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

02  01 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perez Traded Just as I Go to Lunch
2006-07-25 12:18
by Jon Weisman

Inside the Dodgers reports Odalis Perez, Vero Beach pitchers Blake Johnson and Julio Pimentel and an undisclosed amount of cash have been sent to Kansas City for ... well, you know the reason, but as it happens, Elmer Dessens is coming in return.

Johnson, 21, had a 4.92 ERA and 73 strikeouts in 106 innings this season. Pimentel, 20 1/2, had a 5.69 ERA and 77 strikeouts in 74 1/3 innings.

Dessens had a 4.50 ERA for the Royals in 43 games, all as a reliever.

Until you know the cash exchanged, I don't know how you can begin to evaluate this trade.

Comments (287)
Show/Hide Comments 1-50
2006-07-25 12:24:44
1.   Brian Y
YAY we got rid of Odalis!!!! Now we need to get rid of Dessens! I hate getting rid of Blake Johnson and Pimental BUT we got rid of Odie so I'm a happy camper right now depending on how much cash considerations we're talking about.
2006-07-25 12:27:38
2.   Jacob L
Enjoy your lunch, Jon.

I'm eating at my desk so as not not miss what promises to be some engaging discussion . . .

2006-07-25 12:28:27
3.   ssjames
If we got rid of even half of Odalis' remaing salary, then this is a good a move, if not then I am extremely disappointed to give up Blake Johnson, not so much on Pimentel, as he doesn't look close to putting it together anytime soon.
2006-07-25 12:28:31
4.   King of the Hobos
Not a bad deal, although not a great one. Johnson and Pimental are young, but neither are anything more than back of the rotation/middle relief, and both have struggled. Plus they probably needed to be protected, and we don't have the room. Getting rid of Odalis is a plus. Dessens doesn't excite me, but he's cheaper than Odalis. If nothing else, our upper level SP depth is now pretty bad.
2006-07-25 12:29:34
5.   JoeyP
All depends on how much KC is picking up.
2006-07-25 12:30:00
6.   thinkblue0
completely agree. No one can pass judgment until we see the cash involved.

Somehow I see us picking up about 9 mill of what he's owed next year...ugh.

2006-07-25 12:30:12
7.   Jacob L
Add . . . can we now close the books on the Piazza trade? Odalis was the last piece we got for Sheffield, who was the last piece we got for our one-time HOF catcher. Or do we have to see if we trade Dessens? These things could, theoretically become some kind of endlessly strung out daisy chain.

Regardless, I'd say we got jobbed on the Piazza deal.

2006-07-25 12:30:18
8.   NPB
Wow. Old home week. That should really put us over the top. Next we need to trade Cruz for Matt Herges. And then after that, let's pick up Paul Quantrill, Denys Reyes, Guillermo Mota and Tom Martin.

If we trade Drew to the Mets, we might even be able to reclaim Duaner Sanchez.

This season grows more disappointing by the hour.

2006-07-25 12:31:10
9.   Uncle Miltie
All depends on how much KC is picking up.
After thinking about it a little longer, we might be able to flip Dessens to another team for better prospects.

What teams need relief pitching?

2006-07-25 12:31:18
10.   RELX

We gave Kc $8 million--NOT A GOOD TRADE! We paid for all of next year's salary for OP, and Kc picked up the rest of this year, which is probably $3 million. Since we have to pay Dessens $1.7 M next year and the rest of his salary this year, we saved next to nothing.

2006-07-25 12:31:34
11.   Uncle Miltie
I was agreeing with Joey
2006-07-25 12:32:07
12.   JoeyP
Does anyone remember what we originally traded to get Elmer Dessens?
2006-07-25 12:32:18
13.   regfairfield
7 Sheffield, for all his woes, was better than Piazza in his time here, plus LoDuca never comes up if he's around.
2006-07-25 12:32:20
14.   thinkblue0

All of them.

Dessens and Saito should both be on the block.

2006-07-25 12:32:40
15.   StolenMonkey86
Dessens - 1.7 million for 2006, 1.7 million for 2007
Limited No trade clause gives veto power for trades to Boston, New York, Colorado, and 2 other teams

Odalis (from DT sidebar)
2006: $7,250,000, plus $2,250,000 in deferred signing bonus, with incentives of $150,000 for 185 innings, again at 200 innings, and $200,000 for 215 innings

2007: $7,750,000, plus $2,250,000 in deferred signing bonus, with incentives of $150,000 for 185 innings, again at 200 innings, and $200,000 for 215 innings

2008: $9,000,000, with incentives of $150,000 for 185 innings, again at 200 innings, and $200,000 for 215 innings, or $1,500,000 buyout

Giving up two minor league pitching prospects is not good, but presumably the money saved on Odalis' contract can be used to recruit more draft picks and/or pursue free agents.

2006-07-25 12:33:03
16.   JoeyP
10. If that article is
At this point, just laugh.

I'm not mad, i'm amused by the incompetance.

2006-07-25 12:33:57
17.   regfairfield
12 Jerome Milons

10 I have OP down for 10 million next year, plus a 1.5 million dollar buyouy in 2008.

2006-07-25 12:34:47
18.   JoeyP
So we basically traded Blake Johnson, Pimentel, Odalis Perez for Elmer Dessens +2mils.


2006-07-25 12:35:10
19.   D4P
So, last year, Dessens' ERA was 3.56. His peripherals weren't good. Even though he was cheap, and at least as mediocre as some of the crap Nedusa has added (e.g. Carter, Hamulack, Seo, etc.), and even though we would have received a draft pick if he declined, Flanders inexplicably failed to offer arbitration to Elmer.

Now that Dessens' ERA is back where it belongs (4.50), all of a sudden Nedusa is willing to trade Perez, two minor leaguers (at least one of whom is considered a "prospect"), AND a bunch of money to get Dessens back.

Can someone explain the logic here...?

2006-07-25 12:35:13
20.   Gagne55
12 Reggie Abercrombie. Starting center fielder for the Florida Marlins (or at least he was at the beggining of the year).
2006-07-25 12:35:26
21.   Marty
Wow, we are eating a lot of salary. After reading what Hobos said about the 40-man protection issue, it looks like Ned just dumped OP and cash for Dessens, since he wouldn't protect the minor leaguers anyway. Hopefully Dessens can pitch better than Odalis, but it looks like KC got a nice deal.
2006-07-25 12:35:28
22.   StolenMonkey86
12 - Jereme Milons (minors). Currently a 23-year-old outfielder in High-A Lancaster.
2006-07-25 12:36:10
23.   thinkblue0

Not surprised at all, and really, why should we be?

2006-07-25 12:36:13
24.   ssjames
Perez' deal was heavily backloaded, with only $3 million paid last year, and the rest split over this season and next with a $4.5 million bonus at the end of this season, so KC is still paying a good chunk of the salary.
2006-07-25 12:36:25
25.   Gagne55
17 Really? Then who did Abercrombie get us? Brent Mayne?
2006-07-25 12:37:22
26.   Jacob L
19 The logic here is that the FO wanted Perez gone. I guess that's the same "logic" the got us Ethier, but Dessens, shall we say, is more of a known quantity.
2006-07-25 12:37:46
27.   StolenMonkey86
20 - No, we traded off Abercrombie in the Steve Finley deal.
2006-07-25 12:38:04
28.   thinkblue0
Can someone explain the logic here...?

