. Since it is after midnight and the sun has not yet risen, I can post on the topic of movies. I saw two during the holidays. Chronicles of Narnia (love the SNL rap song) and Memoirs of a Geisha. Both were actually quite decent. There are so many crappy movies and TV shows. A good analogy would be... Movies are to Xeifrank as Middle Relievers are to Steve. Most are crap, every once in a while you find a diamond in the rough. Hope that's a fair enough analogy for you Steve. I don't want to be giving MRs too much credit! vr, Xei
2006-01-15 01:04:16
207.   LAT
205. Two friends told me the same thing about Munich. They said the Mosad was portrayed as = to the terrorists. They thought it was too PC in its continued questioning of whether the Mosad was justified.
2006-01-15 01:11:08
208.   trainwreck
Munich's message is that the Palestinians and Israelis are the same. They are both people searching for a home and they are a lot closer to one another than they realize. All this violence is not worth it in the end.
2006-01-15 01:24:13
209.   Andrew Shimmin
208- I don't agree that that was the message. And, if it had been, I wouldn't have been any more taken with it. Anyway, see it, don't see it. No additional political theorizing from me tonight.
2006-01-15 01:33:10
210.   trainwreck
Well scattered through the film are reprsentations of how Palestians and Israelis feel about Munich. When Bana's group meets the PLO group they really do end up relating to each other and the Palestinian talks about how they are in search of a home. Later in the film, Eric Bana's mom is talking about how he has helped given the Israelis a home and so forth and I do not want to give stuff away but there is some more things that I can bring up.
2006-01-15 01:34:45
211.   trainwreck
Obviosuly the revenge factor plays into the constant violence is not worth this and that the revenge will not help or stop anything. It has a couple messages in there.
2006-01-15 01:47:59
212.   Andrew Shimmin
My response was a bit haughty, but it's mostly because I have a feeling that neither Jon, nor most of the posters here would be at all interested in my thoughts on politics, generally, or the movie's politics in particular. I can hardly sustain any interest in my thoughts on these points.

The only part of the movie that surprised me was the way he presented the end of the hostage story. People who've seen it probably know what I mean. That was about two of the last five minutes. Other than that, it was just like I thought it would be. I think people have a pretty good idea of what the movie will be like. If you want to see it, you'll probably be glad to have seen it, after. I'm not sorry that I went.

I wrote, in a letter to a friend about it, that Spike Lee would have done a better job with the material, and I stand by that. Although, after She Hate Me, it's possible he's completely lost his mind. . .

2006-01-15 01:55:37
213.   trainwreck
Spike Lee sometimes ends up going overboard (ending of Bamboozled is the perfect example), which I think causes some people to be turned off by his films, which is not a bad thing. I think Lee would concentrate on completely different aspects of the story. Spielberg is great at creating tension and suspense, which is basically what Munich is all about.
2006-01-15 03:17:05
214.   natepurcell
i cant believe we have people defending this trade. this trade was trash.

if depo was here, he would have never signed tomko. he would have never made this insanely shortsighted deal.

Colletti traded an average middle reliever for a potentially very good starter (good trade). Why on earth would trade 2 very young live arms that have produced in the minors while being young at every single level for a fricken average middle reliever. Everyone who is defending baez and saying he is more then that needs to take off those i love colletti shades. BAEZ IS BASICALLY A DUANER SANCHEZ CLONE.

ah! this trade is so disgusting. Even if you do decide you want to trade jackson and tiffany, if the market is only dann baez... you hold onto your chips.

that brings me up to another point. the other thing that disgusts me from ned is that he doesnt really get the "sell high" strategy in a trade. jacksons value is low i agree, but its not like he doesnt have the ability to bring the value up. he posted a better era in AA then billingsley. stick him back in AA next yr, let him put up around a 3 era until the trade deadline then trade him. Same goes for tiffany. We all know vero beach home park is the best place to hit homeruns in the FSL. I guarentee you that at jacksonville, his homerun rates would drop drastically and thus, improve his value significantly.

even if by some remote possibility that we do not get absolutely burned in this trade, its still a bad trade based on the principle that trading ANYTHING of worth for a middle reliever should always be a no-no.

for those of you that think our farm system has the starting piching arms to absorb this lost, then most of you are not seeing clearly. since broxton isnt a starter anymore. lets take a look at our starting pitching prospects that are worth a darn:

billingsley- our jewel. our star of africa. if neds trades him for anyone short of a bonafide ace under 27, then he should be run out of town.

elbert- live arm, athletic, good peripherals except the walks. One thing, he wont be ready to help the big league club until at least 2008.

orenduff- good mechanics, good slider, good build, not much else. struggles against lefties, too high of a walk rate for being a "polish" college pitcher. profiles as a #3 at best.

greg miller- best stuff in our system. Also probably the least likely to ever amount to a servicable big league career as a starter due to bone structure of the shoulder.

and uhh... thats about it now. hochevar isnt signed, and probably wont be unless he apologizes to logan white and lowers the bonus money.

guys, we are now officially THIN in the starting pitching. And colletti is stockpiling the team with crappy veterans, thus not allowing the young blood to come up to the bigs.

tomko should have had never been signed if he was going to trade for seo. Jackson should have been given the 5th spot. Jerking him around endlessly and not letting him takes his bumps and bruises is the reason why we are here today.

seriously, it seems like every dodger fan are so impatient with prospects. the first signs of struggle, "oh he doesnt have what it takes, trade him away".

the thinking needs to change. the filling the team with crappy veterans needs to change. Making pointless stupid trades needs to change... who am i kidding.. all of that has been the dodger way for the past 15 yrs now, why would it change now?

2006-01-15 04:53:55
215.   timely2base
I'm seeing a lot of people say that the only way this trade works out for the Dodgers is if Tiffany and Edwin go bust. Time will tell how we did on this, and it's not a trade I would have made, but if Baez is a significant contributor to a World Series team (it seems a lot of contributors here view that as an impossibility this year) as a lead-in to Brazo and/or Gagne, or as the closer himself should Gagne not be able to go, this trade will be a success of some degree regardless of what Tiffany and Edwin do.

Ideally, one or both of them has some degree of success and the trade helps both teams involved.

The goal isn't to win the trade by looking back 10 years later to see which players had the better career. The goal is to win a World Series or to a lesser extent a division or league championship. Obviously you balance that with long term concerns, but it doesn't necessarily follow with me that if a borderline prospect goes on to have a nice career, trading him for a player who has a short but very positive impact on the team will have been a mistake. If Baez or even Carter can contribute to a winner this year, (and I think Baez can) we did well.

One other point, there are years when it is more important than others to win. From a business and customer retention POV, the dodgers really need to perform this year. The battle with the Los Angeles Bloods of Anaheim has heated up. We need bullpen help. Baez helps. Edwin may have been able to help...that's not clear. This is not a year for maybes.

2006-01-15 07:56:31
216.   Steve
Baez, by definition, cannot "significantly contribute" to anything, regardless of how well he pitches. That is the entire point.
2006-01-15 08:18:39
217.   Wayne Wei-siang Hsieh
I think Steve's got this right. EJ and Tiffany may indeed fall victim to TINSTAAPP, but that's an argument for trading them for a player of real value, and Baez isn't that guy.

Oh well....

And btw, Plaschke may indeed dislike this trade. I seem to remember him actually writing a puff piece on how Tiffany grew up a Dodger fan and desperately hoped he'd wear the home whites one day.

With all that being said, I'd still give Ned a C+ for the off-season. The Furcal signing was creative, and I think the Seo trade may end up being quite shrewd. But I really do fear that this trade will haunt us one day. I think either EJ or Tiffany will at the very least one day be a good bullpen arm on a big-league club.


2006-01-15 08:23:16
218.   Steve
Steve: if the deal were Baez for Cody Ross would it still be bad?


2006-01-15 08:31:17
219.   Rob M
Didn't EJ and Sanchez both go spend the winter training with Gagne? May something happened in Arizona that sent them both packing. Maybe he had less than stellar reports on their "make-up" or whatever?
2006-01-15 08:34:51
220.   MartinBillingsley31
Altho i was saying the dodgers should trade jackson this whole off season, i didn't want him to be traded for a frickin reliever and one that's in his last year of the contract, i wanted him packaged with others for an upgrade in power in our lineup.

To me, you build your bullpen from within, and if your gonna trade prospects you trade them for A NEED, we didn't need baez, and now broxton and osoria might not make the team.

Also since it looks like NONE of our top prospects will make the team this year, does that mean all of them are going to arrive at the same time (2007), to me this would be bad, i think its better to slowly filter them in over a couple of seasons.

Or are we looking at possibly having a gm that doesn't have confidence in young prospects and will never see our prospects on the team?

2006-01-15 08:38:53
221.   Marty
I guess I picked the wrong time to have a birthday dinner and be out of touch. I was in Newberry Park, which I think is Xei Frank country.

I don't like this trade either. I subscribe to the don't-trade-for-middle-relief mantra. Especially not starting pitchers. And extra-especially not left-handed starting pitchers.

I also don't see how this is somehow a way for us to "win now". I don't think we were a middle-reliever away from the world series.

2006-01-15 08:43:33
222.   MartinBillingsley31
Anyways, since it looks like we are not going to upgrade the power in our lineup, ned/grady better figure out that choi/seanz at 1b and nomar at 3b or outfield maximizes the power in our lineup, and they better realize that if laroche or guzman tear it up in the minors the first half of the season they should bring one of them up, because lofton and mueller are not going to cut it.
drew cruz nomar or guzman outfield.
choi/seanz 1b, kent 2b, furcal ss, nomar or laroche 3b.
navarro c.

Also tomko is not going to cut it, ned/grady better realize this and if billingsley is tearing it up in the minors the first half they better realize its best to bring him up to replace tomko in the rotation and move tomko to long reliever.

2006-01-15 08:43:58
223.   natepurcell
Or are we looking at possibly having a gm that doesn't have confidence in young prospects and will never see our prospects on the team?

thats what it seems like doesnt it. now, if collettti signed molina THEN we can conclude that he has aboslutely no faith in young players whatsoever.

2006-01-15 08:46:55
224.   MartinBillingsley31
Yeah i saw that rumor today about the dodgers having interest in molina, what the f$@k.
2006-01-15 08:52:55
225.   Jon Weisman
224 - Hi - contrary to popular belief, using funny characters like $@ doesn't really disguise what letters you intended. So please, no profanity or even pro#&%ity.
2006-01-15 08:54:19
226.   MartinBillingsley31
Sorry jon
2006-01-15 08:59:42
227.   oldbear
Nate, EJ has no value. Take a look at Dewon Brazelton, former top draft pick... Already been released twice. Thats the market for once hyped, but now terrible minor league hurlers.

As for Tiffany, if he ever pitches 70 quality innings in the big leagues, I'll be surprised.

IMO, Tiffany would have been ax'ed off the roster just like Hanrahan was.

The Dodgers traded minor league garbage, for 1 average MLB reliever, and 1 garbage reliever.

2006-01-15 09:00:34
228.   Dagwood
I really don't know what to think of this trade. But I find this tidbit from Jim Callis of Baseball America interesting, especially since everyone seems to think all our prospects are can't misses:

Kenny Williams became White Sox general manager in October 2000, just when we began work on our first Prospect Handbook. By my count, Williams has traded 21 players who have appeared on Top 30 Prospects lists in the Handbook, and that doesn't include six others who had lost their prospect status by playing too much in the majors by the time they were dealt (Rocky Biddle, Matt Ginter, Gary Glover, Jeff Liefer, Miguel Olivo, Josh Paul). I didn't take the time to check every club, but that total has to be one of the highest, if not the highest, in baseball.

Williams was Chicago's farm director before becoming GM, so you might think he would have been more attached to his prospects than most of his counterparts. But Williams explained the reasons for his willingness to part with young talent before the 2005 season: "Two words: nineteen seventeen. How many more generations of fans are going to have to wait? I don't want to wait." Obviously, Williams and the White Sox got the job done last year, ending an 88-year drought between World Series championships.

2006-01-15 09:04:29
229.   oldbear
216. Baez can contribute. He should pitch 70IP. If those 70IP are better than what Sanchez 70IP would have been, then the Dodgers come out ahead. I think they will be.

Middle Relief Pitching may be insignifant and lowly valued, but it is still a position on the team. Someone has to pitch those innings. Why not always try to improve every single aspect of the team, especially if their is no strict budget?

2006-01-15 09:09:16
230.   regfairfield
228 As much as I've disliked Kenny Williams in the past (let's trade a total of eight prospects for Carl Everret and Roberto Alomar!) he seems to be much improved.

He actually seems to realize that the White Sox lucked into a World Series win next year, and instead of being complacent and expecting all of his pitchers to pitch within the 90th percentile of their PECOTA projections again, he went out and improved the team. He did this by trading at least three high quality prospects, Daniel Haigwood, Chris Young, and the other pitcher in the Thome trade.

In this case, trading these players is okay because

1. The White Sox were probably a second tier team heading into this season, getting Thome and Vazquez moves them into the elite.

2. Thome and Vazquez are impact players.

The Dodgers are no where near World Series contenders. Sure we could probably stumble into the playoffs, but running out Penny, Lowe, and Odalis in a short series isn't going to take us anywhere. This trade is a Mets style trade (see Jason Bay for Steve Reed) selling off the future for a bizzare instistance to win now when there is absolutely no need to.

If the Dodgers had the Yankee's offense but still needed a slight bullpen boost, I could maybe see the argument in trading Jackson or Tiffany. But the Dodgers window for contention is 2008-2012. Why risk at least five years of dominance for a slightly better team in 2006?

