Does anybody know the history of this particular rule? What was the thinking behind not allowing teams to sign their players after the January deadline?

All well and good, and I'm certainly in the should have kept Wilkerson camp. And I like Weaver just fine. But I can't say that I'll miss the chance to watch Frank Robinson manage Jeff Weaver.

As excited as I am that pitchers and catchers are reporting, I have a much greater feeling of dread this Spring than I had last year. And that's despite acknowledging that this team HAS to have a better record than last year just from reversion to the mean on the injury front.

Looking over all the transactions summaries that everyone is running, is it possible that no team got better in the offseason, with teh possible exceptions of Toronto (tho at a really high cost) and the ChiSox (marginally)?

I suppose the Yankees are a little better with Damon instead of Bernie out there, but probably not enough to make up for the age-related declines everywhere else. It's pretty remarkable. Who is obviously better than last year? The D-Rays?

This is a complete speculation on my part and has little basis in fact.

No guarantees or warranties are implied.

Offer void in Canada.

David Wright is one year older as well, which could be the biggest opportunity for improvement of all.

http://insidethedodgers.mlblogs.com/

7- kyle drabek or jordan walden
26- chris parmelee
31- carmine giardina or colten willems.

okay your turn.

How about Ian Kennedy? Can never have enough arms.....

cr

Little also said Penny has a shot at opening day, along with Lowe, who seems to be the favorite

http://tinyurl.com/cjdlu

Baseball America's first mock draft had these players drafted in the area the Dodgers are drafting:

Ian Kennedy, rhp Jr. R-R Southern California
Mark Melancon, rhp Jr. R-R Arizona (Dodgers drafted him in 2003)
Jared Hughes, rhp Jr. R-R Long Beach State
Blair Erickson, rhp Jr. R-R UC Irvine

You wonder how much the last 2 players under Boras' control (Luke Hochevar and Jeff Weaver) will impact the draft and re-signing Gagne. His comments about the Dodgers lack of offer to Weaver won't endear him at Chavez Ravine.

Any chance Lowe is becoming the Dodger's Bearded One to face off against Morris? The first Dodger Notes of spring also have some information on Werth, Saenz, Brazoban, Gagne, and Baez's dream

http://tinyurl.com/9cwgq

http://tinyurl.com/aptbk

Ian Kennedy, rhp Jr. R-R Southern California
Mark Melancon, rhp Jr. R-R Arizona (Dodgers drafted him in 2003)
Jared Hughes, rhp Jr. R-R Long Beach State
Blair Erickson, rhp Jr. R-R UC Irvine

Melancon and erickson are college relief pitchers, so i dont see logan white/dodgers drafting them with their top 3 pitcks. Kennedy has the boras taint on him. but if he did drop to pick #31, and if we did sign hochevar, i could see logan white taking him because he would be the BPA at that point. Hughes is a big question mark right now. he is more a finesses pitcher whos control has been off at the start of the college season. Ive read from people that have attened his games and talked to scouts and they say the scouts are not positive on hughes at all.

Ideally with our first pick, i want the top rated HS arm. with our other picks, i want high cieling HS players as well; 1 pure hitter from the prep class and maybe a lefty prep pitcher.

im not a big fan of the college prospects in this years class, i think the prep class has a lot more to offer us.

the oakland A's send their regards.

Colorado
Cincinatti
Philadelphia
Oakland

I don't know if the Mets are most improved or not, but offensively they weren't terrible last year. In runs per game, they ranked 7th in the NL.

29 - And this year Beltran will be backed up by Delgado instead of...Dave Wright.

There was a crossword clue in our school's paper today, "Lady at a luau", - a - - n e . Any guesses?

Btw, there are few sports that match the overall sheer coolness of Olympic speed skating. Time to watch!

Ouch.

That pretty much sums it up. Of course if Weaver had left with DePo still in charge, Plaschke would have flown back from the Olympics just to write a teary column saluting the newest Angel.

Jeff Weaver told me that.

He just wanted to be a Dodger.

The Dodgers had their chance to sign him, but cheapskate owner Frank McCourt couldn't fit him into his plans.

General manager Ned Colletti would rather waster money on a former Giant like Brett Tomko.

But Weaver wanted to be a Dodger.