Our GM is an idiot...there is no logic.

2006-07-25 12:38:08
29.   Uncle Miltie
Odalis also has a $4.5 million signing bonus which I'm guessing we've already paid most of.

Ned continues to amaze me. That $2 million should allow us to resign Kenny Lofton next year.

2006-07-25 12:38:55
30.   Dodger Blue Notes
15 - There is a team option for 2008 with a $1.5MM buyout.

This trade is ridiculous. We give up 2 prospects and pay KC $8MM and only get Dessens??

Wow! Flanders clearly does not know what he is doing. He continues to give away too much and not get equal value in return.

He should have just DFA'd Perez. At least we keep our prospects.

2006-07-25 12:39:05
31.   JoeyP
Abercrombie, Bill Murphy, and Koyie Hill were traded for Steve Finley IIRC.
2006-07-25 12:39:09
32.   Gagne55
KC will likely put OP in their rotation. Say hello to American League line-ups, Odalis.
2006-07-25 12:39:14
33.   blue22
Yeah, I see OP getting $9.5M this year, $10M next + $1.5M buyout guaranteed.

Incentives could reach another $500K via innings pitched goals.

2006-07-25 12:39:20
34.   StolenMonkey86
$8 million? That's not good, but it's not terrible.

Think of it as $3 million to Odalis and $5 million to sign Luke Hochevar.

2006-07-25 12:39:26
35.   jasonungar05
Go sell middle relievers someplace else, were all stocked up here.
2006-07-25 12:40:21
36.   D4P
I think it's safe to say that whatever goodwill Ned garnered from "actually getting something in return for Alomar" has quickly dissipated.
2006-07-25 12:41:45
37.   ssjames
For those who can't do the math, based upon Odalis' contract, although we sent $8 Million, we still owed him over $18 Million, so we saved $10 Million, and got Dessens who is a decent middle reliver for a reasonable price.
2006-07-25 12:42:15
38.   Jacob L
Based on the numbers in 15 I'm seeing something like $11 million in savings. What's this 2 number that's being bandied about?
2006-07-25 12:42:24
39.   Gagne55
30 How would DFA be better? This saves $2-3 million and nets a reliever who is better than anybody the Dodgers could call up to replace OP (Carter, Hamulack, Kuo, yuck). And they don't give up any prospects that are worth anything. Guys with 5 eras at high-A are a dime a dozen.
2006-07-25 12:42:31
40.   thinkblue0

how do you figure we owed him 18 mill? I know we owe him 9-10 next year, but we didn't still owe him 8 for this year.

2006-07-25 12:42:36
41.   Terry A
I'm no fan of most of Colletti's moves to this point, but this one doesn't greatly bother me.

Perez wanted to go and needed to go. He was not going to pitch meaningful innings for the Dodgers, and he was not going to be DFA'd.

I understand many are upset by the inclusion of a might-be prospect, but I'm just glad the Odalis/Dodger marriage is over... for both the Dodgers and for Perez himself.

2006-07-25 12:42:42
42.   JoeyP
33. Those numbers cant be right though. OP's original deal was 3yrs 24 mils.

Are you saying he only made 3mils last year?

2006-07-25 12:44:01
43.   blue22
OP gets about $3.65M in salary the rest of this year, plus $10M next, plus a $1.5M buyout.

That's about $15M due to OP.

Dessens earns about $650K this year, and $1.7M next (just about $2.5M).

If we sent them $8M, that's about a $4.5M savings.

Is $4.5M worth Blake Johnson? I don't really know who he I think that's worthwile.

2006-07-25 12:44:04
44.   StolenMonkey86
30 - Then let's rephrase it:
Would you take Elmer Dessens and $7 million for Johnson and Pimentel?

A promise that the $7 million will be added to the draft budget over the next two years would make me feel better.

2006-07-25 12:44:11
45.   ssjames
Look at the numbers in post 15, which details how heavily backloaded Perez' contract was, we have saved about $10-$11 million this year and next.
2006-07-25 12:44:27
46.   jasonungar05
My question is, when the dodgers finish off worse than last year, who gets fired then?

To finish worse than last year all we have to do is finish the season going 24-38. I think thats very much in reach.

To have any shot at the NL west, we have to go 35-27. Trades or not, you glass half full types, do you think that can happen?

2006-07-25 12:44:36
47.   Gagne55
42 That is exactly correct. The deal was heavily backloaded.
2006-07-25 12:44:42
48.   blue22
42 - Are you saying he only made 3mils last year?

Yes I believe that is correct.

2006-07-25 12:44:48
49.   JoeyP
39. Do you think Elmer Dessens will be better than Odals Perez next year?

Its probably a better gamble to either just DFA Odalis and keep the prospects, or just keep OP around for next season and see if he can regain his value as a starter.

Saving around 3mils bucks, and adding Elmer Dessens, doesnt seem move valuable than just keeping the players we had.

Dessens isnt a difference maker.

2006-07-25 12:44:53
50.   King of the Hobos
25 He was in the Finley/Mayne deal, so I guess he did get us Mayne. Koyie Hill and Bill Murphy were the other guys we traded, and the DBacks have since DFA'd all three (Murphy's the only one that is still with the club).

As the others have mentioned, Odalis is owed more than what the Sportsline article mentions, but $8 million is still too much.

Show/Hide Comments 51-100
2006-07-25 12:45:06
51.   Uncle Miltie
Perez has turned into a junkballer. His best pitch is his changeup. The AL is more of an offspeed league. I think he'll do a lot better in the AL and should be a serviceable starter for the Royals if he can stay healthy.
2006-07-25 12:45:59
52.   MartinBillingsley31
We need a consensus on salaries here.
Otherwise we don't know what money has been freed up.

Anyways, as far as talent goes:
Perez = dessens (give or take marginal amount)
Pimental is a non factor
johnson is a decent prospect not a top prospect

2006-07-25 12:46:49
53.   ssjames
49 It wouldn't be worth saving $3Million, but I think it is worth saving over $10 Million, if that is the number don't you agree?
2006-07-25 12:47:31
54.   Gagne55
46 5 1/2 games at this point in the year have been overcome many times. The question is whether the Dodgers have the talent to go on a 2004 Astros type comeback. I don't think so, but the NL is very weak this year.
2006-07-25 12:48:40
55.   blue22
- We git rid of Odalis.

- We save $4.5M (based on my 43).

- We acquire Elmer Dessens (for 2007 as well).

- We lose Blake Johnson.

I think this is better than the DFA scenario.

2006-07-25 12:49:01
56.   natepurcell
My first thought... good trade.

everyone is probably going, "OMG WHAT!?!??!"

But yea, good trade. Odalis was deadweight. and even if we picked up like 5-6 million, we still save 7-8 million that could be used for a better pitcher this offseason (zito, schmidt, etc). Dessens is a solid bullpen guy, has a cheap deal for next year and will replace Baez in the bullpen.