2006-01-15 09:10:35
231.   regfairfield
229 The problem is that whether or not Sanchez is better than Baez is a coin flip.
2006-01-15 09:14:30
232.   oldbear
220. Good points as usual. The only moves that I hated from Mr. Ned was the needless Brett Tomko move, trading Milton Bradley, and signing Sandy Alomar to back up catcher.

I didnt like Tomko, because I think Chad Billingsley is better.

I didnt like trading Milton Bradley, bc Kenny Lofton is a downgrade.

I didnt like signing Sandy Alomar, bc I think Russ Martin is better.

I cant say I disagree however, with trading for Danny Baez. I think Baez is better than Duaner Sanchez.

If you are improving a segment of the club, who really cares what it costs? Especially since monetarily, there doesnt seem to be a strict budget. I dont think it cost the team anything this time around bc Tiffany/EJ are long shots to do well in the big leagues.

As I see it, the only arguments I can buy for being against this trade is that Tiff/EJ should have netted more. But I think they both were marginal. So I still disagree.

2006-01-15 09:15:59
233.   natepurcell
Nate, EJ has no value. Take a look at Dewon Brazelton, former top draft pick... Already been released twice. Thats the market for once hyped, but now terrible minor league hurlers.

Brazelton is 25/26 yrs old. EJ is 22 yrs old. brazelton was given a consistent slot in the rotation over the course of a full year and more to prove himself. EJ has been jerked around constantly. And when he has pitched in the bigs, its been on erradic rest days.. sometimes even 2 weeks between starts. there is a big difference between the two players. I know you are trying to find comps and justifications for this deal, but try to find another one because this one doesnt work.

As for Tiffany, if he ever pitches 70 quality innings in the big leagues, I'll be surprised.

nothing new from you.your subjective opinion. considering what i've read from you over the past 2 years concerning our prospects, this is right in line with your thinking.

IMO, Tiffany would have been ax'ed off the roster just like Hanrahan was.

do you actually believe the things you type or do you just say these things to stir conversation? Hanrahan was axed off the roster because he completely fell apart. his fb velocity dipped into the lower 80s and his mechanics completely turned upside down. Sure, if tiffany went through the same meltdown next year, he could have been left off the 40 man roster. But if he followed his career path of the last 2 yrs, what in the world would make you say that statement. you have a young lefty pitcher who by the end of the 2006 season who is only 21 yrs old and just finished one season of AA ball. A young lefty pitcher who currently has a career minor K/9IP of over 12. pitchers like that do not get left off the 40 man roster.

whatever i shouldnt get worked up over this. it was you a yr and half ago said billingsley was nothing and should be sold high for probably some average player.

2006-01-15 09:16:03
234.   Jon Weisman
226 - It's okay.

I updated this post with some little tidbits up top.

2006-01-15 09:16:57
235.   oldbear
231. If you look at Baez/Duaner's career stats, and take into account each league they played in, I think most would concur Baez is better.

The only think Duaner had going for him was his aberrational K rate jump in 2005.

I clearly believe Baez is better than Duaner. Some may disagree, if you disagree then I can understand why the trade doesnt make sense.

2006-01-15 09:20:57
236.   oldbear
233. I'd do Billz for Dunn in a heartbeat. If Ryan Ketchner comes back healthy, doesnt he fill the role of what Chuck Tiffany could have become?

The team still has Ketchner and Derek Thompson to fill in the role as soft tossing 4/5th starter left hander that all these scouts projected Tiffany to be.

2006-01-15 09:24:09
237.   regfairfield
235 But they're middle relievers and inherently unstable. From watching Sanchez pitch, I felt he showed definate improvement this year, primarily due to the change up he added. Combine this with the fact that he is entering his prime, and it looks like 2005 Duaner is here to stay.

Even if you think Baez is better, due to the fluctuations middle relievers make, what are the odds that Baez is better? 55%? 60%?

Middle relivers have so little inherent value that if you make similar trades five or six times and only one of the prospects you trade pans out, you still come up behind.

2006-01-15 09:26:40
238.   natepurcell
re 236... please stop. now you are comparing tiffany to ketchner? give me a break.
2006-01-15 09:27:31
239.   natepurcell
I'd do Billz for Dunn in a heartbeat.

it wasnt billz for dunn. this was way before dunn. it was probably billz for someone ridiculous like ugeth urbina.

2006-01-15 09:28:55
240.   oldbear
238. You're right. Ketchner doesnt give up HR's, and actually has been the best pitcher in each league he's pitched in.
2006-01-15 09:29:01
241.   kinbote
nate--you left off blake johnson & julio pimentel.

from a purely theoretical viewpoint, this is a bad trade. however, there is more to baseball than theory.

for a variety of reasons (mainly the recent reign of depo), colletti inherited a roster that had several starting pitchers locked up to multiyear deals. i think it's fair to say that lowe/penny/odalis are not the greatest 1/2/3 in baseball. a little blame is due to depo here.

knowing that weaver was almost certain to leave--largely due to the boras factor--colletti signed tomko to be an innings-eater, a moniker that really described weaver's value to the team most aptly. now, whether this turns out to be a mistake or not is up for debate, but we did replace weaver for less money.

after grabbing an undervalued jae seo for the mets--who were merely trying to scale down their rotation options while adding a quality reliever--colletti was left with a sizable hole in the bullpen. suffice it to say, an all-youth power-arm bullpen is probably not the best strategy in the world, which is what a gagne/braz/brox/kuo/jackson/? pen would have looked like. (incidentally, several highly respected posters in the online dodger community thought we didn't need to add a veteran reliever at the deadline last year and look what happened . . .)

so then, we now have:

lowe--signed for 3 more years
penny--signed for 3 more years
odalis--signed for 2 more years
tomko--signed for 2 more years
seo--under team control for 4 more years.

while billingsley sure looks "can't-miss," i agree that our starting pitching depth in the minors in somewhat overrated. that being said, jackson didn't have an open spot lined up for him within the next couple of years, and tiffany--as has been stated ad nauseum--has been passed up by elbert.

i still think the key to these last two deals (which almost HAVE to be considered in tandem) is the production of jae seo next year and beyond. if we essentially swapped jackson for seo, "veteranized" our bullpen, and paid the difference in prospects, the proof will be in the pudding: our 2006 team.

and for the record, comparing this trade to konerko/shaw is misleading: konerko was the two-time Baseball America player of the year, and he was "can't-miss."

2006-01-15 09:34:30
242.   oldbear
237. To me Jay Seo + Danny Baez>>>>Duaner+Schmoll+Tiffany+ EJ.

I'd rather have Jay Seo than Tiff/EJ.
I'd rather have Baez than Duaner/Schmoll (although I think Schmoll had a ton of potential. Didnt like that he was included as a throw in).

2006-01-15 09:34:46
243.   Dagwood
Look, the market for middle relief skyrocketed this off-season. We keep saying we can just plug in pitchers from the minors, but what succcess did we have with that last year? How many "can't miss" pitching prospects over the last five years have actually made it? Considering the confidence many of us have in our farm system, can we really not absorb the loss of two players? According to, this decision was made with White, Ng, Smith, and Collins.
A bird in the hand...
2006-01-15 09:36:12
244.   MartinBillingsley31
I agree with oldbear that baez is a little better than sanchez.

But i just think we could have gotten more for jackson and tiffany, and we should have filled A NEED, this is my whole problem with this trade.

Tomko and lofton don't cut it, and mueller to a lesser extent.

And this carter guy supposively is going to make the team over broxton and osoria, blows me away.

Billingsley > tomko
Guzman laroche nomar choi/seanz > lofton mueller
broxton osoria > carter

2006-01-15 09:37:49
245.   natepurcell
kinbote. its not that i am against trading jackson or tiffany. its that jackson and tiffany for danny baez is not a good trade. theres no other to say it.
2006-01-15 09:38:17
246.   Steve
I can't even believe I'm reading this. Calling Tiffany a garbage minor leaguer is far worse than even politically charged nonsense like Choi is slow at first base. Edwin Jackson's downside ALONE is Baez.

It does not matter whether "Baez is better than Duaner Sanchez." The point is that Baez is comparable to Duaner Sanchez. Once the point is made, and implicitly conceded, the rest of the argument makes itself.

2006-01-15 09:38:49
247.   oldbear
244. I dont think Lance Carter makes the team unless Grady Little decides he's a loogy. And Carter's splits against LHP shows he's nothing special. I'll be really surprised if makes it. He was just a throw in to this trade.
2006-01-15 09:43:19
248.   natepurcell
According to, this decision was made with White, Ng, Smith, and Collins.

well now we can spread the blame equally in 3 years when everyone will be saying
-"wow, remember when we traded jackson and tiffany for danny baez? That D-ray rotation sure looks nice now with kazmir, jackson, niemann and tiffany"
-"yea man, remember how our stupid general manager at the time said it was because he wanted to win now. did he actually believe danny baez was the final piece of the puzzle to a championship team!?!?"

-dodger thoughts, summer of 2009

2006-01-15 09:43:57
249.   oldbear
246. I consider Hanrahan and EJ both garbage. I guess i'm one year too soon in proclaiming Chuck Tiffany garbage.

But I'd take all these guys starting before Tiffany:


I can understand dealing our 8th best starting pitching prospect thats in Single A, if it improves the Big Club, no matter how marginal that improvement is.

I'm an LA Dodger fan.

Not a Vero, Jax, Vegas fan.

2006-01-15 09:45:42
250.   MartinBillingsley31
I'm just going by what ned said about carter in this article.

Baez now will set up for Gagne and Colletti said Baez was fine with that. Carter and Yhency Brazoban will pitch middle relief and rookie Jonathan Broxton "will have a chance to make the team."

Carter can pitch a couple innings at a time, which is intriguing, and he's also closed games," said Colletti. "It takes a special character to be able to do that, a mindset and willingness. He was successful at it and that tells me a lot about his makeup."

Show/Hide Comments 251-300
2006-01-15 09:46:01
251.   kinbote
"The Dodgers are no where near World Series contenders."

(i don't know how to do that cool hyperlink number thing, so sorry for pasting the above.)

so who are the teams in the NL that are clearly superior to us? nobody in the nl west fits that description. i suppose you're referring to st. louis, atlanta, & the mets (houston, chicago & philly as well?).

st. louis has a great 1/2 in carpenter/mulder; the rest of their rotation is solid as well. obviously, what makes them so good is pujols--the best hitter in the game--, edmonds, & rolen. while i think they deserve to be considered the class of the NL,
they are by no means untouchable.

atlanta looks to be in the process of building another non-dynasty dynasty with all their young talent, but right now, they are clearly beatable.

the mets could be the team this year; however, until they prove it on the field--like us--they have no fear factor.

the remaining teams--again, like us--all have substantial flaws that make them far from locks to succeed.

i know we're going in circles here, but there has to be some balance between aiming for the future and focussing on the present. i am the biggest prospect-lover in the building, but i do recognize that colletti has 3.5 million other people to appease . . .

2006-01-15 09:46:08
252.   regfairfield
243 How good was the Yankees 30 million dollar bullpen?

How good was the Red Sox bullpen full of "proven veterans"?

The Indians had one of the worst bullpens in baseball in 2004.

They added Arthur Rhodes and it suddenly became the best bullpen in baseball. Is Arthur Rhodes just that good, or are bullpen's inherently swingy?

I think Jon said once before that you need good middle relief to win a championship, but you can't plan for it.

2006-01-15 09:51:13
253.   natepurcell
Billingsley- yes
Elbert- yes
Ketchner- injured, ulna nerve surgery.
Thompson-injured, 2nd TJ.. has cadaver ligaments in knee.
Orenduff-cieling as high as tiffanys, but since tiffany is left handed, higher value
Broxton- now a relief prospect
Miller- injury concerns.

wow oldbear, keep stretching it.

2006-01-15 09:51:45
254.   Dagwood

I could care less what the Rays' pitching staff looks like three years from now, if ours is better. Did we just give away the farm here?

2006-01-15 09:53:18
255.   Gold Star for Robot Boy
rookie Jonathan Broxton "will have a chance to make the team."

I can't remember the details, but BPro once ran an essay stating financially wise teams should not put rookies on the opening-day roster. That starts their service time "clock," which leads to them being eligible for arbitration and free agency a year earlier than if you called up the same player from the minors in late April. (This essay had to do with fantasies of turning around the Royals, IIRC.)

2006-01-15 09:55:04
256.   Gold Star for Robot Boy
by the way, over at BTF/Primer there's plenty of posts along these lines:
"is the hype around the dodger organization better than the results? who, exactly, has the system produced who has been good of late? recent disappointments include thurston, hanrahan, jackson."
"remember when jackson and hanrahan were going to lead the dodgers to greatness? those were good times."
2006-01-15 09:55:38
257.   natepurcell
I could care less what the Rays' pitching staff looks like three years from now, if ours is better. Did we just give away the farm here?

we gave away enough of our minor league pitching stashhold to now making our minor league pitching thin.

2006-01-15 09:57:58
258.   Steve
Good Lord, Colletti found out they had a sale at Platitudes 'R Us.
2006-01-15 09:58:30
259.   natepurcell
these are the rankings for the dodgers farm system by BA.
2003 - 14
2002 - 25
2001 - 28
2000 - 24
1999 - 24

obviously, the hype is only recent. the reason why we havent produced anything is because we havent had a farm system worth noting.

