Baseball Toaster was unplugged on February 4, 2009.
Jon's other site:
Screen Jam
TV and more ...
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
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.
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.
With Boston often mentioned as a trading party for Baez, is it possible that Baez is going to be dealt for David Wells?
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?
And that seems to be the Dodger Front Office Mentality these days...
I almost had to throw up when I saw this deal on espn.com, Baez for Tiffany AND Jackson? Come on..you 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..
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.
That would be a trick! Baez could be the Cliff Heathcote/Max Flack of the World Series!
Or maybe Flanders is starting to show his Sabeaness.
Wow! Are they going to move the mound to 50 feet and require six balls before a walk?
I do not think it is even close.
Stan from Tacoma
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.
I think Jacob Larsen sums it up best: "Watch as Ned Coletti's solid bullpen explodes before our eyes...."
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.
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.
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:
Billingsley;
Orenduff;
Elbert;
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."
(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...
There's got to be another trade in the works.
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.
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.
I'm pumped up for the season to start.
Go Dodgers 2006!
Amazing!
:)
There are gonna be crazy parties tonight in: St. Louis, Carolina, Philly, Indy, Pittsburgh...
That bum.
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.
We will not celebrate a Bronco playoff win.
Lost:
Dessens
Sanchez
Carrara
Schmoll
Alvarez
Gained:
Hamulack
Baez
Carter
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.
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!
Seriously, what are we supposed to do with Lance Carter? We can invite 100 Lance Carters to spring training.
The DRays just took him there.
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.
74 this is one of those games where I wish both teams could lose. I think I hate the broncos and patriots equally.
Tom Brady went to San Ramon High which is not far from where I am from. Same high school that Barry Bonds went to.
Yes, Lance Carter.
You obviously wouldn't care what name the A's use either.
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.
Now that I have, however, I hope to stop weeping by morning...
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.
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.
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...
time to get drunk.
Are you old enough for that Purcey?
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.
Broxton, Billingsley, Orenduff, and Elbert all have much higher upsides and track records than EJ/Tiffany.
vr, Xei
THE SKY IS FALLING
THE SKY IS FALLING
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I really have no aspirations of reaching the World Series this season.
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.
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.
Perhaps Baez is intended for Arizona or Houston.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Broxton
Billz
Elbert
Orenduff
Those 4 at AA+ I can deal.
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.
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?
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.
I doubt there's a major league GM who thinks Baez is purely "crap." He's a pretty good late-inning guy.
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.
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.
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.
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
4.24
Higher than Sanchez's, of course.
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.
http://tinyurl.com/cv5w3
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.
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.
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.
Why didn't you like 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.
Where is Xei when we need him? :)
Plus, how cool would a meth adled cat be?
*then
-209
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.
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. . .
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?
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.
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.
WWSH
Yes.
Nate.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Yeah i saw that rumor today about the dodgers having interest in molina, what the f$@k.
Sorry jon
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
I updated this post with some little tidbits up top.
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.
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.
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.
it wasnt billz for dunn. this was way before dunn. it was probably billz for someone ridiculous like ugeth urbina.
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."
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).
A bird in the hand...
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
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.
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
But I'd take all these guys starting before Tiffany:
Billingsley
Elbert
Ketchner
Thompson
Orenduff
Broxton
Miller
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.
I'm just going by what ned said about carter in this article.
http://losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060114&content_id=1295784&vkey=hotstove2005&fext=.jsp
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."
(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 . . .
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.
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.
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?
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.)
"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."
and
"remember when jackson and hanrahan were going to lead the dodgers to greatness? those were good times."
we gave away enough of our minor league pitching stashhold to now making our minor league pitching thin.
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.
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.
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.
So why do it at all? Unless Colletti just enjoys reading his name in the paper (BINGO!)
-ralph lawler on colletti
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
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
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.
when the improvement now is in the marginal form of danny baez then no, dont spend it.
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.
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.
if he has no value then why trade him at all? let him try to build the value up.
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.
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.
&%#$&$^#^(^&#(^$(^#(^#$(^#(^$^#(#$^#$^$(&^!&$^(#^(#^$^&((#&^$(^$#^#$(^#($^$#(^(#^(#^^$^$(#^#(^$(!
Care to guess what I'm thinking, Jon?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..."
Disagree.
Atta way Steve, I knew you'd come around :)
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.
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.
280
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
LOL
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.
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).
Thank heavens for small favors.
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.
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.