Now onto the prospects. In all honesty, we didn't really give up that much. Pimentel has regressed so bad that they demoted him to the bullpen in SINGLE A in his repeat year. Terrible control, terrible era and very hittable. Blake Johnson was very projectible when he was drafted and the dodgers hoped he could add some to his fastball. Basically, he hasn't and has been really hittable as well with a 4.92 era, 10.27 hit rate and 11 homeruns in 106IP. His control is very good though but I seriously doubt hes going to make an impact on the big league level. Both are fringe prospects to me with Blake in the back end of my top 25 and Pimentel not in my top 25.

Everyone thinks i was going to blow a fuse on this, but eh, it isnt a bad deal right now. just curious how much money we gave back to the royals.

2006-07-25 12:49:45
57.   Gagne55
51 But now he has to face the DH, not to mention that the talent level in the AL is higher than the NL.
2006-07-25 12:50:24
58.   thinkblue0

well if Odalis is owed about three this year and ten next that's about 13 mills.

We're sending along 8 but taking back two in dessens. That's only about three mill in savings.

Three mill in savings? I'd rather just keep the propsects and DFA Perez...because we all know that three mill will go to sign someone like Todd Walker in the offseason.

2006-07-25 12:50:58
59.   DaveP
for those saying we save 7-8 million, or even 10 million, Inside The Dodgers comments has a guy saying "Ned just told the media that the Dodgers saved about $3 million total over the course of the deal".

Can anyone confirm this? If so, pretty weak.

2006-07-25 12:51:01
60.   Jacob L
I just want to interrupt the "merits-of-the-trade" debate to recall better times with OP.

He pitched a complete game shutout in which he homered for the only run of the game back in 02. One of the more memorable games I've attended in recent years.

He was probably our best starter on the 04 division winner, at least prior to the playoffs.

I've pretty much liked his hair-dos, though he's no Royce Clayton.

2006-07-25 12:52:46
61.   Gagne55
Yeah, these prospects are junk. It's not like the Dodgers just traded a major league ready 22 year old catcher for some guy with a career era over 5.
2006-07-25 12:53:14
62.   blue22
60 - Or the 1-hitter he pitched in Wrigley in 2002, just after I had picked him up in my fantasy league.
2006-07-25 12:53:59
63.   Sam DC
Hey Nate -- dopey Sal tribute video.

2006-07-25 12:54:41
64.   JoeyP
43. I think you are correct. I dont think its worth it bc I think OP will probably be better next year than whatever the Dodgers could spend 4.5 mils on. I'm not even factoring in the prospects.

Would you rather keep OP, Blake Johnson, and Pimentel? Or would you rather have Dessens +4.5 mils.

I'd rather have the first.

2006-07-25 12:54:50
65.   blue22
59 - Even so, what exactly is wrong with 3M bucks anyway?
2006-07-25 12:55:04
66.   King of the Hobos
Odalis Amadol Perez: signed 3-year deal worth 24M thru 2007 season on 1/7/05- he receives a 4.5M signing bonus payable between November 2006 and Nov. 2007- + he will make salaries of 3M in 2005, 7.25M in 2006 and 7.75M in 2007- + the deal includes a Team Option for 2008 worth 9M or a 1.5M buyout- + he can earn performance bonuses in 2006, 2007 and 2008: 150K each for 185 and 200 IP and 200K for 215IP
Agent: Fernando Cuza, Pat Rooney Service Time: 7.027

So 3.65M this year + 7.75M next + 1.5M buyout +4.5M bonus = 17.40M - .65M this year - 1.7M next - 8M paid = Total Savings of 7.05M I believe

2006-07-25 12:55:05
67.   NPB
These have been rough months with OP indeed, but I've always liked him as a player. That's what this is so disappointing to me. This would be a very different team if the old Odalis were in the rotation. He was a perfect #3 starter.
2006-07-25 12:55:17
68.   natepurcell
so was 3 million worth blake johnson and pimentel? Well, it does cover their signing bonuses lol.
2006-07-25 12:55:41
69.   Dodger Blue Notes
My math has us saving a little over $5MM on this deal. If so, I must downgrade my outrage to a small grumble.

In this case I think we could have only given up one prospect in this deal.

2006-07-25 12:55:47
70.   Gagne55
60 Yes, I used to love OP. He was one of my favorite players in 2002 and 2004 and I was a big defender of him for a while. But, he sucks now, so I don't like him at all anymore. Good ridence.
2006-07-25 12:55:53
71.   natepurcell

Thanks Sam!

2006-07-25 12:56:28
72.   JoeyP
56. Nate, does your opinion change if you've been told the Dodgers are only saving 3-4 mils?
2006-07-25 12:58:16
73.   Gagne55
67 Or an ace in 2004 form. sigh
2006-07-25 12:59:49
74.   Sam DC
I haven't tried to figure it out, but there are just a startling number of different calculations of the money implications of this deal floating around the thread.

I'm just amazed.

2006-07-25 13:00:09
75.   thinkblue0

Even so, what exactly is wrong with 3M bucks anyway?

"Dec. 18th, 2006:

The Dodgers have announced the signing of utility infielder Todd Walker to a one year deal believe to be between 3 and 4.5 million dollars. "Walker brings nothing to the table, I just like paying for garbage veterans" Colletti was quoted as saying...."

2006-07-25 13:00:09
76.   MartinBillingsley31
Well one thing is for sure, if you don't shore up your pitching you end up making dumb trades like hendrickson and maybe this one depending on the true contract details

Which is why it is crucial to get solid starting pitching from free agency when you can (zito and schmidt), even if they are not true aces, or another way of putting it, even if they are #2's.
True aces do not become available very often, or better yet they are few and far between.

2006-07-25 13:00:54
77.   D4P
So: What exactly has Dessens done in the short time since Colletti decided he did not want Dessens on the team that has made Colletti decide he wants Dessens on the team? And why did Colletti think arbitration was too expensive for Dessens but now thinks Perez, two minor leaguers, and cash are the correct price for Dessens?
2006-07-25 13:01:31
78.   Daniel Zappala
I'm with Nate on this one. The two prospects won't amount to anything, and Perez has lost any ability he had to pitch. Getting a servicable reliever in Dessens, plus saving $3-5 million works for me.
2006-07-25 13:02:09
79.   Terry A
77 - I don't think this deal really has much to do with Dessens.
2006-07-25 13:02:19
80.   Xeifrank
For some reason an old show/movie tune came to my mind when I read Jon's post about Odalis Perez being traded. You know, back when movies were actually good and worth going to. I pictured the movie "Wizard of Oz" and the happy munchkins(sp?) singing "Ding Dong, The Witch is Dead". I guess that makes us all munchkins??
vr, Xei(2)
2006-07-25 13:02:52
81.   JoeyP
I'd probably have more faith in Odalis Perez being a serviceable pitcher in 2007 (his free agent year), than whatever Ned uses the 4.5 mils on.
2006-07-25 13:03:07
82.   Fallout
55 blue22

I agree with you. Whether it be 4.5m saved or something less than that it still was a good deal. Like natepurcell said, "Odalis was deadweight." You now have someone on the 25 man roster who has some value, and the one prospect traded away may have been lost in the draft. So, you trade a big negative for Dessens and save some $.