2006-01-15 10:00:29
260.   oldbear
255. It'll be interesting what they do with Broxton. I just think a talent like him is wasted only pitching 60ip a year. Maybe he's gonna close for the Vegas team? Personally, I hope they move him back to starting.
2006-01-15 10:02:21
261.   Dagwood
Look, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate, but why are we always talking about how good we'll be in three years, no matter how many years have passed. This goes back to Evans.
Perhaps Gagne walks next year, perhaps we sign Baez for three years for half the price and he's decent. Who knows? It's just as iffy as Tiffany being more than an innings eater at the back of the rotation.
2006-01-15 10:02:31
262.   the count
I don't see how people are saying that Tiffany, a 20 year old with a 10.96 K/9 ratio in High A, is garbage (or almost garbage).
2006-01-15 10:03:46
263.   Gold Star for Robot Boy
obviously, the hype is only recent.

That was the purpose of my post at BTF. But too many people look at Thurston, EdJax, et al, then look at Baseball America's current rankings and wonder about the disparity.

2006-01-15 10:05:10
264.   Steve
It's just as iffy as Tiffany being more than an innings eater at the back of the rotation.

So why do it at all? Unless Colletti just enjoys reading his name in the paper (BINGO!)

2006-01-15 10:06:21
265.   natepurcell
So why do it at all? Unless Colletti just enjoys reading his name in the paper (BINGO!)

-ralph lawler on colletti

2006-01-15 10:07:35
266.   natepurcell
I don't see how people are saying that Tiffany, a 20 year old with a 10.96 K/9 ratio in High A, is garbage (or almost garbage).

dont worry its just one person. he doesnt believe in prospects. and never mind the fact that vero beach's home park homerun factor was 1.62

2006-01-15 10:13:00
267.   natepurcell
on good news, it seems kwame brown is turning it around.

18 and 12 last night?!?!? and the games before, he went 8,9,9,10,10 or something like that. kwame is consistently getting a little better each and every game. nice

2006-01-15 10:13:00
268.   LAT
247. Bear, if Carter is just a throw in who doesn't make the team, that makes the trade even worse. It makes the deal EJ and Tiff for Baez. There is no way that is a good deal.

Don't drink the Kool-Aid. Even if the Dodgers do win the weak NL West, that is the ceiling. The West is AAA ball and whoever comes out of the west is going to get sawwed in the first round. The WC will have a better record than the West champ.

2006-01-15 10:15:17
269.   Dagwood
Why do it? Again, guaranteed help now is better than the potential of help 3 years down the road. Wasn't it three years ago when Jackson & Miller were guaranteed aces on the verge of jumping to the majors? We're still waiting, aren't we? If we had just traded our only prospects, that would be one thing. But the perception is we're loaded. Should we never spend that capital for improvement now?
2006-01-15 10:15:52
270.   Steve
What is "guaranteed" about this help?
2006-01-15 10:16:21
271.   natepurcell
Should we never spend that capital for improvement now?

when the improvement now is in the marginal form of danny baez then no, dont spend it.

2006-01-15 10:17:41
272.   molokai
Oldbear you have admitted you have no idea how to rate prospects yet you try. The professionals who do this for a living pretty much had Tiffany as our number 3 or number 4 best pitching prospect in a system loaded with pitching prospects. Since he has yet to pitch above high A I don't mind trading him. I do mind trading him for Baez not only a middle reliever but an average middle reliever with a 4 million dollar deal who will be a free agent at the end of 2006. I guess the only saving grace is that if we don't flip him we will get a number one pick for him when he leaves and that pick could easily end up better then EJ or Tiffany. It is possible that Baez is only insurance in case Gagne is not healthy and Yhancy did not turn the corner this winter. If Gagne is healthy and Yhancy proves his mettle it would not surprise me to see Baez flipped or even Gagne flipped.

I do agree with you that E Jackson's star has dimmed enough that he would not be part of any package worth anything. My take on that is why trade low, his value could only go up or continue to be worth nothing. At 22 my bet would be to let him build his value back up. Since TB is my 2nd favorite team at the moment I'm glad EJ and Tiffany ended up there, since I can root for them to help end the tyranny of the AL East.

2006-01-15 10:18:30
273.   oldbear
268. You're assuming EJ has some sort of value. I dont think he does.

So now the deal is Baez for Tiff.

I still do the deal. Baez will give the team 70 at least average MLB innings.
I think odds are long Tiff even pitches in the bigs.

2006-01-15 10:20:53
274.   natepurcell
You're assuming EJ has some sort of value. I dont think he does

if he has no value then why trade him at all? let him try to build the value up.

2006-01-15 10:21:55
275.   willhite
I must be one of very few people here who really believes this trade was only part of something yet to come.

Baez has trade value right now, and I can guarantee you that Ned is getting calls this morning to discuss that.

He may feel that he wants to hang on to him and trade someone else. As others have mentioned, maybe Gagne doesn't look as good as what we've heard. Maybe Gagne goes to Philly tomorrow for Abreu. Maybe Broxton goes to Boston tomorrow for Wells (God forbid).

I just think that the deals don't stop last night and as much fun (or revulsion) as any of us are having with today's roster, I don't think it's the roster that will be going down to Vero.

2006-01-15 10:22:15
276.   Jon Weisman
252 - Yeah, I did say that. That was pretty clever, I thought. :)
2006-01-15 10:25:13
277.   Jon Weisman
275 - It's entirely possible the trade is part of something to come. But given that we don't know what that something is and whether it will happen, I think it's fine for people to talk about what already exists. Otherwise, the talk becomes exponentially more speculative than it already is.

At the same time, if people think that the trade was a loser for the Dodgers in both the short term and long term - for those who think the Dodgers have lowered their bargaining power by losing Jackson and Tiffany - the fact that it may lead to a future deal is irrelevant.

2006-01-15 10:27:13
278.   Steve
This has long passed the Choi at first base level of absurdity. OF COURSE "the odds are long" that any prospect pitches in the bigs. That is the nature of the game, particularly since MLB is by and large a union closed shop designed to keep people from breaking in and "stealing money from the veterans." Edwin Jackson can give you 70 "at least average MLB innings" in his sleep. The fact that Edwin Jackson may or may not have value has direct correlation to the fact that 70 AT LEAST AVERAGE MLB INNINGS ARE OF NOT VERY MUCH USE TO ANYBODY AT ALL!


Care to guess what I'm thinking, Jon?

2006-01-15 10:28:28
279.   MartinBillingsley31
Actually if you think about it, this is what we get for not being willing to sign free agent starting pitching to long term deals.
If we signed millwood we wouldn't have had to trade sanchez for seo, then our gm wouldn't have thought he had to replace sanchez with baez.
A dominoe effect created because of not being willing to sign free agent starting pitching to long term.
Something i was pushing for all off season, i kinda saw this coming.
If you can't get em from free agency, you gotta get em from trades.
2006-01-15 10:30:07
280.   natepurcell
roy smith,kim ng and logan white shold also be held responsible.

its their job to do whats right for the dodger organization. it was there job to drug colletti before he could make this deal, hypnotize him and talk him out of it.

i blame everything on them.

2006-01-15 10:30:25
281.   willhite
277 -

I have no problem with the ongoing discussion, in fact I'm enjoying it. I'm just surprised that hardly anyone seems to agree with my viewpoint that this is going to lead to something else.

As a middle reliever Baez is just another arm, but there are GMs out there who apparently would like to use him as a closer and that, to me, makes him more valuable as a trading chip than the two young guys we just traded. I'm sure there are those of you who will jump on that last statement and totally disagree with it. Fire away.

2006-01-15 10:30:55
282.   Jon Weisman
278 - Actually, somehow that works okay, since I can't think of a curse word that long. But maybe it's time to take the day off, or a few hours. I say that not to antagonize you or kick you out, but to make sure you have a good Sunday. I think your point's been made.
2006-01-15 10:31:55
283.   Dagwood
I guess you guys believe that Brazoban is much better than his 5+ ERA, that Broxton's 100mph pitches will actaully find the strike zone, and that Kuo will pitch more than 30 innings despite never having done so at any level. Indeed, there is plenty of potential here.
Baez had 41 saves with the doormat Devil Rays. Not bad. His peripheral numbers aren't so hot. Cause for concern, admittedly.
Dodger fans are upset and the Angels keep winning. I think the front office has other concerns, namely an NL West pennant (however pyrric such a victory would be) to win angry fans back. Dodger fans don't take solace in a Jacksonville dynasty.
It's a balancing act. I think we'll be ok. The sky is not falling.
2006-01-15 10:32:25
284.   Jon Weisman
278 - I think you may have messed up the page layout, though.

281 - Many of us are neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you. It's just that in some minds, what you're saying is tangential. Any move can lead to other moves - that's inherent.

2006-01-15 10:32:37
285.   Rainman
I must admit my initial reaction to this trade was a little negative. BUT, to play devil's advocate here, consider this: How many "top pitching prospects" have played out and turned into front-line major league pitchers for the Dodgers in the last decade? Pitching prospects are a dime a dozen, and there are plenty more in the LA system right now. Using a prospect or two to improve your major league team is a valid strategy, particularly since Mr. Ned has left the farm system completely intact until now. Looking at this from an objective standpoint, without any loyalty or affection toward Edwin and Chuck, I think it makes sense. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
2006-01-15 10:32:41
286.   natepurcell
I have no problem with the ongoing discussion, in fact I'm enjoying it. I'm just surprised that hardly anyone seems to agree with my viewpoint that this is going to lead to something else.

im not as optimistic as you are that ned is as creative as that. thats why i dont see this trade leading to a bigger, better trade.

2006-01-15 10:37:43
287.   willhite
284 -

I understand your point Jon, but as I read the comments, they all seem to treat this as a "final act".

No one seems to be saying, "If this is our ST roster, then I hate the trade, but if we trade so and so then it might not be so bad"

It's all, "How could Ned be so stupid" or "I hate this trade"

I'll be one of those on the side of "I don't like this trade" if nothing follows it, but since we all love to speculate here, I'm just surprised that no one is speculating on what might follow.

OK, I've had my say and won't bring this up again.

2006-01-15 10:38:24
288.   YLT
Flanders was quoted in the times today that he was not looking to trade Baez or Gagne, for what it's worth.
2006-01-15 10:40:19
289.   Steve
"If this is our ST roster, then I hate the trade, but if we trade Baez and Carter for Pujols then it might not be so bad"
2006-01-15 10:41:03
290.   Bob Timmermann
In other news, the Steelers are going through the Colts defense like ... um .... you know that unpleasant stuff through a goose.
2006-01-15 10:41:25
291.   MartinBillingsley31
That's what i first thought, that this trade is a prelude to another trade, but then ned said in an article that he has no plans to trade baez or gagne, and that brazo and carter are going to be middle relievers.

But then again he said that he had a surplus of relievers to trade for seo, so if he had a surplus then why did he add more by getting baez and carter.

2006-01-15 10:41:58
292.   willhite
288 -

That might be exactly what he's thinking or it might be spin to increase trade value.

Or it might mean someone else from the bullpen will be traded.

One reason I'm surprised he would make the deal and keep Baez is that this will be his walk year, and EJ/CT for one year of Baez seems nuts to me. You certainly can't go into a guy's FA year and expect to be able to sign him with all of the other teams bidding against you. It's nice if you can do it, but you certainly can't count on it.

2006-01-15 10:42:57
293.   D4P
But then again he said that he had a surplus of relievers to trade for seo, so if he had a surplus then why did he add more by getting baez and carter.

I believe he meant to say "...surplus of young relievers..."

2006-01-15 10:43:00
294.   oldbear
"Edwin Jackson can give you 70 "at least average MLB innings" in his sleep."


2006-01-15 10:43:18
295.   willhite

Atta way Steve, I knew you'd come around :)

2006-01-15 10:44:55
296.   D4P
Walk years seem tricky. On one hand, you're probably not going to be able to resign the guy at the end of the season (unless you are willing to pay through the nose). OTOH, (I have no stats to back this up: does anyone else?) it seems like you can expect the guy to give maximum effort (and to perform relatively well) during his walk year.
2006-01-15 10:45:16
297.   molokai
I tend to agree with you that this could be a deal that will end up being part of another deal but I don't think we will see it until we find out if Gagne is healthy.

It is very possible that they all did agree that EJ and Tiffany were expendable. They should know more then us about their expectations for the duo. Miller is the last hope of the trifecta.

2006-01-15 10:46:15
298.   oldbear
292. Offering Baez arbitration and getting a #1 pick may be worth more than keeping EJ/Tiffany.

1yr of Baez + #1 pick>>>> EJ/Tiff

Its actually a bad deal for Baez financially. He isnt going to save many games in LA. I think those arbitrators probably look at saves, so I can see him declinging arbitration and us getting the picks.

2006-01-15 10:46:34
299.   Steve
"If this is our ST roster, then I hate the trade, but if we trade Baez for Sanchez and Schmoll then it might not be so bad"
2006-01-15 10:47:02
300.   thinkblue0
286 - completely agree. I just feel like we got fleeced here. People say most prospects don't pan out and that's true, but that doesn't mean they don't have value now.

I find it hard to believe that we couldn't have gotten more for Jackson AND Tiffany. Baez and Huff would have made sense...but Baez and and an average reliever? No thanks.

At this point, I would have rather kept Sanchez and dealt Jackson and Tiffany for someone better and less of a question mark than Seo.

Show/Hide Comments 301-350
2006-01-15 10:47:27
301.   MartinBillingsley31

If you think this is going to lead to another trade, what position do you think ned is targeting, or better yet what position and who?

2006-01-15 10:47:42
302.   molokai
Maybe he's more interested in a sold walk year and then a number one pick when he leaves. Could get the same thing if we sign Molina and allow Navarro to percolate as has been speculated.
2006-01-15 10:50:17
303.   willhite
299 -

Once again, you are proving how incrdedibly creative you are. I do believe you should send your suggestions to Ned, although I would love to see what your comments would have been if they traded EJ/CT for Sanchez/Schmoll. Wait a minute. I think I've already seen what your comments would be.