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
Baez + Seo < Jackson + Tiffany + Sanchez
Baez + Seo + Carter <<<<<< Jackson + Tiffany + Sanchez
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.
" 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".
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.
However, his BABIP in those months was .225 and .248, so he put up 3.63 and 2.13 ERAs.
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.
WWSH
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?
I did not know that. You're an interesting breed: Pro-Choi, Anti-Depo.
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)
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.
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).
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.
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"...
Ah, so you're not on the "Depo's 2005 Dodgers would have won the WS if not for injuries" bandwagon?
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
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.
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?
Example, please, of a good starter which we could have gotten for the two of them.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
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.
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).
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?
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.
340 - Baez for Victor Diaz!!
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.
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"?
DePo (or DePo's people) signed Cruz. Ned signed Lofton. Who do you think the third outfielder would be?
Uh oh, i guess i can't win with ned.
@#@#%%$#$&%$(&^$(&^#%^#&^#%^##(&%$^&%#&^%@%$@^%@%$%&@@$%@$&%@$@&#&$#(&^$(&^$(^$(^$^$$#%*%^#&^##&^%
Yeah i just cursed at ned.
Which was most recently a Giant? Of course Cruz was run out of SF.
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.
Run ned run, run ned run
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.
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.
Abreu isn't much of an upgrade over Cruz? Wow....wow.
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....
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.
why is it always the biggest games where the refs make the WORST calls?
is that what the article said? I just skimmed it.
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...
That's what the article would have said if I had written it...
Time to see who is more un-clutch, Manning or Roethlisberger...
Yep exactly what i meant.
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.
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?).
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.
What about a package of Odalis, Navarro, and Baez for Abreu? Would you do that? More importantly, would they do that?
Bingo!
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.
Just a bit outside!
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.
Isaac Bruce is still active too, but I don't know how many other L.A. Rams are left.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
Agreed.
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.
McCourt: "They're booing!"
Colletti: "They're saying... Ba... ez!"
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
Kent and Baez to Mets for Heilmann, Milledge, and Sanchez.
How much cash would we have to throw in if we wanted to include Carter?
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).
My guess is that he either pushes someone into the starting rotation, or he becomes buried on the depth chart.
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.
Your lips to God's ears, though I suspect we're talking about two different things.
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.
suprising, baez ranks 11th out of all mlb relief pitchers for reliever expected wins over replacement level with 4.4
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."
11-2005
25-2004
443-2003
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?
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.
Steve, Steve, Steve...What do we have to do to get you to use reference numbers?
i wonder how insanely happy friedman and hunsicker are.
I think you're contributing to the "most consistently missed point in the history of the world."
ive watched about 25 pitches so far and ive seen one cb..a pretty crappy one at that...
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.
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.
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".
Trust and obey, for there's no other way
to be happy in Baez, but to trust and obey. . .
I was referring to the posts by deBurns. Another misread by you.
But it beats finishing second, third, etc.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You display an impressive consistency. Set up straw men, knock them down.
The scouting report on espn.com 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.
LOL!!!!!!!!
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).
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/indians/prospect.htm
"Baez throws a nice mid-90s fastball with good movement and an ever-improving curveball."
http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/teams/players/bio/?id=2656&hubname=mlb-devil_rays
Maybe he's still got the other two pitches, maybe he only has the fastball and the curve.
I gotta like that:)
I still hope they sign Hochevar.
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.
Does his fastball sink at all? If not, why more groundballs than flyballs?
But if you prefer the stats, try these:
PHI 88-74
LAD 71-91
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.
Boras turned down $1.25 million for Matt Harrington one year after Harringtson's previous agent turned down $4 million from Colorado.
71-91
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.
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.)
mlb.com 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.
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?
the talk was that nolan ryan, of all people, thew a fastball that was light.
Definitely one of my favorite games of the year. August 14, 2005.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
Would it be accurate to say that, paradoxically, "Middle relief is important, but middle relievers are not"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://tinyurl.com/8wvv5
"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
To fly me over yesterday?
gagne
kent
baez
drew (if he opts out)
lofton
nomar
alomar
ledee
the A type FAs will probably be:
gagne
kent
drew
baez
the type B FAs:
lofton
nomar
i think we would offer arb to gagne, kent, drew, baez and nomar.
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.
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.
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."
"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?
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.
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.
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.
Tracy's new team seems to like him. Good on them.
http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/012761.php
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!
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.
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.
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.
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.