2006-07-25 13:03:10
83.   Vishal
haha, odalis hasn't really been traded so much as he's been marooned in kansas city.
2006-07-25 13:03:21
84.   Jacob L
I think 66 pretty much settles the money issue. The big bucks for 2008 was a team option, so were only on the hook for $1.5m there. We can give credit to Ned for the math, at least. His "we saved $3m" appears to be correct.
2006-07-25 13:04:46
85.   blue22
75 - Todd Walker to a one year deal believe to be between 3 and 4.5 million dollars.

I like Todd Walker; he would be a nice lefty platoon partner for various infield positions.

2006-07-25 13:05:26
86.   JoeyP
Either the McCourts are cheap, or Ned really wanted Elmer Dessens back.
2006-07-25 13:07:25
87.   thinkblue0
I like Todd Walker; he would be a nice lefty platoon partner for various infield positions.

I really really hope this was sarcasm.

2006-07-25 13:07:42
88.   Jeromy
I completely agree with Nate in 56. The prospects lost were marginal. We got rid someone who was basically dead weight on the roster, unhappy in his role. We get back a guy who is comfortable being a swingman in the bullpen. Odalis had regressed terribly. He was 0-3 with an ERA of nearly 8 in his last 10 outings. That hardly gives the manager confidence to put him in a situation with the game on the line. Dessens could be trusted to bail out a starter in the 4th-7th innings and not complain about it.
2006-07-25 13:08:25
89.   King of the Hobos
85 I'd agree that he would be nice to have in the right role, but he shouldn't be making any more money than Saenz per year. I'd be far more scared about Ned using that money to acquire a veteran middle reliever, and plenty of them will be available this winter.
2006-07-25 13:09:20
90.   natepurcell
Either with 3-5 million saved, this deal isnt that big of a deal. There shouldn't be 700 or so comments on this trade on DT. It just isn't that big of a deal. The prospects are no care, the person we traded was a no care, the person we are getting back is a no care....why all the caring?
2006-07-25 13:09:28
91.   Navarro for MVP
So how bout moving Dessens into the rotation and sending Billingsley back to AAA?
2006-07-25 13:11:35
92.   D4P
why all the caring

I care because Colletti could have and should have offered Dessens arbitration, which I noted at the time. I was shocked that he didn't. It was a win-win situation. Now, even though Dessens has pitched no better in the time since then (and his ERA is a run higher), Ned trades a bunch of stuff (whether good or not) to get him back.

That simply doesn't make sense to me.

2006-07-25 13:12:24
93.   JoeyP
90. If Odalis Perez returns to form next season, then it will be a big deal.
2006-07-25 13:12:32
94.   King of the Hobos
This deal failed to open a roster spot for Tomko, who will come back either today or tomorrow. It'll be interesting to see what Colletti does to allow Tomko to return.
2006-07-25 13:12:36
95.   thinkblue0

I was under the impression that Johnson was better than he is. This deal really doesn't look too bad, it's more of a matter of where htis money goes.

If it goes to Schmidt or Zito then great...if it goes to someone like Todd Walker...ugh.

2006-07-25 13:12:40
96.   Peanuts in My Shoes
I refuse to pass judgement on this trade until I hear some analysis from Harold Reynolds.
2006-07-25 13:12:55
97.   natepurcell

Gives you more Dodger bashing fuel. You should be heaven about this trade.

2006-07-25 13:13:51
98.   natepurcell

Maybe you got Steve Johnson mixed up with Blake Johnson.

2006-07-25 13:14:27
99.   King of the Hobos
93 Odalis would have been DFA'd if he wasn't traded. What he does in 2007 doesn't really matter, as there is no chance that he would do it with the Dodgers.
2006-07-25 13:14:44
100.   MartinBillingsley31
It all depends on how good blake johnson is.
If he's nothing to worry about losing, this is a good deal because we save money next year, even if its only 3 or 4 million dollars, its added to the amount allready coming off the books, its not just 3 or 4 million for a marginal upgrade, its 3 or 4 million added to what is already coming off the books, which could be the difference between landing zito/schmidt or not.

Perez = dessens (dessens is a little better).
The money helps and could be the difference in signing or not signing zito/schmidt.
Pimentel is a non factor.
Johnson (nate says he's not much)

I like this deal.

Show/Hide Comments 101-150
2006-07-25 13:14:51
101.   natepurcell
If Odalis Perez returns to form next season, then it will be a big deal.

Hes been pretty bad the last year two years. If he picks it up next year then fine. I still wont care. Odalis has been dead to me for a while now.

2006-07-25 13:15:07
102.   Jacob L
94 Maybe he can trade a reliever to a contending team and get something of value without having to throw in prospects, cash, or both. Waddaya think?
2006-07-25 13:15:50
103.   blue22
90 - The person involved has been a bit of a hot topic for the last 3 years or so.

Yet another Depo guy out the door too. Brings the tally to 6 left on the active roster (Drew, Lowe, Penny, Saenz, Ledee, and Cruz).

2006-07-25 13:17:41
104.   thinkblue0

yeah when I saw the name the first thing I thought was "wow, isn't he pretty good? They better have kicked in a lot."

I don't know, I was just hoping we wouldn't have to give anything up in addition to Perez, and if we did, I was hoping we'd save a lot of cash.

Whatever, add three mill to the pile of money coming off the books for next year.

2006-07-25 13:19:56
105.   regfairfield
What this comes down to:

Do you believe Odalis Perez will ever be useful again?

If yes, then bad trade.

If no, good trade.

2006-07-25 13:20:09
106.   D4P
Ned had this to say about Elmer:

"Elmer is a versatile pitcher who has had success throughout his career out of the bullpen," said Dodgers general manager Ned Colletti. "We expect him to help bolster our pitching staff."

Question for Ned: If Elmer is versatile and has had success, and if he will bolster the staff, and if his career ERA is lower than that of Brett Tomko, a guy you pay over $3 million a year for, why did you fail to offer Dessens arbitration?

2006-07-25 13:20:13
107.   Bluebleeder87

I feel dizzy after reading you're post.

2006-07-25 13:21:31
108.   natepurcell
Dessens replaces Baez. So we replaced cuban missle crisis for battle of the alamo.
2006-07-25 13:23:31
109.   natepurcell
108 for next year.
2006-07-25 13:24:28
110.   bluetahoe
Someone needs to tell JoeyP that Odalis is WASHED UP.
2006-07-25 13:24:32
111.   MartinBillingsley31
This trade might open the possibility of another trade, like trading baez.

One thing is for sure, ned is an active GM

2006-07-25 13:25:19
112.   D4P
ned is an active GM

Those deck chairs won't rearrange themselves...

2006-07-25 13:26:37
113.   Bluebleeder87

my virgin ears have been exposed...