2006-01-15 10:54:26
304.   Marty
The Steelers are looking good, but man, it seems like it's a 2-1 ratio of plays to commercials.
2006-01-15 10:54:37
305.   willhite
301 -

How about Lowe/Baez for Abreu, although that would leave us very short on starters.

The Braves need a closer, although I have no idea what they would be able to give us for Baez that would help. Maybe Baez and ? for one of their good young outfielders.

I'm also concerned that it might lead to Broxton for Wells although I think I saw somewhere that Ned already rejected that (but that was before yesterday).

2006-01-15 10:55:23
306.   MartinBillingsley31
I do remember reading in an article that ned said he talked to baez about him being the set up man and not the closer and it was fine with him, but it also said that the newspaper called baez by phone and baez declined to speak to the reporter.
2006-01-15 10:57:35
307.   Bob Timmermann
Gordon Edes in the Boston Globe reported today that the Dodgers are no longer interested in a deal for Wells although the Red Sox want to move him.
2006-01-15 10:58:26
308.   willhite
307 -

Thank heavens for small favors.

2006-01-15 10:59:22
309.   Steve
It's hard to imagine getting less for Jackson and Tiffany, much less more.
2006-01-15 11:00:07
310.   MartinBillingsley31
You think lowe and baez straight up could get us abreu.
I'd do it.
It would open a spot for billingsley.
We would be thin on starting pitching.

But the big question would be, who would abreu be replacing, lofton or cruz?

If ned is gung ho about lofton, i don't see the need for abreu over cruz at the price of lowe and baez.

2006-01-15 11:03:34
311.   Marty
So Steve, what do you really think of this trade :)

BTW, there was a pretty big staffing shake up in the Time's sports department this week. It makes me think that inside of a year there will be a coverage philosophy change if not a columnist(s) shake up.

2006-01-15 11:03:47
312.   thinkblue0
if this is leading to a second deal then fine, but as someone else said I don't believe Ned is that creative.

We'll see. If we are able to trade Baez for either a really good OF'er or a good starter then it'll look better.

But right now, Baez + Seo < Jackson + Tiffany + Sanchez

2006-01-15 11:07:49
313.   Steve
"If this is our ST roster, then I hate the trade, but if we trade Baez for Plaschke getting his well-deserved pink slip then it might not be so bad"
2006-01-15 11:08:46
314.   D4P

Baez + Seo < Jackson + Tiffany + Sanchez

Baez + Seo + Carter <<<<<< Jackson + Tiffany + Sanchez

2006-01-15 11:10:31
315.   Steve
314 -- A key point.
2006-01-15 11:13:34
316.   willhite
310 -

I really don't have a clue as to whether Lowe/Baez would get us Abreu but my gut tells me it would. They really need pitching and would love to dump Abreu's salary. If I'm not mistaken, the salaries are about equal.

Don't look at it as giving up Baez and Lowe for Abreu, since we really never had Baez in the first place. Look at it as EJ/CT/DL for Abreu. You can't tell me that Abreu isn't a huge upgrade over Cruz. Question is do you feel that it was worth it to include the two pitching prospects. I think most people would say yes.

2006-01-15 11:18:43
317.   Steve
I would say yes. But Lowe is only going to get worse (if that's even possible).
2006-01-15 11:19:32
318.   MartinBillingsley31
Wouldn't it be a trip if ned traded for abreu, and his comments on the trade went something like this:
" i was targeting bobby abreu all along, but i didn't want to have to trade any of our top prospects that include billingsley martin broxton guzman laroche, so i had to make other moves to get to the point where i had enough that i could trade for it to make sense for the phillies to get the trade done".
2006-01-15 11:21:32
319.   thinkblue0
317 -

Lowe was phenomenal in the second half last year. He's one of the "horses" that we have. You can usually pencil in 200 IP from him. Penny is a question mark with injuries as is Perez.

I love Abreu...if they'd take a combo of Perez and Baez then definitely pull the trigger. But unless we have another deal on the horizon, giving up Lowe would probably be a mistake at this point.

2006-01-15 11:23:56
320.   D4P
Why doesn't Derek Lowe's name come up more often in the "character" discussions? You'd think cheating on your wife would reflect at least as bad on one's character as dumping bags of baseballs on the field and slamming a plastic bottle into stands.
2006-01-15 11:30:20
321.   regfairfield
319 Lowe lived and died with his BABIP. In his terrible months it was very high, and in his good months, it was very low. His "moving to the left side" really did nothing. His K/BB in his last two months were his worst numbers in that category and his home run rate in August was the second highest of the year.

However, his BABIP in those months was .225 and .248, so he put up 3.63 and 2.13 ERAs.

2006-01-15 11:33:38
322.   Steve
He's going to get older and those unearned runs will be earned runs soon enough. Not very good. Him and his contract only serve as a monument to the absurdity of calling 21-year-old starting pitching prospects "garbage."
2006-01-15 11:37:25
323.   Wayne Wei-siang Hsieh
Re: 320

Because Milton got perilously close in the bottle incident to assaulting a fan. IIRC, he's also thrown a punch at an ump in the minors. And he may be a wife-beater. And even if one argues that Kent bears more responsibility for their feud, Bradley's conduct was hardly admirable.

Cheating on one's wife is hardly anything Lowe should be proud of, but there have been no accusations of actual physical violence. And his adultery has had nothing to do with his on the field play.


2006-01-15 11:38:01
324.   D4P
Him and his contract only serve as a monument to the absurdity of calling 21-year-old starting pitching prospects "garbage."

...but didn't Depo sign him?

2006-01-15 11:41:43
325.   Steve
DePo fell out of favor with me a long time ago. I was not excited about the Colletti signing, saw some rays of hope, and now realize we're just another dog chasing its tail.
2006-01-15 11:46:06
326.   D4P
DePo fell out of favor with me a long time ago.

I did not know that. You're an interesting breed: Pro-Choi, Anti-Depo.

2006-01-15 11:46:52
327.   willhite
325 -

Try to contain your optimism. I think we're going to have to refer to you as the DT "Polyanna".

Maybe this dog will find a big juicy bone buried somewhere before ST.

(there, that should give you some good fodder for a nice comment)

2006-01-15 11:48:43
328.   oldbear
314. Why does one believe that Chuck Tiffany has more value to the Dodgers than Jay Seo?

Why does one believe that Duaner Sanchez is better than Danny Baez?

I cant comprehend either of those.
So is it Edwin Jackson? Dont buy him either.

2006-01-15 11:53:37
329.   regfairfield
We have one year of Baez. If he has an amazingly good year, he'll put up a 20 VORP.

If Tiffany and Jackson combine for a 20 VORP in the next six years, we lose this trade (not entirely true, but close enough to get my point across).

2006-01-15 11:54:16
330.   Steve
I made a mistake in drinking the DePo kool-aid. As a whole, he would have been better than Colletti, but the organization was in a hash in 2005, and I am not going to let DePo slide for that just because he knows what VORP is.

328 -- You continue to miss the issue. The issue is not Duaner Sanchez or Danny Baez. The issue is why you would need to acquire either one of them. They are inherently valueless baseball players.

2006-01-15 11:57:02
331.   D4P
It seems pretty clear that Flanders made this trade with "Winning now at the expense of the future" in mind. That's not to say, however, that this trade helps us "win now"...
2006-01-15 11:59:39
332.   D4P
Ah, so you're not on the "Depo's 2005 Dodgers would have won the WS if not for injuries" bandwagon?
2006-01-15 12:02:59
333.   molokai
I don't think any of us were on that bandwagon. I think most of us expected us to challenge for the Western title and that is about it.
2006-01-15 12:06:12
334.   Steve
They would have won the west, but that ended up being an irrelevant measure of success. Their starting pitching was atrocious. The goal has to be to build the farm system regardless of transitory success, though. You have to create a pipeline. This does violence to that goal.
2006-01-15 12:08:39
335.   oldbear
329. Thats true. But EJ's negative VORP is already a strike against him. Plus you have to factor in the #1 draft pick we get for Baez.

Here are my thoughts on all the moves that Mr. Ned made:

--I hated Tomko bc he's a downgrade over Billingsley
--I hated Lofton bc he's a downgrade over Bradley
--I hated Sandy Jr be he's a downgrade over Russ Martin.
--I hated Nomar at 1st bc he's a downgrade over Choi/Saenz (like him in LF tho)
--I liked Jay Seo bc he's an upgrade over Weaver.
--I liked Furcal bc he's an upgrade over Izzy.
--I'm neutral on Mueller. I think Aybar/Perez could do the same things.
--I liked Baez bc he's an upgrade over Sanchez

Whom Mr Ned Got Rid Of:
Sanchez- dont care
Grabowksi- dont care
Perez- shouldnt have included, but dont care
Schmoll- shouldnt have included, but dont care
Weaver- dont care
EJ- dont care
Tiffany- dont care
Valentin- dont care

2006-01-15 12:18:38
336.   thinkblue0

Yes guys like Seo have more value to the Dodgers immediately on the field than guys like Tiffany.

My point is this: We could have gotten more for Jackson AND Tiffany than Baez and Carter. I'm not against trading prospects (although I'd like to keep our top 5 or 6) but if we're going to trade good prospects, we need to get good value in return.

Baez is a nice reliever, no doubt about it. But we have him for a year. Is Jackson, Tiffany, and Sanchez worth Baez for one year and Seo? I sure don't think so.

In hindsight, I'd rather have kept Duaner and use JAckson and Tiffany to pick up a good starter which we could have gotten for the two of them. Someone earlier also brought up a good point: could a package of Milt, Jackson, and Tiffany have brought us Zito? Not necessarily, but it's something to ponder.

2006-01-15 12:21:28
337.   das411
319 - But do adding Tomko and Seo, at least until some of the "pipeline" moves up, replace the 200 innings you lose from each of Weaver and Lowe departing? Maybe Lowe doesn't get moved with Baez for Abreu, but what if Ethier is one of those chips instead?

323 - "And his adultery has had nothing to do with his on the field play." Ask the 2003 Oakland A's about this. Or better yet, ask someone like Joe Buck...

Who else can't wait to see how the referees hand the late game to the Bears, just so they avoid a ratings disaster worse than this past season's LCSs?

2006-01-15 12:22:58
338.   willhite
336 -

Example, please, of a good starter which we could have gotten for the two of them.

2006-01-15 12:23:10
339.   Bob Timmermann
You actually think people want to watch the Bears on TV?


2006-01-15 12:23:21
340.   caseybarker
Willhite -

I think the teams interested in Baez are: Braves, Red Sox, Astros, Phillies, Orioles (?). Outfield is definitely the target (unless we include Kent in some sort of blockbuster.

Possibly Bigbie (O's), or Langerhans/Francuoer/Johnson (Braves).
It'll take more for Manny, Abreu.

2006-01-15 12:24:15
341.   MartinBillingsley31
Zito is a 1 year rental tho.
Alot of people are high on zito, but i'm not, sure i'd like to get him, but i wouldn't trade what it would take to get him, plus you know beane he wants more in return than he should get(i.e. bradley and perez for ethier).
2006-01-15 12:28:54
342.   thinkblue0

I don't know, because I don't know who is available. I'm not saying we'd get an ace or anything, but there's no reason we couldn't have gotten a solid pitcher and/or hitter back for the two of them.

This deal stinks even more than Baez only has a year on his deal. Do you honestly think we couldn't have gotten more for those two than one single year of Baez?

2006-01-15 12:30:26
343.   willhite
340 -

I don't see Bigbie as any improvement over Cruz. I'd love to have Francuoer but don't think they would trade him straight up for Baez. On the other hand, teams do strange things to get closers.

If we're going to move Baez it may be as part of a package to get something bigger. I would be shocked if the Dodger braintrust would want anything to do with Manny (money, flakiness, etc.) but a nice little package for Abreu would be nice.

2006-01-15 12:31:51
344.   das411
339 - How much of Chicago watched the ChiSox on tv? They're a much bigger market than Carolina, no? I'll watch them if only to see my man Robbie Gould score all of their points.

340 - Baez for Victor Diaz!!

2006-01-15 12:34:13
345.   MartinBillingsley31
Here is an important question for everyone.

If ned acquires an outfielder (abreu), we know drew will be a starter in the outfield, so which one of lofton or cruz will be the 3rd starting outfielder?

The reason i ask is because the amount of upgrade going from cruz to abreu might not be worth what the cost in players will be for abreu, but going from lofton to abreu is a different story.

2006-01-15 12:34:43
346.   willhite
342 -

That single year of Baez is why I expect they won't hold on to him and will try to move him quickly for something that we can use.

My guess is that if we could have gotten more for them, we would have. The question isn't "could we have gotten more", the question is "given that we couldn't get any more, should we have made the deal"?

2006-01-15 12:36:35
347.   willhite
345 -

DePo (or DePo's people) signed Cruz. Ned signed Lofton. Who do you think the third outfielder would be?

2006-01-15 12:37:25
348.   caseybarker
I just mentioned Bigbie because DePo seemed to like him. Maybe we can spin Carter for Diaz.
2006-01-15 12:38:40
349.   MartinBillingsley31
Uh oh, i guess i can't win with ned.


Yeah i just cursed at ned.

2006-01-15 12:39:18
350.   caseybarker
347 -

Which was most recently a Giant? Of course Cruz was run out of SF.