Just a Dodger.

A Dodger indeed!

The shock and outrage of Our Man Bill over this earth shattering topic is absolutely breathtaking.

Maybe he's found his true calling, and will stay far,far away from Dodgertown and Dodger Stadium.

Anyone know if Henri Stanley is still in the organization?

Excellent lead post on Weaver. The system seems to penalize the club that most recently employed the free agent. Wonder why.

As for the Weaver machinations, I'd still give Colletti a B/B-plus even with the wasteful Tomko deal.

Ned didn't drink the Boras kool-aid, which would've cost at least $27 million. I think Seo can be nearly as productive as Weaver for pennies on the dollar. We'll find out in a few years just how valuable the two compensatory draft picks were. Odds are again either of those draftees becoming a solid major leaguer, but L. White has shown he can generate at least trade value out of his draft picks -- and considerable upside remains for others of his high picks. After playing a short hand last June, White now has a better draft hand than any other NL West scouting director.

Getting rid another Boras client is also a small bonus.

No defense for the Tomko signing, though, which was related to jettisoning Weaver. I would've gone for BY Kim for peanuts, and maybe Jason Johnson too.

Question:

Would other Dodgers GMS have allowed Boras to finagle the $27 million for Weaver?

Depo? Maybe 50-50. Boras seemed to know how to play Depo.

Evans? Doubtful. He and Boras didn't get along. To his credit, Evans didn't drink the Kool-Aid on Chan Ho Park

Kevin Malone? He would've given Weaver $49 million and called it a steal.

I am bummed. I have played Bill James, now STATS, Fantasy Baseball for 18 years. It will be hard to let go. Anyone else here as disappointed as I am? Anyone know of a comparable game that is as realistic and sabermetrically oriented?

Theory 1: Makes the market more efficient by removing the one team (the original team) that can slow down the negotiations

Theory 2: Players asked for clause in exchange for giving the owners exclusive negotiating rights at one point

well, hes in the middle of his top 100 prospect list and from 30-100, he has put 6 dodger prospects, not even including laroche, guzman or billingsley yet.

so in dayn perrys top 100 prospect list, it will have 9 dodger prospects.

am i the only one that sense a little contradiction here?

Lederer writes:

"Derek Lowe led the major leagues in unearned runs as a percentage of total runs with .212. That's right, more than one out of every five runs Lowe allowed was unearned. Lowe's high number of unearned runs is partly a function of the number of groundballs he induces. A secondary cause could well be the Dodgers' infield defense."

A few weeks ago, I was arguing, rather lamely, that Beltre's defense gets undervalued last year. The debate was part of my statment that Beltre returned greater value than Drew last year. (There's no defense for Beltre's brutal OPS-plus and I'm not saying the guy was worth his salary). I just gave more weight than others to his defense at a premium position and his durability.

Offensive stats are far more precise than defensive stats, too.

For what it's worth, Lederer's results seem to show that Seattle's infield defense was very good.

32 - Bob, that one was all set up for everyone's favorite Hawaii'an to answer!

Brad Penny is on the happy side of the %UER ledger, too. So, was it just Lowe that the Dodgers' 3B (who would, of course, have made all the difference) was dogging it for?

Depo? Maybe 50-50. Boras seemed to know how to play Depo.

Evans? Doubtful. He and Boras didn't get along. To his credit, Evans didn't drink the Kool-Aid on Chan Ho Park"

How can you give credit for Evans for not signing Chan Ho Park, but at the same time suggest Boras knew how to play DePo, even though DePo passed on signing Adrian Beltre?

I think passing on Adrian Beltre (considering the season he was coming off of), is more of an accomplishment than passing on Chan Ho Park...

And which Boras client did DePo sign for above their market value? I seem to be missing that said client.

Wby do you suggest DePo would have signed Weaver, when in fact he had chances to during mid-season and didnt. If anything, DePo wouldnt have even offered Weaver a multi year deal like Collettie was rumored to have done, bc DePo only signed guys to multi-year deals that were good to begin with. OP, Lowe, Kent, Drew all have had good seasons in the recent past. Jeff Weaver never has. I think Evans might have signed Weaver to a 3yr deal. He did trade for him afterall. And gave Encarnacion a 2yr deal.