2006-07-25 13:26:47
114.   bluetahoe
Excellent work by the hobo king in 66. Those are the figures I'm using from cotts.
2006-07-25 13:27:56
115.   bluetahoe
106 D4P. That's what you're supposed to say.
2006-07-25 13:28:20
116.   Terry A
And what's the deal with Colletti waiting to pull the trigger on this until seconds before Jon's lunch?
2006-07-25 13:29:17
117.   bluetahoe
This deal wasn't about getting Elmer Dessens. It was about getting rid of Odalis Perez. Kansas City could have kept Elmer for all I care, but when a trade is made somebody has to come your way.
2006-07-25 13:29:23
118.   Uncle Miltie
110- like Kenny Lofton, Bill Mueller, Jeff Kent, Brett Tomko?
2006-07-25 13:29:44
119.   scareduck
The Dodgers lose this trade on the two principals alone:

Any money that changes hands makes it only worse. The prospects to me are a non-issue, as both of them had declined terribly at higher levels.

2006-07-25 13:31:17
120.   Steve
Weighing the evidence, I find 55, 56, and 79 persuasive. I'm a little concerned about the accounting here on the 3 million. For instance, are we saving "3 million" if Dessens sucks and we have to DFA him? Because just transferring Perez's salary to Dessens' is Enron-level trickery. But if the money savings are for real, then of course it's a good deal.
2006-07-25 13:33:40
121.   Steve
Edit: Are we saving "3 million" even though Dessens sucks and we'll have to DFA him?
2006-07-25 13:34:26
122.   bluetahoe
118. maybe, yes, no, no
2006-07-25 13:34:32
123.   scareduck
120 - Dessens' -0.641 WXRL is far worse than Odalis Perez's -0.185 WXRL, and Perez's score seems to include his time as a starter. I would call this a huge loss for the Dodgers, even forgetting the dollars and prospects.
2006-07-25 13:34:42
124.   Bob Timmermann
The Reds and Nats had their big trade while I was at lunch too.

I'll be out of town during most of the trading frenzy. Or non frenzy as it will likely be.

2006-07-25 13:34:47
125.   blue22
121 - Is it assumed that OP would be just as bad as your hypothetical DFA'd Dessens?

If so, I still see valid savings.

2006-07-25 13:36:50
126.   JoeyP
Honest question for everyone:

Who will pitch better from here on out and in 2007:

Mark Hendrickson or Odalis Perez?

2006-07-25 13:38:29
127.   Ladderkite
112 - no they will not.

126 - hendrickson

2006-07-25 13:38:30
128.   ssjames
126 Mark Hendrickson, by quite a lot. If Odalis didn't like lack of run support for the Dodgers, wait til he sees the Royals offensive juggernaut.
2006-07-25 13:38:45
129.   Sam DC
I still don't understand the "$3 million" talk. I've read 66 multiple times. It seems pretty straightforward. Even if we DFA Dessens tomorrow, it seems like we have saved $7 million (we were previously obligated to pay around $17M, we are now obligated to pay around $10M). Is that not right?
2006-07-25 13:39:02
130.   natepurcell

Dessens makes 1.7 in 2006 and 2007. I imagine we have to pay the rest of his salary this year which is probably half of 1.7. So half of 1.7 is 850k. 850k plus 2007's salary is a total of 2.55 million.

Perez was making 7.25 million this year to go along with 9.25million in 2007 (includes 1.5M 2008 buyout). Perez ALSO gets a 4.5 million bonus paid between 11/06 and 11/07. So if you take half of his 2006 salary and add the rest, Perez would be owed roughly 17.405 for the remaining in gaurenteed money.

If the Dodgers eat 8 million like being reported, and pay Dessens about 2.55 million, the overall NET savings would be 6.855M

2006-07-25 13:40:34
131.   Fallout
120. Steve
>>>Weighing the evidence, I find 55, 56, and 79 persuasive.<<<

And I thought 82 was a good summary. :)

2006-07-25 13:41:11
132.   JoeyP
Colletti himself said the savings is around 3mils. Blue22 did the math above that came around 4.5 mils.

If Ned was saving more on the deal, you can bet he would be saying it.

2006-07-25 13:41:29
133.   natepurcell
Thanks Colletti, you have interrupted my golf clubs search to have me spend more time then I want to on discussing Odalis Perez.
2006-07-25 13:41:42
134.   OCDodgerfan
One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet, as far as I can see, is that Perez had become a malcontent for quite a while. Actually, I think the word "malcontent" is putting it lightly, and "club house cancer" might be more accurate. And on a team that is struggling right now, the need to unload such players is pretty important.

Thus, while statistically the trade looks like a wash, or slightly in the Royals' favor, I'll take it as addition by subtraction for now. Good riddance, Odalis.

2006-07-25 13:53:28
135.   gibsonhobbs88
The main reason for this trade as one of the other posters commented was to get rid of OP and his sour defiant "What did I do to deserve this" attitude. In order to unload this cancer on another team, we had to eat some of his salary and throw in two lower level prospects to sweeten the pot. It's not like we gave up Loney or LaRoche to KC with OP for Dessens. Now that would be a call to storm the Dodger castle and call for Coletti's head on a platter. Personally, I don't think we should trade for a rental this year, one player will probably not make enough of a difference. Any team out of the west is grist for the mill when they will play the Mets or Cardinals in the playoffs this year.
2006-07-25 13:54:16
136.   Bob Timmermann
Odalis was Hillenbranded.
2006-07-25 13:56:21
137.   underdog
If we're debating this much about this lil' trade, imagine how active it will be here if a big trade goes down later this week. ;-)

I agree with 134 for the most part - and don't think the prospects we gave up are much to worry about. Maybe Blake J will turn out pretty decent, but we obviously had to throw in somebody to get rid of Perez and some of his $. I think this is a sensible if unexciting trade to rid of us a problem who hasn't really looked decent on the mound for a year and a half. Next!

Now you can go back to club- shopping, Nate.

2006-07-25 13:56:39
138.   OCDodgerfan
136 - I couldn't have said it better, myself. :)
2006-07-25 13:57:02
139.   DaveP
here's another source saying the Dodgers save about $3 million in the deal:
The Dodgers will save about $3 million or so overall, once you factor in the amount they're giving K.C. and Elmer's contract.

Nate's math looks fine so there is obviously something we don't know in the deal given that Coletti definitely told the media that the Dodgers save around $3 million.

I don't think it's anything to get worked up over.