Show/Hide Comments 351-400
2006-01-15 12:40:23
351.   Marty
339 I'm heading over to a friend's house to watch the Bears. I couldn't care less aboutr the game, but he's from Chicago and is supplying the food and drink. Often he has pizza flown in from Chicago for big Bear games.
2006-01-15 12:40:47
352.   thinkblue0

if we couldn't get any more, then no I don't make the deal. If Baez still had two or three years on his deal then I might do it. But not for a year.

I'm just hoping that this leads to a different deal. Everyone keeps throwing Abreu around and I actually think there's a slight chance of it happening. From the reports, Gillick is interested in moving him.

Other than that, I just don't think this deal is worth it for one year of Baez. Something crossed my mind though: What if we got Baez to be our closer and let Gagne walk? I'm probably in the minority here, but I think it's insane to pay a reliever in the neighborhood 12 mill which is probably what Boras will want.

2006-01-15 12:41:11
353.   MartinBillingsley31
Ned loves speed, speed this speed that.

Run ned run, run ned run

2006-01-15 12:42:34
354.   willhite
348 -

If you can spin Carter for Diaz there's an immediate spot on Ned's staff for you. Of course, Carter was an All Star. Maybe we can fool Omar just long enough to make the deal. Didn't Diaz start his career as a Dodger? Who did we get when we traded him?

349 -
Better go back and check your spelling in your middle paragraph. I caught a couple of typos.

2006-01-15 12:48:24
355.   King of the Hobos
354 For Diaz? Two months of Jeromy Burnitz. We also gave up Kole Strayhorn and Joselo Diaz, because Burnitz was worth so much...
2006-01-15 12:48:50
356.   caseybarker
I get Victor Diaz and Shane Victorino confused sometimes. I think Diaz was either a rule 5 pick or traded from LA as part of a trade package.
2006-01-15 12:52:49
357.   MartinBillingsley31
Now i'm not even sure i want abreu.
cruz career 1 hr in 21.7 at bats 456 slg 794 ops
abreu career 1 hr in 24.9 at bats 512 slg 923 ops

Cruz homers more frequently but abreu gets extra base hits more frequently(slg), but then again doesn't dodger stadium surpress extra base hits.

I don't know if its worth it to get abreu for lowe and baez, cause i don't think abreu is much of an upgrade over cruz.

I think ned is the problem, and his infatuation for speed, run ned run.

2006-01-15 12:54:45
358.   thinkblue0
357 -

Abreu isn't much of an upgrade over Cruz?

On a side note: Newsday is reporting we're going after Molina. I understand this if it's a one year deal on the cheap. That would make Dioner trade bait and clear the way for Martin next year....

2006-01-15 12:56:41
359.   caseybarker
The Colts have their own refs?
2006-01-15 12:57:15
360.   D4P
It would more likely be the case that Molina would be signed to a 3-year deal, which would clear the way for Martin to be traded.
2006-01-15 12:57:58
361.   D4P
I'm glad I'm not a Steelers fan.
2006-01-15 12:58:17
362.   thinkblue0

why is it always the biggest games where the refs make the WORST calls?

2006-01-15 13:00:18
363.   thinkblue0
360 -

is that what the article said? I just skimmed it.

2006-01-15 13:01:07
364.   King of the Hobos
358 I think he specifically means Abreu doesn't provide much of a power upgrade over Cruz, whereas it's a large upgrade over Lofton. MB31 is a big fan of power

356 Victorino was a Rule 5 pick...twice. DePo decided to let the Phillies have him (likely a mistake of DePo's). Diaz was in the Burnitz trade. The one prospect Evans deals is the one that actually does something in the majors...

2006-01-15 13:02:10
365.   King of the Hobos
363 No, it just says the Dodgers and Blue Jays are the most aggressive in pursuing him
2006-01-15 13:02:55
366.   D4P
That's what the article would have said if I had written it...
2006-01-15 13:03:38
367.   MartinBillingsley31
Ned should be shot if he signed molina and traded martin, martin is going to be an obp machine which is all you can ask for from a catcher(not many catchers are power hitters), and not to mention martin's defensive skills.
2006-01-15 13:04:19
368.   das411
362 - The Stillers were still up eleven when that call was made. And if Polamalu jumps that route and comes away with it again the game is still over.

Time to see who is more un-clutch, Manning or Roethlisberger...

2006-01-15 13:04:45
369.   willhite
I think we're going to sign Molina to be Alomar's mentor.
2006-01-15 13:05:52
370.   MartinBillingsley31
Yep exactly what i meant.
2006-01-15 13:05:56
371.   thinkblue0
365 -

I have a feeling Molina will do what a lot of guys do: Sign a one year deal and hope for a better market the next season.

I wouldn't mind seeing Molina for a year. But I don't want him at the expense of Martin.

2006-01-15 13:07:25
372.   caseybarker
368 - or Cowher.
2006-01-15 13:08:26
373.   willhite
371 -

I don't see any logic in signing Molina at the expense of playing time for Navarro unless they plan to trade Navarro (do the Phillies need a catcher?).

2006-01-15 13:09:53
374.   thinkblue0
370 -

oh okay, I see what you're saying. So in other words you'd rather see and OF of Drew Abreu and Cruz than Drew Abreu and Lofton? That right?

If so, then I agree. I'll take Cruz over Lofton...although having Lofton as an insurance policy is nice with the injury history of drew and cruz.

2006-01-15 13:11:20
375.   King of the Hobos
But can Molina get much for his age 33+ seasons? Of course, if he can repeat his career year from last year, he could be the top of the catcher market (highlighted by Javy Lopez, Rod Barajas, Javier Valentin, and some players with options)
2006-01-15 13:12:47
376.   King of the Hobos
373 Yes. They are currently paying Lieberthal lot of money to be fairly mediocre. They'd love a young catcher
2006-01-15 13:13:10
377.   thinkblue0

What about a package of Odalis, Navarro, and Baez for Abreu? Would you do that? More importantly, would they do that?

2006-01-15 13:13:39
378.   MartinBillingsley31

I was all for signing lofton for a backup outfielder/pinch hitter/pinch runner, but when i found out ned wants him as a starter i started hating lofton.

drew abreu cruz starters.
ledee lofton backups.

2006-01-15 13:16:39
379.   Marty
This football game is amazing
2006-01-15 13:18:45
380.   D4P
Wide right!
Just a bit outside!
2006-01-15 13:19:38
381.   Marty
Jerome Bettis has got to be really relieved now
2006-01-15 13:19:45
382.   Bob Timmermann
It takes a lot of skill to miss a field goal that wide.
2006-01-15 13:20:53
383.   willhite
377 -

Yes if I'm the Dodgers. No, if I'm the Phils. I think they can get a better starter than OP and that's what they need most.

2006-01-15 13:21:12
384.   caseybarker
He was drunk... Oh, liquored up.
2006-01-15 13:21:36
385.   Bob Timmermann
Jerome Bettis, one of TWO former LOS ANGELES Rams on the Steelers. Tommy Maddox also played for the L.A. Rams.

Isaac Bruce is still active too, but I don't know how many other L.A. Rams are left.

2006-01-15 13:23:55
386.   dsfan
Should the LAD have just signed a FA starting pitcher rather than begun this game of dominoes?

Not an enticing prospect. You're trolling a sellers market, increasing the chances of another bloated contract by a franchise that has excelled at doling them out. Millwood got $40 million, a terrible deal. Washburn got way too much. Many deals for veteran FA starting pitchers are crummy (read: Park, Chan Ho). And don't underestimate the Boras factor. He likes to string clubs along. That can make it impossible to make other moves. The LAD handling of Boras/Weaver was prudent.

Could Ned have obtained more for EJ/CT? Very debateable. It's not like getting beer at Costco, where the price is known to us. Fair to assume the LAD have gleaned industry valuations on EJ for more than a year.

Why not hold onto EJ so that he can build value? Decent point. But maybe the LAD evaluators feared another flop by EJ akin to his AAA meltdown. If that happened, his low value would further decline.

Why invest anything of substance for middle relievers, who are so fungible? Why, indeed. I agree with Steve's gist: Better to go the cheap route with middle relievers. I'd be quick to sell high on most of the ones who succeed. But sometimes you need to get a veteran late-inning guy who has a pretty good track record. This could be an example. Baez could be a nice add, given the Gagne dynamics and dearth of proven middle and set-up relievers on the 40-man roster. Starting Osoria, Broxton and Keo in the minors could be good for them. Broxton's fastball accuracy needs work for the majors. If they're good enough, they'll get their chance.

Why didn't the LAD go with Billingsley instead of wasting money on Tomko? Tomko gets no defense from me, but starting Billingsley in the minors makes sense on two counts: 1) It potentially saves millions of dollars by postponing the start of his work-service clock; 2) It gives him time to improve his fastball accuracy -- which needs improving -- and to develop his secondary pitches.

Did I read Steve to say that "Depo lost favor" with him? And they still let you post here?

2006-01-15 13:24:31
387.   molokai
Now that was playoff football. Game had everything.

If we go after Molina it will only be a one year deal. He has nobody left to deal with except Toronto. I can see a number of reasons to sign Molina to a one year deal. If we were to sign him to more then a one year deal then I'd start to worry that Ned was really a Giant mole.

2006-01-15 13:31:44
388.   dsfan
I don't see it as a bad thing that Baez can be a free agent in November.

If he has a good year as a set-up man, his salary leverage shouldn't go up that much.

If you want to cut ties, you're likely to get 1-2 draft picks for him.

2006-01-15 13:34:27
389.   D4P
Does Flanders care about draft picks? He didn't seem too concerned about the pick the Dodgers coulda/shoulda gotten for Dessens...
2006-01-15 13:36:51
390.   caseybarker
Hasn't Bettis done something like that in the playoffs before?
2006-01-15 13:37:14
391.   das411
387 - Indy had just about as much help as any team could get in that game, and still managed to blow it. Classic!

383 - Lowe, Navarro, and Baez for Abreu and say Gavin Floyd or Cole Hamels?

For whoever asked earlier, the link to other posts trick is by [bracketing] the number. I still haven't figured out italics or underlining though...

Bob, will anybody watch the Seattle v Carolina and Pittsburgh v Denver championships? Ahh, these playoffs look JUST like the baseball ones did now!

2006-01-15 13:39:47
392.   caseybarker
2006-01-15 13:39:51
393.   Curtis Lowe
Why not Odalis Perez + HSC for Dunn? Or is everyone done with Dunn?
2006-01-15 13:43:12
394.   dsfan
I'd say Colletti cares about draft picks. He'll get two for Weaver. I thought Depo should've gotten two for Steve Finley.
2006-01-15 13:44:39
395.   regfairfield
394 Did you really want to risk paying Finley 10 million?
2006-01-15 13:44:46
396.   D4P
Why not Odalis Perez + HSC for Dunn?

Primarily because of that pesky clause that, in order for the trade to through, the other team has to agree to your trade proposal.

2006-01-15 13:46:09
397.   trainwreck
Molina... Watching Molina attempt to run to first base will take years off my life or atleast it will seem like that long. If we give Molina a long term deal then we do not deserve to ever be good.
2006-01-15 13:46:46
398.   Curtis Lowe
396- Rats.
2006-01-15 13:51:25
399.   Bob Timmermann
People will watch the conference championship games because that's the thing to do. And people are still betting on the games regardless of the teams.
2006-01-15 13:52:02
400.   caseybarker
The Reds wanted A. Perez, too.
Show/Hide Comments 401-450
2006-01-15 14:05:14
401.   trainwreck
Tt would be hilarious if Kent said I do not think we have upgraded enough and I want to be traded.
2006-01-15 14:07:03
402.   D4P
2006-01-15 14:15:22
403.   dsfan
Reg, regarding the risk of absorbing Finley at $7 million - $10 million if the LAD had offered him arbitration and he had accepted:

The LAD took a risk when they offered abritration to Weaver. Was it a $10 million risk? Maybe not quite that much, but Boras took the Braves to the woodshed on Maddux and could've done it with Weaver, a SoCal lover who might've decided to stay for one year and good bucks.

Ned took a calculated risk and it netted two draft picks (I also think there's often additional value in divesting yourself of a decline-phase Boras client.)

I thought Depo could've done the same with Finley. Within the industry, it was solid dope that both the Angles and Giants would offer him multi-year guarantees, and other clubs showed legit interest as well. It wasn't hard to know that the SFG were hot for Finley. They'd gone after him at least twice before and the market for CFs was thin. And the SFG are one club that isn't put off by losing a draft pick
for signing a Type A FA.

I do believe Ned is more clued into the activities/plans of other clubs than Depo was, that he has a better people network for such info. (Big topic for another day).

One other thing on Finley: It's known that he loathed the idea of playing a corner OF spot. With Bradley under the LAD control for less $ entering 2005, the LAD could have made it very clear to Finley that CF wasn't in the cards for him. I agree that there would've been risk, but it could've been managed and netted two draft picks. Of course, letting Boras string you along on Beltre/Drew doesn't help when weighing other moves.

Turns out, White could've used two picks. His draft hand in 2005 wasn't an easy one to play, and the early returns on that draft are far from exciting.

2006-01-15 14:20:30
404.   trainwreck
Yeah, but look at how Finley played last year. DePo probably thought a decline was coming and was not willing to risk it. Weaver probably will not decline that dramatically, not to mention he is a SP, which is a position of need for us, so there was much less risk in offering Weaver arbitration in my opinion.
2006-01-15 14:45:55
405.   FirstMohican
Crowd: "Boo-ez! Boo-ez!"
McCourt: "They're booing!"
Colletti: "They're saying... Ba... ez!"
2006-01-15 14:53:07
406.   D4P
Would you rather have had Baez or Wells?