Maybe the Marineers overvalued Beltre's great defense. Bc what value did Beltre's defense really have on that team? Did Beltre's defense keep them from being a 100 loss team, as opposed to mid 90's loss team?

"The Drew option is bad bc if he gets hurt, were stuck with him. If he does good, then he can leave"

#1. If Drew gets hurt, it doesnt matter what contract he has. THe Dodgers are stuck with him regardless anyway. Drew's player option has no bearing on this.

#2. If Drew does good, yes he might opt out. But how does that hurt the Dodgers? Wouldnt most people have been ok with signing Drew for 2yrs 22mils? Again, if he has a great year and leaves the Dodgers, the Dodgers will have gotten the better end of the contract.

#3. Drew's option was a good move for the Dodgers bc it allowed them to sign a player for less than his market value. Drew signed for 11mils, less than Beltre's 13, Magg's 15, and Beltran's 17.. If the option wasnt in there, he would have needed a 12-13 mils guarantee for those 5 yrs.

#4. Its ok to disagree on Drew's contract, in the sense that people might think he's not worth 11mils a year, or that contracts shouldnt be given out for 5yrs. However, the option has nothing to do with either argument.

Now was that so hard?

Let me break it down for you:

2 year contract
Positive= Reduced liabilty if he gets injured

Negative= Reduced benifit if he doesn't

4 year contract
Positive= Higher potential reward.

Negative= Higher risk.

4 year contract with player option after second year.

Positive= Um, I guess that's what it took to sign him.

Negative= You get the high risk of the 4 year and the low reward of the 2 year.

I can understand if you think that the option was worth it if that's what it took to sign him, but I don't understand how you can fail to see that it's a big negative element of the contract from the Dodgers perspective.

I think if you could ask any GM in baseball, they'd want to sign players to 1yr and 2yr contracts every single time.

Ideally, if I was GM i'd want to sign every player to a 1yr contract.

And how do you figure a 4yr guaranteed contract has a Positive of a: higher potential reward...???

There are three likely outcomes (unless I'm wrong, in which case I trust Steve will explain that I am) to a five year, second year out, contract:
1. He's worth his contract and stays. (everybody wins)
2. He's worth more than his contract and leaves, so that the additional benefit of the potential for him to be worth more than the extra three years of his contract is lost. (he wins, Dodgers lose)
3. He's not worth his contract and stays. (he wins, Dodgers lose)

I get the feeling that, were there a fourth option (he's not worth his contract, and gets forced out after two years) this wouldn't be a big deal to the people who think it is one. That it's a sense of fair play that causes some to bristle? Could be completely wrong, but whatever.

DePo bet that that option wasn't worth the dollar value Boras ascribed to it. And he bet that the Boras's dollar value ascribed to the second year out wasn't worth what Boras thought it was. Clearly, he could turn out to have been wrong on either or both counts. But it's not obvious that he was.

So, it seems like an insurance clause, really. The Dodgers prefer the cheaper contract with the player option in every scenario except the one where Drew outperforms his contract and leaves. In this scenario, the Dodgers get 2 years of Drew at below-market price, then have a chance to sign him again. Not exactly a loss, but if Drew is going to put up three more great years, they don't win as big as they could have if they had signed the 5/62.5 contract.

Drew, on the other hand, prefers the 5/55 contract if he exercises the option, and regrets not signing the 5/62.5 contract only if he plays out the 5/55 contract. Does that suggest that in order to justify signing the option contract (if a non-option one was ever on the table), Drew is required to opt out? Hmm...

After this year, he'll be two years older than he was then, and his injury in 05 only comfirmed the fears teams had that he's injury prone. Even he puts up numbers like he did in 04--MVP-type numbers, I might add--why would we assume the market would reward him with a better deal than he got after his 04 season?

Simply put, there's almost no chance Drew will exercise his out clause, since there's almost no chance he could get a contract of significantly greater value.

After this year, he'll be two years older than he was then, and his injury in 05 only comfirmed the fears teams had that he's injury prone. Even he puts up numbers like he did in 04--MVP-type numbers, I might add--why would we assume the market would reward him with a better deal than he got after his 04 season?

Bingo. True then, true now. Non-issue then. Non-issue now. Simple. Nicely done.