2006-07-25 14:00:18
140.   OCDodgerfan
I take it the most significant thing about the trade is that it refutes the theory that Odalis (and his contract) is untradeable?
2006-07-25 14:01:53
141.   jystakes
Odalis is essentially as effective as Jose Lima. They're the same pitcher - no velocity, relies on changeups and offspeed pitches, both think they're way better than they are, and both get shelled each time out. In fact, if you had to bet on one of them, who would you bet would have the better outing? It's a toss-up. What a substantial fall from grace Odalis has suffered over the past 3 years.
2006-07-25 14:01:58
142.   Dark Horse
I reckon this is a fine move, or at least as good as could be hoped. That we gave up nothing of value, that we got anything at all for Perez (when getting rid of Perez is itself an addition,) let alone saved five-cents is all to the good. And I wonder that anyone who thinks this trade is even or "slightly in KC's favor" even could've seen Perez pitch this year. Next to setting the ball on a tee, sending him out there was the most damaging thing we could do, time and again and again. It doesn't really matter that he isn't all that old, that he was effective in 2003, that statistically he has/has not been better than Dessens over his career...I don't even think it matters whether he pitches better next year (which I'll bet he won' all) because I don't think he was ever going to do so here.
2006-07-25 14:02:21
143.   Sam DC
Am wondering if the signing bonus falls to the Dodgers, despite the proviso that Hobos noted in 66 re when it would get paid.
2006-07-25 14:03:03
144.   MartinBillingsley31
I don't care about the payroll this year, so taking the contracts after this season:
Perez contract:
4.5 million signing bonus payable between november 2006 and november 2007.
7.75 million salary for 2007
1.5 million buyout for 2008
Plus there are some incentive, but who cares.

Total 13.75 owed to perez after this season.
Subtract the 8 million given to kansas in this trade = 5.75 million saved on perez after the trade.

Only 1.7 million next year.
Plus there are some incentives if he starts a certain amount of times, but who cares.

5.75 million - 1.7 million = 4.05 net savings.

So i see 4.05 million to go towards zito/schmidt, plus we have dessens for the pen next year, but we lose johnson.

I like this deal.

We paid the buyout and the signing bonus for perez plus paid 2 million of his salary next year (7.75 m - 2 m), so we dumped 5.75 million, but then we took on 1.7 million on dessens = 4.05 million less payroll next season.

2006-07-25 14:03:21
145.   ssjames
I think that Nate's math is right on the button, and maybe we sold the Royals on us only saving $3 Million, while really saving closer to $10 Million according to nate's math ($9.4 Million saved over just releasing Odalis, and then trading Johnson and Pimentel for Dessens). Who knows, but I still say its a good deal. Odalis was actually getting worse as the season went, Dessens is a serviceable bullpen arm with a reasonable $1.7 Million contract, and the money saved will go towards improving the starting rotation this offseason, imo. What is not to like?
2006-07-25 14:04:13
146.   JoeyP
OP's is just a conundrum. Its just so odd for a guy to totally fall off, when his physical skills havent eroded. OP is still throwing as hard now, as when he was good. He's still in his prime.

Just to discard him, seems very risky. We're not talking about a Shawn Green who was older, and had a bad shoulder injury. Or a Hideo Nomo who just lost all velocity.

OP still had his physical skills, but for whatever reason has pitched very poorly this year.

If OP is never good again, then good trade bc the team saved 3mils. If he turns it around, then its just a horrible trade and will have been a miscalculation on the Dodgers' part, of basically giving up on OP too soon.

I think when OP lost his starting spot after struggling, while similarly struggling starters such as Seo/Tomko kept theirs, it really effected him. Maybe he quit?

I wouldnt be surprised if he pitches much better for the Royals.

2006-07-25 14:05:58
147.   Steve
125 -- 139 answered my question. Dessens is garbage coming back, but his salary is not being counted toward the savings. So no Enron-style accounting (unless something shifty comes up we don't know about) and this is fine. It doesn't solve the overall problems, but it solves the Odalisall problem.
2006-07-25 14:06:06
148.   gibsonhobbs88
Boy-three weeks ago we looked to be on the buying side of the trade deadline-with the recent plummet since the AS break, we are approaching the deadline possibly in seller mode now, especially if we continue this 0-fer homestand! This July turned out to be worse than I feared when I saw their schedule back in May.
2006-07-25 14:06:12
149.   JoeyP
142. Odalis had a 3.25 ERA just two seasons ago. Could he have lost it that quick, despite maintaing all his physical skills?

Its possible I suppose.

2006-07-25 14:06:18
150.   regfairfield
I have the cash saved at 6.825 million.
Show/Hide Comments 151-200
2006-07-25 14:06:20
151.   Greg Brock
Kevin Love just committed to UCLA. SB, we only suffer in football.
2006-07-25 14:07:56
152.   natepurcell

So basically the same as me :)

2006-07-25 14:09:00
153.   Steve
2006-07-25 14:09:20
154.   Bob Timmermann
Do baseball teams have to follow the provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley?
2006-07-25 14:10:02
155.   JoeyP
Its probably an issue of the 4.5 mils signing bonus payable between 06/07. The Dodgers are probably picking some of that up, so thats how Colletti gets to the 3mils figure.
2006-07-25 14:10:51
156.   ssjames
150 152 You are both counting Dessens salary against the savings though. Someone would have to fill his role in the bullpen and they would cost at least $350K for league minimum this year and next, I think the proper way to calculate the amount saved is what we don't have pay Odalis. Dessens could even be a better deal than someone we may have signed in the offseason to fill his role.
2006-07-25 14:12:27
157.   natepurcell

Dessens takes the place of Baez for next season. Baez isnt coming back. he will go haunt some other team.

2006-07-25 14:12:31
158.   blue22
149 - Russ Ortiz had an era+ between 104 and 109 in 2002 to 2004, even peaking at 122 in 2001. He bottomed out with a 64 last year, and gawd-knows-what this year.
2006-07-25 14:12:49
159.   regfairfield
156 But he still contributes to the payroll. Maybe the 350K should be figured in as well, but Dessens' salary should be a factor in money saved.
2006-07-25 14:12:58
160.   dzzrtRatt
I've read every post, and have yet to see anyone discover the true motive for this trade.

Ned Colletti is trying to drive JoeyP and all other DePodesta fans insane by making deals that serve to underscore the folly of some of DePodesta's deals.

The unstated message of this trade is, "JoeyP, you think DePo was such a f&&&ing genius? Well look at the POS contract he gave Odalis Perez! Thanks to moi, we are out from under it, but jeez we had to take a bath."

2006-07-25 14:14:48
161.   OCDodgerfan
146 - OP is a conundrum, wrapped in a mystery, clouded by confusion?

It sounds to me like the Dodgers did everything they could to make the guy happy, and he still stunk up the joint. And it wouldn't really surprise me to learn much later this season (perhaps in the offseason) that Odalis purposely grooved a changeup to Pujols in the bottom of the ninth.
An organization that decides to design their entire team and coaching staff around placating one depressed individual (in this case, one who is obviously coo-coo for cocoapuffs), is going to find itself sinking faster than it already is.

2006-07-25 14:16:50
162.   Sam DC
I'm inclined to agree with the Deadspin guys that the Brewers adding a Chorizo to the sausage race is the biggest story of the day.

And with that, I'm off til sometime tomorrow. Gonna go see if the Nationals can do the Dodgers some good against the Giants tonight.

LAT -- I answered your question and offered a little more info (last time, i swear) at the end of the prior thread.

2006-07-25 14:16:50
163.   Fallout
158 blue22

It's still hard for me to believe that Russ Ortiz has gotten so bad.