The Dodgers are no longer involved in David Wells trade talks with the Red Sox and A's. The Red Sox were considering getting Jay Payton from the A's in a deal that would have sent Wells to the Dodgers and prospects to Oakland.
- Rotoworld

2006-01-15 15:00:47
407.   caseybarker

Kent and Baez to Mets for Heilmann, Milledge, and Sanchez.

2006-01-15 15:03:13
408.   D4P
How much cash would we have to throw in if we wanted to include Carter?
2006-01-15 15:07:54
409.   trainwreck
Flanders quote about Lance Carter has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read. So he tried to close and was not successful at it, but because he had the mindset to try, he is a good pitcher. This is the lunacy our GM believes in.
2006-01-15 15:08:12
410.   caseybarker
No more than his salary - 550,000.
2006-01-15 15:09:50
411.   trainwreck
Actually the lunacy is that Flanders is dellusional enough to think Carter was somewhat successful as a closer.
2006-01-15 15:13:10
412.   trainwreck
If she approved of this deal then maybe Kim Ng was not the right choice for GM either. I really had no huge problem with Flanders for awhile. Yeah, I thought some of these stop gaps were completely pointless, but that is nothing really detrimental to the team. Then Tomko and some Tampa Bay garbage changes all that.
2006-01-15 15:14:21
413.   D4P
Flanders on Carter: "Carter can pitch a couple innings at a time, which is intriguing"

By my count, Carter pitched 2 or more innings in 10 games last season. He gave up at least 1 run in 8 of those games, and gave up a total of 15 earned runs in 28 innings (4.82 ERA).

2006-01-15 15:18:09
414.   caseybarker
So he can pitch a couple innings at a time...

My guess is that he either pushes someone into the starting rotation, or he becomes buried on the depth chart.

2006-01-15 15:18:12
415.   trainwreck
A pitcher that can throw more than one inning... amazing...can not successfully pitch more than one inning but hey he tries. This reminds me of when you are in little league and the coach gives everyone awards and he has to try to find something positive to say about the worst player on the team who was busy picking his nose instead of playing...uhhh well at least he is not retarded.
2006-01-15 15:25:32
416.   bluecrew22
Wow, there sure is some serious negative talk about this trade! Is Baez really that worthless? His 'peripherals' may not be great, but he did save 41 games in a very tough division. That has to say something. Who knows whether Jackson or Tiffany will even reach the majors (consistently for Jackson) or be even average players if they do. I think you have to agree that Baez and Carter are more valuable to the team this year than EJ/CT or Sanchez and Smoll. If Baez leaves, the Dodgers get a good draft pick too. If they keep Baez, I think he'll be a great setup guy for them.
2006-01-15 15:42:58
417.   Robert Fiore
The deal only makes sense on the "There's No Such Thing As a Pitching Prospect" principle. Unless you think neither Tiffany nor Jackson is going to be a major league starting pitcher then it makes no sense. If either one becomes as much as a decent number 3 starter then the deal is a loser, and if both do then you've traded half a starting rotation for middle relievers. Of course, Jackson's career is beginning to look like "A False Spring Part 2." Hard to think they couldn't have gotten more or better for those two, though.

Any comment that makes the site less readable should be deleted immediately. If you're going to play childish games with the keyboard, throw in a space every so often.

2006-01-15 15:52:58
418.   Steve
Any comment that makes the site less readable should be deleted immediately.

Your lips to God's ears, though I suspect we're talking about two different things.

2006-01-15 16:02:23
419.   bluecrew22
Ok, if the Dodgers get a decent season from Baez and Carter and then let them go and get draft picks for them, then what was the net loss in prospects? Were you referring to my post with your comment on spaces (417)?
2006-01-15 16:11:15
420.   Andrew Shimmin
419- No, he wasn't. He was referring to the format killers up thread.
2006-01-15 16:12:14
421.   deburns
I have looked at all 400+ posts on this subject, and I don't understand why the fact that some people give little or no credence to the fact that LA management, certainly including those in charge of player development, must have signed off on this deal. Many of the posts, including some with multiple outbursts including non-alphabetic characters, seem to think that those with presumably better information and judgement in these matters (certainly including White and Ng, in addtion to Coletti) are either ignorant or stupid (different things). This not merely an argumentum ad auctoritatem. If you were to ask a non-biased third party, who would be the better judge of the merits of a trade: a devoted, intensely involved and bright fan, or the people in charge of player development for the team? Give management a break here before hyperventilation takes over. It's a legitimate point of debate, but don't assume that Coletti et al. have lost it.
2006-01-15 16:16:51
422.   D4P
If management always has "better information" than fans, does that mean that there can be no such thing as a bad trade?
2006-01-15 16:17:44
423.   Andrew Shimmin
Seo for Duaner/Schmoll was a done deal. It's not right to pile the crap deal in with the non-crap deal and then argue that it some how makes the crap deal less crappy. TB's GM said that Colletti came to him. Came begging for Baez. So it's not even a matter of Colletti deciding he wanted to get out from under EJ/Tiffany, weighing what he could get for them, and going with what he thought the best offer was. He went looking for Baez.
2006-01-15 16:19:07
424.   trainwreck
It is not like management does not make mistakes either. People have the right to be skeptical and have negative feelings about this trade. We do not have a long track record of successful trades and free agent signings to base these group of people on, so we can not give them the benefit of the doubt. If our GM was Billy Beane, then I think you would see more people willing to believe in management's decisions.
2006-01-15 16:24:43
425.   Andrew Shimmin
421- The track record of Dodger management over my life time has not warranted great deference. Colletti's track record is six weeks long. There is literally no reason to trust that Colletti is any good at what he does, or ever will be.
2006-01-15 16:25:04
426.   natepurcell
so ive left the computer for the day today and tried to take my mind off the dodgers and this trade to calm down.

well now im back and....... yes yes, this trade still sucks.

its like colletti is making moves just to make moves. some really unecessary moves this winter from him. but whatever, there will be other prospects for me to follow, other young players for me to pin my hopes on as the savior of the organization. the june draft is coming soon, we will ahve 3 picks in the first 2 rounds. Maybe where in that a special dodger player will emerge.

ps: its basically pivitol we work something about with hochevar. its also pivitol we dont overpay and resign baez in the offseason. Id rather have 1 yr of baez and 1 1st round pick+supplemental pick then 4-5 years of baez being overpaid by about 5 mil a year.

2006-01-15 16:25:49
427.   bluecrew22
Thank you deburns! I like to think that I know baseball pretty well and can determine certain things through pure stats, but the Dodger player development department has done a pretty good job lately in drafting and advancing the right players. They apparently have some inside information that leads them to believe that the other prospects are far better bets to succeed on the major league level.
2006-01-15 16:30:29
428.   trainwreck
Yeah, we really need to sign Hochevar. The idea that the Dodgers had great depth in pitching prospects never made sense to me. I thought we needed to sign Hochevar even before we made this trade.
2006-01-15 16:32:52
429.   deburns
422 and 422. There are a lot of bad trades, and a lot management mistakes. All I was trying to say was that the premise of some of the posts was that this deal was so obviously horrible that the poster was going ballistic. LA and TB evidently have different time horizons such that the trade could be beneficial to both teams in those contexts. Those who have been saying we have a bountiful farm system (along with BA and other analysts) can't at the same time take the position that we have devastated the system with two of the non-top prospects in the system. Baez may be great or lousy; time will tell. The CW is that neither Jackson nor Tiffany is one of the top five jewels of the system. I would be with the majority if Ned had traded Bills, Guzman, Kemp etc. Keep an open mind, and root hard for '06, not just the out years.
2006-01-15 16:35:49
430.   deburns
424 Sorry, I meant to reference your post as well.
2006-01-15 16:42:35
431.   Andrew Shimmin
Time has told whether Baez would be great or lousy. He's not quite lousy, for being a middle reliever. This deal is like if I traded Steve my car for his ham sandwich. You can argue that my car is junk (it is), but it's still a horrible trade for me. Even if I really like ham sandwiches (I do).
2006-01-15 16:44:02
432.   trainwreck
We have a bountiful farm system, the problem is I think it is unbalanced towards the positional prospects. Tiffany provided us with more depth in terms of pitching prospects and I like having as many talented pitching prospects as possible, since so many fail to live up to expecations. I think the people who believed Edwin was going to live up to the hype really hate this trade. Obviously, there are people who thought Edwin was done. I happen to think we gave up on him too early and we did it for players who really are not that good (in fact Lance Carter is terrible). Why trade young promising guys for some average pitcher who throws only one inning. It just does not make sense to me.
2006-01-15 16:46:07
433.   natepurcell

suprising, baez ranks 11th out of all mlb relief pitchers for reliever expected wins over replacement level with 4.4

2006-01-15 16:48:45
434.   trainwreck
What is Lance Carter? -4.4?
2006-01-15 16:56:46
435.   bigcpa
Lance Carter is the real mystery in this deal. Did we actually have to sweeten the pot by agreeing to take Carter?

Kolb 2004
57ip, 21k, 15bb, 3hr, 2.93 era

Carter 2005
57ip, 22k, 15bb, 9hr, 4.89 era

As my 2-yr old would say- "That's scawy daddy."

2006-01-15 16:59:43
436.   trainwreck
Lance Carter is actually good for -.466 wins, helpful. Edwin Jackson who was injured and moved all over the place was good for O wins, which is better than Carter's negative contribution.
2006-01-15 17:05:43
437.   Andrew Shimmin
Baez WXRL Ranking-Year

That's a trend is what that is. He's two (three tops) years from being Gagne. Except for the career -3 K9 differential. And the career +.83 BB9, one. But what difference could that make?

2006-01-15 17:14:53
438.   D4P
How is WXRL calculated? (If it's complex, I don't need the formula, but I'd like to know which variables it includes). Clearly, if Baez is ranked so high, it can't include Ks, BBs, HRs, etc.
2006-01-15 17:23:25
439.   Steve
Baez may be great or lousy; time will tell.

There has never been a point so consistently missed in the history of the world. The point is not whether Baez is great or lousy. The point is that it doesn't matter whether he is great or lousy.

2006-01-15 17:23:45
440.   Andrew Shimmin
438- Isn't it one of those BP proprietary stats, the formulas to which mere mortals aren't entitled? BP gloassary doesn't define it any more clearly than Nate did.
2006-01-15 17:27:29
441.   Steve
That's luck is what that is.
2006-01-15 17:30:14
442.   D4P
Steve, Steve, Steve...What do we have to do to get you to use reference numbers?
2006-01-15 17:35:49
443.   natepurcell
just curious, how much more from our side would it have took to get one of tampa bays extra outfielders...

i wonder how insanely happy friedman and hunsicker are.

2006-01-15 17:37:29
444.   Andrew Shimmin
441- Well, the important thing is that Baez maintain his luck level. Right? So long as his performance remains constant, then it'll have been a great deal. It's all about his performance. Have I got that right? 8^)
2006-01-15 17:40:23
445.   D4P
I think you're contributing to the "most consistently missed point in the history of the world."
2006-01-15 17:47:46
446.   dsfan
Deburns, you made several logical, reasonable points, but it's evident here that most of critics of the trade believe they know more than Colletti/Smith/Ng/White on this one.
2006-01-15 17:50:18
447.   natepurcell
what pitches does baez throw.

ive watched about 25 pitches so far and ive seen one cb..a pretty crappy one at that...

2006-01-15 17:55:37
448.   Andrew Shimmin
2006-01-15 17:56:58
449.   Steve
Colletti/Smith/Ng/White/McCourt/Teddy Kennedy/Joan Baez/Soupy Sales

Yeah, the collective brilliant brain-trust of the Los Angeles Dodgers. Now bringing you Jason Phillips at first base and Danys Baez in the seventh inning of 5-2 games.

2006-01-15 17:59:49
450.   jpeace
Yeah, couldn't the Dodgers have gotten outfield prospects instead? It's not inherently bad that prospects got traded, but that they were basically given away for one year of (great OR lousy) middle inning relief.

And why would anyone blindly agree with the decisions of player development and/or mgmt. Of course they think other Dodger prospects will end up better pitchers. That's not the point.

Show/Hide Comments 451-500
2006-01-15 18:01:57
451.   dsfan
Buster Olney rates the LAD favorites in the NL West. Sure, the NL West stinks, but how many West titles have the LAD won in the last 10 years? It's not all doom and gloom.
2006-01-15 18:02:38
452.   dsfan
Steve, your material has a Simers-esque quality to it.
2006-01-15 18:03:44
453.   dsfan
No one advocated blind agreement with anything. Not even close. Go back and read it again.
2006-01-15 18:04:20
454.   D4P
It will be a sad day (if in fact that day has not already arrived, which I fear it may have) when the Dodgers are content with "winning the NL West".
2006-01-15 18:07:08
455.   Vishal
[452] except steve is consistently funny.
2006-01-15 18:07:08
456.   Andrew Shimmin
453- You're right. The depth of your subtlety must have been over my head.

Trust and obey, for there's no other way
to be happy in Baez, but to trust and obey. . .

2006-01-15 18:09:15
457.   Andrew Shimmin
455- Especially when he's angry. That's gotta be a big hit at home.
2006-01-15 18:12:13
458.   dsfan

I was referring to the posts by deBurns. Another misread by you.

2006-01-15 18:13:05
459.   Steve
Well, if Buster Olney says it.
2006-01-15 18:13:45
460.   dsfan
No one said the LAD should be content with winning the NL West.

But it beats finishing second, third, etc.

2006-01-15 18:14:11
461.   jpeace
[448] Oh my bad, please disregard my comment. I'm no expert.
2006-01-15 18:15:19
462.   D4P
Guess it depends on your standards. I'm pretty much a "championship or bust" kinda guy. Getting excited about division titles is for Padre fans.
2006-01-15 18:16:42
463.   dsfan
Championship or bust?