2006-07-25 14:19:22
164.   MartinBillingsley31
150 and 152

I would have the same savings if i included what we are saving for the rest of this season (3.625 million which is half of perez salary this season - .85 million which is half of dessens salary this season = 2.775 million)
Otherwise we save 4.05 million next season on.

But if you put together the savings this year 2.775 million plus the savings next year on 4.05 million, you get a total of 6.825 million.

2006-07-25 14:23:00
165.   Cornell Blue Fan
I like this trade...getting rid of Perez is HUGE

I can't wait till Tomko comes out of the pen. The guy has legit stuff and I think he will make a great reliever.

I think the OP trade was anticipating this move. Meaning Gio will be sent down or released when Tomko comes back. No way Ned could justify doing that to Gio with OP around.

I would take Dessens and Tomko in the pen over Gio and OP anytime.
I think collectively the Dodgers BP was upgraded...considering Tomko pitches well of course

2006-07-25 14:26:06
166.   Bob Timmermann
I think the Dodgers genuinely like Carrara and I think the bullpen will just expand when Tomko returns.

But I would short your Jose Cruz stock.

2006-07-25 14:26:31
167.   MartinBillingsley31
I like this trade, we save 4.05 million on payroll next season, plus we have dessens in the pen next season which means 1 less guy we have to find for the pen next season.
2006-07-25 14:30:45
168.   Bob Timmermann
Speaking of Cruz...

At Friday night's game, Cruz's name is announced "Jose Cruz, Jr." and my girlfriend turns to me "Why do they call him junior is his dad playing right now?"

At Saturday night's game, the same thing happens and my brother asks, "Is Jose Cruz Senior playing in this game too?"

I run in pedantic circles.

2006-07-25 14:36:54
169.   Paul Scott
This is just another example of Midusa's overall incompetence in valuing players. Even if we assume the two prospects have no value at all (not true), we are still left with the ultimate result of essentially giving KC money for nothing.

We did not offer Dessens arbitration and now we have him for more money and a longer contract than if we had and he accepted (or alternatively, we let KC have a draft pick that should have been ours if Dessens rejected arbitration and KC signed him anyway). That alone is worth at least $3M, whichever way it is cut.

OP -> KC nets, according to a guy I really doubt understands the deal (Midusa), $3M. This is certainly better than DFAing OP, having everyone pass (would they? - probably, but if they did you would not have to cut him) and then having someone sign him (giving the Dodgers league minimum in return for the duration of his stay with the new club).

But forget Midusa's stupidity in the offseason and just look at this deal.

I assume we all agree that we don't really want Dessens and his remaining contract.

Midusa says the deal nets the Dodgers $3M. That includes paying Dessens $2.5M. So the real gain is $500K + control of Dessens through 2007. Now look at Dessens' numbers and you will find he is replacement level - that is his talent is freely available to any team for MLB minimum. This means the true savings of the deal over the MAXIMUM LOSS of just cutting Perez was $500K + ~$400K for a total of $900K.

Now there are only two remaining questions:

1. What value was in Johnson and Pimentel? It's not zero, but other than that, for now I will let it go rather than attempt to valuate it.

2. Would every team choose to pass on OP (let's assume yes - but accept as well that there is some chance that DFAing him would have resulted in a taker) AND would no team sign him for the remainder of his contract? This last bit seems very unlikely, as you could take a chance on OP for the remainder of his contract for a mere $500K to the Dodgers.

Assuming, as I think is very likely, DFAing OP resulted in someone picking him up for league minimum (paid to the Dodgers), this brings the total value of the trade to $400K in exchange for Johnson and Pimentel. Whatever these two are worth, I have to believe it is more than $400K.

To put it another way, I assume no one here would approve if KC came to the Dodgers and said "We'd like to give you $400K in exchange for Johnson and Pimentel" and Midusa said "Deal!".

2006-07-25 14:37:22
170.   blue22
163 - Some would say its hard to believe he was ever that good (Bob). :)
2006-07-25 14:38:51
171.   Blu2
I propose we officialy change his name to Jose Crud. That would clear up that bit of confusion...
2006-07-25 14:39:33
172.   JoeyP
160. I'm a fan of logic. Of course, by transitive property I'd be a fan of DePodesta as well.
2006-07-25 14:42:32
173.   ssjames
169 According the numbers in this thread your analysis of the amount saved is incorrect, read through it and you will see that a lot more was saved than you are assuming.
2006-07-25 14:42:43
174.   Steve
Midusa says the deal nets the Dodgers $3M. That includes paying Dessens $2.5M.

This is the same issue I raised, albeit in inquisitive form. The link from 139 says this is not the case.

2006-07-25 14:42:55
175.   the OZ
169 In your analysis, you overlook the value to Ned and the Dodgers of "Look! you hate Odalis Perez and we got rid of him. Wheeeee!"
2006-07-25 14:43:30
176.   Linkmeister
"the Brewers adding a Chorizo to the sausage race is the biggest story of the day."


Freakin' immigration fights now invade baseball, too.

I can't wait to hear what Tom Tancredo has to say about this!

2006-07-25 14:43:37
177.   trainwreck
I can't tell you how excited I am about Kevin Love committing to UCLA!!!

As for Perez deal, we did not trade any of our core prospects so it is fine with me.

2006-07-25 14:44:34
178.   LAT
Thanks Sam, You are a wealth of information.
2006-07-25 14:44:39
179.   blue22
169 - I just read that 3 times and I still don't get it.

Midusa says the deal nets the Dodgers $3M. That includes paying Dessens $2.5M. So the real gain is $500K + control of Dessens through 2007.

The Dodgers are paying $3M (or so) less in payroll because of this trade through next year, even when Dessens starts cashing Dodger checks. How does that get pared down to $400-$500K so quickly?

And, to yours and D4P's concerns on Dessens' arbitration from last year, would it make you feel better had the reliever been Runelvys Hernandez or Luke Hudson or Mark Redman? Dessens was an interchangeable placeholder in the deal, but one who was apparently still well thought of in the organization.

2006-07-25 14:48:26
180.   Blu2
I don't know about the money, there are too many explanations that come up with different numbers. I do know that I don't trust Flanders and if he says $3M, it's probably a lot less. But even at $3M, in the overall cost of running the club, it's a meaningless amount. I'd be in favor of DFAing him. I can't believe we wouldn't get a better offer in the 10 day display period.
2006-07-25 14:48:31
181.   JoeyP
I think Paul is saying this:

When Ned was quoted as saying "The deal saves us 3mils of OP's salary", that he WAS NOT including what they were going to end up paying for Elmer Dessens.

So if you include Dessens, then the savings goes down to 500K.

If Colletti meant the team saved 3mils overall, including what they will end up paying Dessens, then it'd be a better deal than what Paul thinks it is.

2006-07-25 14:50:21
182.   Paul Scott
173 - I agree. It seems wrong. But it is the amount Midusa claims is being saved. Absent greater detail, and even accepting my complete mistrust of Midusa and his - well whatever he stores between his ears - it is still the only thing we really have to go on. If we are saving closer to $7M, then this is closer to an acceptable deal (e.g. "Hey Ned, I'll give you $4.5M for Johnson and Pimentel." is at least possibly getting value for the two.)
2006-07-25 14:50:34
183.   jasonungar05
Has Jae Seo given Andrew Friedman cold market feet, going 0-5 since his late-June arrival from the Dodgers?