Usually you have to win the division in order to win the championship.

Guess those four playoff entries in a row by the Oakland A's were a waste of time.

2006-01-15 18:19:43
464.   D4P
How much satisfaction are you getting right now out of the Dodgers first-round playoff exit in 2004? I'd feel the same way right now if they had finished last.
2006-01-15 18:24:05
465.   Andrew Shimmin
461- Is there anybody here expert enough to please the Trust and Obey chorus? The only part that I don't get is, if one chose only to pay attention to the thoughts of professional MLB front office types, why would he bother with the comments section of an unaffiliated blog?
2006-01-15 18:24:54
466.   Vishal
[464] finishing last feels worse than finishing first. obviously we all want another championship, but does anyone seriously think that it's going to happen this year, or that danys baez is the difference-maker?
2006-01-15 18:41:47
467.   dsfan
465 --

Again, I've seen no one suggesting blind agreement with the front office.

Nor did anyone advocate paying attention only to MLB front office types.

2006-01-15 18:48:35
468.   Steve
All beside the point. Trading for middle relievers does nothing for anybody, whether one wants to win "now," "later," or "a lot."
2006-01-15 18:53:14
469.   D4P
All beside the "most consistently missed in the history of the world" point.
2006-01-15 18:54:35
470.   Steve
That's right. Discussing the virtues of middle relievers is like discussing the virtues of hookers. Some might be prettier than others, but they're all hookers.
2006-01-15 18:55:50
471.   Andrew Shimmin
". . .it's evident here that most of critics of the trade believe they know more than Colletti/Smith/Ng/White on this one."

But that shouldn't be taken to mean that the presumed opinions of Colletti/Smith/Ng/White (that they're MLB front office types is a coincidence, I'm sure) are to be valued above those of the uppity amateurs who've put their thoughts on display here. Obviously. Any one who took it to mean otherwise needs to re-read it. Again and again, if necessary.

2006-01-15 18:56:14
472.   Steve
By the way, this breaking news from the "Sports Journalists": Tom Brady dislikes losing in the playoffs. News at 11.
2006-01-15 19:04:01
473.   natepurcell
so... does anyone know what pitches baez throws? a d-ray fan informed that he basically has a fastball and uhh.... thats about it.
2006-01-15 19:08:27
474.   Steve
Hey, that's what Edwin Jackson's got! Maybe we should trade them for each other.
2006-01-15 19:09:21
475.   dsfan
471 --

You display an impressive consistency. Set up straw men, knock them down.

2006-01-15 19:12:20
476.   MartinBillingsley31
The scouting report on only mentioned a fastball in the mid to upper 90's, and said the rays worked with him to throw more first strike pitches to expand the strike zone.

So i guess he throws a fastball down the middle to start off with then he paints the corners with again his fastball the rest of the way.


2006-01-15 19:13:59
477.   dsfan
I'm not a big fan of trading for middle relievers, either. But I doubt the Marlins would've gone on to win the wild-card berth and then the 2003 World Series without trading for Urbina that season. Not saying Baez will lead the LAD to the same result.
2006-01-15 19:15:09
478.   Steve
How'd the Phillies do with that strategy in '05?
2006-01-15 19:16:15
479.   dsfan
Doubt Baez has only a fastball.

Takes more than that to post an 0.00 ERA against the Yankees (12 ip) last year or a 1.74 ERA against the Yankees the last three years (21.2 ip).

2006-01-15 19:16:24
480.   Andrew Shimmin
From 2002: "The owner of a big-time fastball that hits the upper-90s, a split-fingered fastball, curveball and changeup, Baez will attempt to move. . ."

"Baez throws a nice mid-90s fastball with good movement and an ever-improving curveball."

Maybe he's still got the other two pitches, maybe he only has the fastball and the curve.

2006-01-15 19:18:31
481.   D4P
Wouldn't the fact that Baez is a groundball pitcher suggest that he doesn't throw only fastballs?
2006-01-15 19:19:21
482.   dsfan
Would seem logical that Baez has a decent breaking ball. In the last three years, RHBs have a .607 OPS against him.
2006-01-15 19:20:10
483.   Steve
Baez has a selection of 14 pitches, including a spoonball, a knuckle-change and a tight spiral. His amazing repetoire is what makes him only fit to pitch one inning with a three-run lead.
2006-01-15 19:20:16
484.   dsfan
Very few major leaguers throw only fastballs and stick around for long.
2006-01-15 19:20:24
485.   Izzy
462 I'm pretty much a "championship or bust" kinda guy. Getting excited about division titles is for Padre fans.
I gotta like that:)

I still hope they sign Hochevar.

2006-01-15 19:20:40
486.   natepurcell
Wouldn't the fact that Baez is a groundball pitcher suggest that he doesn't throw only fastballs?

well ive watched about 4 of his saves so far from 2005, and out of the 40 pitches or so... i saw one hanging curevball and.... i cant remember anything else. he had a fb from 88-95 though.

2006-01-15 19:22:17
487.   dsfan
Actually Baez threw 165.1 innings for Cleveland in 2002. Compiled a 4.41 ERA -- probably about league average.
2006-01-15 19:22:38
488.   D4P
Does his fastball sink at all? If not, why more groundballs than flyballs?
2006-01-15 19:23:21
489.   Steve
That's fine. Turn him into a starter and this trade gets better. I already said that.
2006-01-15 19:23:45
490.   das411
478 - Judging by the howls on this board every time one of the kids/future closers gave up a game, I think the Phils did fairly well picking up Urbina.

But if you prefer the stats, try these:

PHI 88-74
LAD 71-91

2006-01-15 19:24:00
491.   natepurcell
Would seem logical that Baez has a decent breaking ball. In the last three years, RHBs have a .607 OPS against him.

well, he does have a funky delivery/arm angle :)

anyways, ill continue to review the innings all the innings he pitched last season and see if i can spot any other pitches besides a fb. But from what ive seen, he throws his fb about 95% of the time.

2006-01-15 19:24:25
492.   dsfan
Hochevar at what price?
Boras turned down $1.25 million for Matt Harrington one year after Harringtson's previous agent turned down $4 million from Colorado.
2006-01-15 19:24:28
493.   Steve
And how would LAD have finished had we picked up Urbina?


2006-01-15 19:25:09
494.   Izzy
Speaking of fastballs, did anyone go the game last year when Pedro pitched? He had one fastball that hit 89, a couple at 87 and the rest were 85 and below. That's according to the stadium board. I was totally surprised, but he still threw a good game, even though he lost if I recall correctly.
2006-01-15 19:26:08
495.   natepurcell
Does his fastball sink at all? If not, why more groundballs than flyballs?

his fb is a pretty heavy fb. its a lot like broxtons fastball. im saying he doesnt have a good fb, because he does. im just saying he doesnt have much of any secondary offerings. maybe im wrong, maybe all the innings i watched were the only innings that he only needed his fb to get the save.

2006-01-15 19:27:24
496.   dsfan
Interesting about the arm angle. Maybe the RHB struggle to see him a bit. Not like his K rates are great -- that .607 OPS over three years surprised me.

Tampa Bay's ballpark weighting over the last three years is nearly identical to that of LA's -- but seems logical that Baez should benefit from no DH and no steady diet of Red Sox and Yankees (although that 1.74 ERA against the Yankees the last three years also surprised me.)

2006-01-15 19:28:13
497.   dsfan
nate, where do you get all of this footage?
2006-01-15 19:28:38
498.   Izzy
Is a "heavy" fastball a physical possibility? Or is there only a fast or faster fastball. I vote the latter, though I have been told my son has a heavy one too.
2006-01-15 19:30:08
499.   Andrew Shimmin
I'd like to apologize to the board for the strawmen I setup, in 480, by directly quoting, and citing USAT and the Canadian roto site. It's a bad habit of mine that I'll have to try harder at breaking.
2006-01-15 19:30:46
500.   natepurcell
nate, where do you get all of this footage? video archives. they have all the games available to view from 2005 and 2004, including the playoff games.

Is a "heavy" fastball a physical possibility? Or is there only a fast or faster fastball. I vote the latter, though I have been told my son has a heavy one too.

a heavy fastball is just a term used for fastballs that have sink to it. its "heavy" because it seems batters cant lift it and can only smack it into the dirt.

Show/Hide Comments 501-550
2006-01-15 19:32:50
501.   Izzy
Ah thanks:)
2006-01-15 19:34:36
502.   dsfan

Of course, the strawmen reference was to your misreporting then attacking what deburns wrote. but then you knew that...when you did it again. Can't help yourself, eh, tiger?

2006-01-15 19:36:19
503.   dsfan
funny, you didn't hear comments about "light" fastballs.

the talk was that nolan ryan, of all people, thew a fastball that was light.

2006-01-15 19:39:11
504.   das411
Didn't Koufax throw a fastball that rose?
2006-01-15 19:44:16
505.   Andrew Shimmin
502- Yawn. Perhaps we can just agree that I'm too stupid to keep up with you (e.g. I can't find a single reply of mine to anything deburns wrote that could be considered an attack) and move on?
2006-01-15 19:44:44
506.   Marty
504 No one knows if Koufax' fastball rose. They couldn't see it.
2006-01-15 19:50:05
507.   caseybarker

Definitely one of my favorite games of the year. August 14, 2005.

2006-01-15 19:52:41
508.   caseybarker
Heavy fastballs, light fastballs,... I like the ones that find the outfield gap.
2006-01-15 20:00:04
509.   Curtis Lowe
Back to the Champonship comments,

Did EJ contribute to us winning the pennant in 05? NO! he blew his one shot for greatness and as with anyone given one for glory since he blew it time to move on this is LA after all and not oakland the land of 2nd and third chances.

2006-01-15 20:04:42
510.   MartinBillingsley31
Well i've come to the conclusion that ned values old fashioned stats like era, saves, average, stolen bases, and doesn't value true individual player stats like obp slg ops whip k/9 hr/9.

I figured this was the case when he first became the gm, but i didn't want to jump the gun,lofton tomko baez carter, and i could even include furcal and mueller to this list, but i don't have a problem with furcal and i'm nuetral on mueller, are all examples.

Veteran leadership another ned quality, alomar example.

I can't believe we got rid of carrara and then replaced him with a clone (carter) the same can be said of sanchez and baez, altho i started liking sanchez after he developed that change up.

Oh and my god, the cloning of houlton/erickson into tomko priceless.

Lofton's gonna remind me of dave roberts, just lovely.

The good thing is izturis is done with the dodgers, i can at least celebrate that.

2006-01-15 20:04:51
511.   molokai
d4p, it must be tough to only be satisfied with a championship. I don't think your to old so I guess the only time you've been happy with a Dodger team was 18 years ago. That is a lot of self inflicted misery. I'll take a Western title anytime over finishing 2nd/3rd/4th. I'm easily satisfied with a competitive team that I enjoy watching.

Steve would you care to elaborate on why you think a middle relief pitcher is useless. Unless I'm mistaken the Angels/Yankee's/RedSox/Marlins championships would have been unattainable without the excellent setup men they employed. I'm not happy about the trade but I find your stance against middle relief pitching to be absurd.

2006-01-15 20:12:24
512.   D4P
I was 7 when the Dodgers won in 1981, and don't really remember that too well. So, yeah, the 88 championship is just about all I've got to hang my hat on. The 17 years as a Dodger fan since then have pretty much sucked.
2006-01-15 20:13:52
513.   Jon Weisman
511 - I think Steve is operating in some relation to my theory that middle relief is important to have but so volatile as to be almost impossible to plan for - and thus not worth trading for.

At over 500 comments, at least 10 percent of which Steve has provided, I think we're past the point of asking him to elaborate. If Steve's position is not clear yet, you're probably just not going to buy into it :)

2006-01-15 20:18:17
514.   D4P
Would it be accurate to say that, paradoxically, "Middle relief is important, but middle relievers are not"?
2006-01-15 20:24:19
515.   Jon Weisman
514 - I suppose. I don't think you even need to split hairs that finely. Finding good relievers is about like throwing darts. And it's not good to spend money on throwing darts. You're best off finding your bullpen from your organization and from the waiver wire. So many great relievers rise and fall that way.

With unlimited resources, you're welcome to spend big. But most teams have limits. And other positions on a team are simply harder to fill.

2006-01-15 20:35:16
516.   Ronnie
Saying none of them are traded.. Brazo,Baez to Gagne is about as good as it gets as far a bullpens go in the National League, or all of baseball for that matter. I like this pen over last years, then again I like alot of what this team has over last years. So if the whole idea behind these moves is to get short term deals to bide time until the young studs are ready to fill in then obviously Tiff and Edwin didnt fit the bill. Who knows, maybe in a few years Jackson will put it together and become something credible, and perhaps Tiff will become the #5 most project him to be... but with a $100 mil payroll and the media/angels breathing down their backs they cant afford put together another 05'. This will make the team better now.. and when baez leaves it will provide another draft pick anyway. Where is the problem here?
2006-01-15 20:36:13
517.   MartinBillingsley31
The more i think about it, and i'm stealing a quote from someone else on this board or another board, ned has just rearrainged the furniture.
nomar vs choi/seanz same thing give or take a little.
mueller vs valentin/perez same thing give or take a little.
cruz vs bradley same thing give or take a little.
seo vs weaver same thing give or take a little.
tomko vs houlton/erickson same thing give or take a little.
baez vs sanchez same thing give or take a little.
carter vs carrara same thing give or take a little.
lofton vs ledee/werth downgrade.
furcal vs izturis upgrade.

Injuries last year obviously makes this years team better if it stays healthy, but overall ned rearrainged the furniture.

Unless ned is not done.

2006-01-15 20:37:15
518.   Steve
I do not think it is accurate to say that middle relief is important.
2006-01-15 20:39:20
519.   D4P
Is middle relief irrelevant? Does it matter not whether middle relief gives up 10 or 0 runs?

You're one of my heroes, Steve, but I don't think I can go that far.

2006-01-15 20:44:34
520.   Curtis Lowe
What Iam really mad about is losing the whole boy named sue badassedness of a pitcher named Tiffany. At least we still have Broxton whose name somewhat sounds like Bronson.
2006-01-15 20:55:25
521.   D4P
OT: Australian Open Tennis

Taylor Dent is playing right now. He's one of the few surve-and-volley players left these days. Racket technology has really changed the game, for the worse, in my opinion.

2006-01-15 21:06:18
522.   das411
I think everybody on here could use a little time out. How about the world's funniest blond joke?

2006-01-15 21:25:52
523.   D4P
Sounds like Baez is not happy being a setup man.

"If you ask me what I want to do, I want to be a closer," Baez said Sunday. "Now I've got to see what kind of situation we have. I'm not too happy about that situation, to be a setup man again when I've been a closer the last couple years."

Baez, too, is looking ahead. He made it clear he wouldn't sign an extension with the Dodgers unless he would be the closer in 2007.

"I'll pitch one more year, then I'll be a free agent and everyone in both leagues will know I can be a closer," he said.

- LATimes

2006-01-15 21:30:12
524.   MartinBillingsley31
Baez might be trade bait at the deadline, buying broxton some time, just trying to think like ned.
2006-01-15 21:41:16
525.   Steve
How far would you like to go?
2006-01-15 21:42:26
526.   D4P
Can you take me high enough
To fly me over yesterday?
2006-01-15 21:50:06
527.   natepurcell
dodger FAs at the end of the year
drew (if he opts out)

the A type FAs will probably be:

the type B FAs:

i think we would offer arb to gagne, kent, drew, baez and nomar.

2006-01-15 21:53:07
528.   Steve
Yesterday's no good. How about Oct. 2, 2004?
2006-01-15 21:55:21
529.   D4P
I'll take whatever you've got.
2006-01-15 22:04:53
530.   Robert Fiore
The problem wasn't trading Jackson and Tiffany. The Dodgers are in a position where they have more prospects than they can protect from the Rule 5 draft, so they actually have to trade some of them. The problem with the trade is that it's for the wrong thing. Middle relief isn't something you have to give up first line talent for. As far as the 2006 season goes there was really no need. They had what will probably be an excellent setup man in Brazoban and the best in the business in Gagne. (Witness the fact that he was effective last year with his arm falling off.) It would make far more sense to trade prospects for a corner outfielder. To me this looks a lot like the kind of trade that has kept the San Francisco Giants out of a world championship for 50-odd years: Trading talent with front line potential to fill perceived short term needs.

It does point up an interesting difference between Colletti and DePodesta. One way of putting is that Colletti is a pessimist and DePodesta was an optimist. By that I mean that DePo had faith in his own ability to assess talent and was willing to take a chance on counterintuitive seeming decisions. He was willing to gamble that Valentin would be an adequate short term solution at third base. He was willing to gamble that Bradley's talent would trump his volatility. He had faith that given a regular job Choi would prove himself to be effective (without considering the possibility that his manager wouldn't give him a regular job). The trouble with this sort of gambling is that you can lose, and the media is not likely to be understanding about it. Another problem is that when you fill every position adequately what you can wind up with is a roster filled with adequate mediocrity, and a bench that looks like a rag and bone shop.

Now, Colletti doesn't seem to have any great faith in his ability to predict outcomes. What he looks for is proven quantities. To me the signature Colletti move was signing Garciaparra after he'd signed Furcal and Mueller. It wasn't necessary; Choi might have done the job, Saenz might have done the job, someone from the system might, in the worst case Kent would have. Instead Colletti brought in the known quantity, even though the known quantity might not be significantly better than the alternatives. Now, this is actually a gamble the same as the DePo approach, but the difference is, if you lose the media isn't going to hold it against you. While they will consider the failure of the DePo type gamble predictable they will consider the failure of the Colletti gamble unpredictable, and thus not his fault. "He did what he could, and it wasn't his fault all that proven talent didn't come through." The advantage of the Colletti approach is that it doesn't seem as parsimonious about acquiring talent. I personally feel more prosperous with Furcal and Mueller at the left side of the infield than Valentin and Izturis.

2006-01-15 22:07:42
531.   Curtis Lowe
With the comments Baez has made today about being a setup man, why isnt his character being
called into question? This going straight to the press business is a tad reminiscent of Bradley's refusal to keep his feelings strictly clubhouse. Baez + Odalis Perez + Carter + Hamaluk + PTBNL for either Dunn, Huff, Abreu or any other bat that would make the 4 spot potent.
2006-01-15 22:09:55
532.   D4P
I said something similar a month or so ago, i.e. that regardless of whether this team succeeds or not, Flanders won't be blamed because it "looks like he's trying."
2006-01-15 22:33:54
533.   Robert Fiore
To be more precise, "It looks like he's trying in a way I understand."
2006-01-15 22:41:24
534.   natepurcell
baez' delivery makes me cringe.
2006-01-15 22:54:01
535.   Steve
"trying" is the new "conceding"
2006-01-15 23:04:53
536.   das411
Just saw this in the article, I know this thread is probably closed but it's worth mentioning:

"Baez pitched for Cleveland in 2001, when new Dodgers manager Grady Little was an Indians coach, and made his only postseason appearance that year."

Perhaps this wasn't all about Mr. Ned? Maybe someone else wanted to Grady-proof the bullpen?

2006-01-15 23:05:23
537.   natepurcell
one thing that keeps happening when i am watching these baez clips is that he breaks tons of bats, which probably means his fb does have pretty good late movement on it.
2006-01-15 23:09:11
538.   bluecrew22
The inexplicable thing about DePo is that McCourt claimed that he was given close to 100 million to spend. DePo didn't disagree and said many times that there were no payroll restrictions (as it seems for Ned now). However, DePo didn't use it if he had it. He took chances on guys like Valentin- which to me made no sense at all, especially for a guy who loves OBP. And any injuries, like the one that was almost sure to happen to Drew, left them too thin. So if DePo had the money (any why take the job and say that you do if you don't) then you must be trying to prove that you are smart enough to win with a lower payroll. Maybe trying to please the owner by spending less than he allows and still win?

I think that the Dodgers can only afford to shoot for winning the West if they want to keep their top prospects this year. This team can do that. Anything can happen in the playoffs too. Look at all the wild card winners.

2006-01-15 23:17:42
539.   alex 7
Would Depo's team somehow be better if he had spent money on "talent" like Tomko, Mueller, Milton, etc? Doubt it.

Also, money saved one year could be used the next year instead on top of whatever was already budgeted. I think Depo had his eye on 2007 and figured he'd rather save those $10 million for a better time instead of wasting it on below average to average talent.

2006-01-15 23:29:27
540.   Andrew Shimmin
There are half a dozen people who know what DePo's budget was, last year. I'm not one of them.
2006-01-15 23:35:23
541.   bluecrew22
Is the Milton you refer to Milton Bradley, because he did? As for Tomko, he's probably a better 5th starter than Houlton would be. And isn't Mueller a heck of a lot better, defensively and offensively, than Valentin? So, yes, it would have been better.
2006-01-15 23:35:29
542.   xaphor
There has been a lot of talk of the Dodger brass throwing in the towel on Jackson and Tiffany's potential, but nothing about the possibility the D-Rays are doing the same in regards to Baez. Since the off season started the Rays have seemed more than willing to let their closer leave for the right price and they also seemed willing to wait till the trade deadline to get that price. The fact they pulled the trigger now instead of waiting could indicate that the Rays had no faith in Baez maintaining his performance from last season. When the only thing you are left to hope for is that we just gave away too much it is hard to see this trade in a positive light.

I liked Jackson before the Big Unit win and still have high hopes for him today. I am willing to concede any argument that claims LA gave up on Jackson if the argument also pays heed to the Rays giving up on Baez.

Touching on what Fiore said in 530, more worrisome than giving up potential for a known quantity is that there is very little room for improvement from the known quantity. The LA Dodgers are pretty much a WYSIWYG team (What You See Is What You Get). So we have to ask ourselves, how far will this team take us, and I think most pundits would put us at a first round exit. Is that good enough for the fans, the MSM, Ned's job security, and McCourt's wallet?

The White Sox were filled with guys with potential unrealized who put it together for a magical run while the Yankees buy the players whose known quantity should add up to a ring. Personally I prefer the former and doubt McCourt's ability to fund the later, so where is our potential to root for. As I see it, the 2006 Dodgers will be more a kin to a team going through the motions than chasing a pennant.

Here's hoping one of our youngsters can break through the obstacle course Ned has arranged and come up big.

2006-01-15 23:46:54
543.   Andrew Shimmin
DePo should have signed 2006 free agents in 2005. That would have been the way to go. I wonder why he didn't think of that.

Tracy's new team seems to like him. Good on them.

2006-01-16 00:29:53
544.   Robert Fiore
There's no knowing what the actual payroll constraints on DePo were, and I think it's quite possible that Colletti sold McCourt on the idea of going three figures on payroll in the near term on the understanding that it would be scaled back drastically soon. Thus, short big money deals.
2006-01-16 01:32:55
545.   NPB
Having read most of the comments on this thread that weren't amateur movie reviews, I have come to a conclusion: That I am a huge dork. But besides that, I appear to be in a minority as regards this bullpen trade. While I don't cherish the idea of selling out the Dodgers to a Giants employee, and I think the Nomar signing was overkill, I have to say that I'm pretty pleased with the team that Colletti has put together. The one area that gave me pause was the bullpen, which seemed pretty untested to me. Now that's been corrected as well. All they need Baez to do is post an ERA under 3.50 and a WHIP of about 1.20. That seems eminently doable. The other guy is going to pitch in the 6th inning of games they're losing by five runs.

We have a competitive starting staff, an infield with speed and power, a good young catcher in Navarro, and, I'm sorry, Kenny Lofton was great last year for the Phillies. Still, I'll admit that the outfield is a little suspect. And now I like what I see in the bullpen as well. We will not miss Edwin Jackson, except in theory.

And I think we'll win the division this year, too. The Padres are going backwards and weren't really good last year anyway, the Giants don't appear to be doing much of anything. There are rumblings from the mountains of an improved Rockies squad, though I'll believe it when I see it, and the Diamondbacks will be rebuilding for a long time.

89 wins or bust!

2006-01-16 08:36:14
546.   jasonungar05
My take: If before the year someone said to me, we are trading Milton Bradley, Antonio Perez, Edwin Jackson and Tiffany I would have said, cool we got Adam Dunn, Or cool we got so and so...Not, Oh joy we got Baez, Carter and Either.
2006-01-16 09:47:20
547.   dzzrtRatt
Comment 547 will be my first on this thread! I've been away for the weekend.

My take is: The Dodgers took Baez either because the news on the Gagne front isn't good; or because they are thinking of converting Gagne to a starter; or because they think they can get a piece they really want in a trade for him.

I don't think the deal is so terrible for the Dodgers based on the known factors. The unknown is where we could get screwed.

That said, if Edwin Jackson was spoiled by too-early exposure to ML pitching in his brief LA stints, he's a dead man in Tampa Bay. They will call him up too early because they have no choice; he probably walks into that organization #4 or #5 on the organization's SP depth chart. So he'll face a regular diet of A-Rod, Sheffield, Matsui, Manny, Tejada, etc. The AL East is not for sissies. I think he could've been a special pitcher, but trading him to Tampa was a terrible thing to do to him.

2006-01-16 10:22:36
548.   gvette
I tend to agree with dzzrt rat in #547, although I don't view the Gagne as a starter scenario as that likely.

But you are buying insurance if Gagne isn't the Gagne of old, and at worst you're shortening the game for a bunch of starting pitchers who may not be able to reach the 7th.

As for Jackson/Tiffany, you wish them well, but not every traded Dodger starting pitching prospect turns into Pedro/Dave Stewart.

Early success is great, but the Dodgers once had a rookie starter named Bobby O'Brien who pitched a complete game shutout in his first start, beating Bob Gibson, and essentially was never heard from again.

2006-01-16 20:25:12
549.   RMAPasad
In the end, this trade became a necessary evil as a result of not picking up a free agent reliever (Tavarez, Farnsworth, Howry, Timlin, Hernandez, Witasick, Seanez, Looper) which IMO was necessary even before the Sanchez trade to add depth to the bullpen. Clearly Colletti didn't recognize the need until he traded Sanchez though, so many of the above weren't on the radar screen. I'm particularly curious as to why Tavarez didn't work out - he was in negotiations with LA supposedly and his per yr. price is a little less than Baez's, plus he could be locked at 2 yrs at that rate. He wouldn't have involved the loss of prospects nor even draft picks.

Meanwhile, EJ might have had some value in mid-late 2006 and 2007, Tiffany most likely in 2008. They aren't great prospects at this stage, but with development of third pitches they could become effective future SP's. Effective middle rotation starters certainly trump the value of relievers like Baez, who with a 1.34 WHIP and 6.3 K/9 isn't as special as his handle "closer" makes him seem.

2006-01-17 20:20:41
550.   Izzy
548 Well, actually that is not altogether accurate on Bob O'Brien. I hear from him all the time. He works for a major vendor of ours and I just talked to him yesterday:) He came up with Garvey, Russel and the gang, but he is the one who didn't quite make it. He is doing well at mens hardball though, whatever they call that.

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