We can only hope.

2006-07-25 14:50:45
184.   LAT
People are keeping a tight wrap on this. I have a client who works part-time for ESPN. He is friends with HR. I know my client is telling the truth becasue I have been with him when HR has called him. I emailed him for the story. What I got back was "I'll tell you later." Which translates to I'll tell you after the details have broken. In other words I got nothing. I'm guessing its pretty bad stuff for everyone to be circling the wagons so tightly.
2006-07-25 14:54:41
185.   the OZ
I wonder if this messy harrassment destroys HR's chances of becoming the next Tom Emanski...

2006-07-25 14:56:58
186.   thinkingblue
My take is that if it really saved 3 million, it's ok, if we saved nothing...not as good.

But now JD Drew. 135 freaking at bats without a home run, and just terrible last night. If anyone is going to tell me he's "productive" and "we can't score without him," you're lying. Comes up with a man on 3rd and 1 out, strikes out. Will he ever hit a homer again?

2006-07-25 15:01:59
187.   trainwreck
What happened with Harold Reynolds?
2006-07-25 15:02:17
188.   MartinBillingsley31
If anyone is going to tell me he's "productive" you're lying.

He has been throughout his career.
He's having one of those years, he's in a slump.
This year is over for the dodgers so who cares.
I think he's playing injured and if he is, the dodgers should DL him and get him ready for next year, same goes for kent, keep kent on the DL until he is 100% ready.

2006-07-25 15:04:19
189.   dsfan
Fascinating that post after post lambastes Colletti for a reasonable salvage job of a ridiculous contract issued by Depo, who essentially was bidding against himself when he gave $24 million to a pitcher with declining stuff, bad makeup, a checkered medical history and an aversion to preparation and conditioning.

If Colletti saved $3 million today, maybe he can use it to offset the ridiculous salary issed to Cruz by Depo/Ng at a time when he was a classic non-tender guy lucky to get a six-figure guarantee.

Somehow, someway, that'll get rationalized here, maybe they can blame that one on Ned too.

Colletti should be questioned for the Kent extension -- and I did so when it came out -- but he had no leverage in recent days when it came to moving Perez, a cancerous, out of shape, dubious makeup pitcher whose stuff is in sharp decline and recently rolled over like a bloated carp, giving Pujols a nothing pitch to put himself out of his own misery.

Two years from now, when Colletti is trying to get pennies on the dollar for the bloated Drew contract, we'll hear more of the same caterwauling and revisionist history. Try to evaluate the moves, not the person.

2006-07-25 15:04:26
190.   Terry A
187 - He was traded to FOX for Rob Dibble, cash considerations and two broadcasting prospects.
2006-07-25 15:10:40
191.   Jonny6
I try not to be one of those people that wishes ill upon others, so I am trying my best not to smirk at the thought of Odalis getting rocked night after night in an empty KC stadium. But as the saying goes, he made his bed and now he has to lie in it. He wanted out, and took every opportunity to pronounce his displeasure from the rooftops. Well, he got his wish, and now he is banished to MLB purgatory in Kansas City.

For me, the unbelievable part of the Odalis saga is that it was only a few short years ago that I would always try to watch the games he pitched - despite his erratic nature even during his successful era, I was convinced that he was going to toss a no-hitter and I didn't want to miss it.

Who knows, maybe he will flourish in KC. He always seemed to be the antithesis of a big game pitcher. If you needed a solid performance in a crucial situation, than you could bet that Odalis would be gone before the 4th inning. If there's a place for a pitcher who needs a low stress environment in order to thrive, than KC is your home.

Buen suerte Odalis!

2006-07-25 15:12:56
192.   trainwreck
As Nate said earlier, ODP has been dead to me for awhile. I have no problem with getting him off our team. He was obviously causing problems and we all know if you cause problems and can't perform you're gone.

Two trades in a row I like by Ned.

2006-07-25 15:14:08
193.   JoeyP
moving Perez, a cancerous, out of shape, dubious makeup pitcher

Interesting how when Perez was pitching well, no one mentioned his being out of shape (which he was), or a cancer, or having a 'dubious' makeup.

Those terms are just made of terms for trying to explain how a good pitcher could just completely lose it. It could be that OP is just having a down year, could it not?

2006-07-25 15:14:22
194.   DaveP
189 - are we reading the same posts? I see a lot of people saying "no big deal" and a few who don't like it. Seems like a stretch, but I guess it gave you a chance to get into Depo and Drew.
2006-07-25 15:19:09
195.   natepurcell
If i can get a Halo Hybrid for 60$ or under then the Odalis trade was a wash. deal everyone?
2006-07-25 15:21:50
196.   regfairfield
I'm going to say wash. We're either going to get completely burned, or it's going to look really good. Either way looks equally likely.
2006-07-25 15:23:05
197.   dsfan

Possible, highly improbable.
As for hindsight, not in my case, but you and I didn't get discuss with one another OP's merits when the deal got done.

2006-07-25 15:24:03
198.   King of the Hobos
Tom Meagher's thoughts:
He seems a little more critical than most of us.
2006-07-25 15:25:30
199.   JoeyP
Well the upside for the Dodgers is: "I cant believe we saved 3mils bucks! Yippee!!!"

The upside for the Royals is: "I cant believe we bought Odalis Perez for 3mils bucks, and he became our #2 starter..Did I mention the prospects are having good seasons also?"

The upside is with the Royals.

2006-07-25 15:29:10
200.   natepurcell
Well the upside for the Dodgers is: "I cant believe we saved 3mils bucks! Yippee!!!"

"Thank goodness we were able to unload Odalis or else so we could use that extra million a year on Jason Schmidt."

Show/Hide Comments 201-250
2006-07-25 15:29:27
201.   ssjames
199 The money is still a question of how much was saved, and neither of the prospects is having anything approaching a good season. They both are struggling tremendously.
2006-07-25 15:33:14
202.   GoBears
Wow. Slow news day, apparently. I can't believe such a ho-hum, 25th-man deal is getting so much scrutiny. Who cares?

The only POSSIBLE value of judging this trade is as an indication of how Colletti might perform on an actually important transaction. But I'd argue that this gave us no new information. He's willing to spend minor prospects like water, and to impose small marginal financial costs on his boss. Mostly, he's interesting in looking active, even if the marginal effect on team quality is minimal.

It's possible that Colletti has lost a little on every trade he's made (except Bradley/Perez for Ethier, so far), but the sum of all those marginal losses probably apporoximates zero games in the standings.

I think his free agency choices were much more important - a couple good acquisitions, several bad acquisitions, LOTS of good non-acquisitions, and a few bad purges.

But mostly, 2007 looks about the same as it did before Colletti got here. And that's the best news yet. If Colletti is merely re-arranging the desk chairs, what does that make this thread - a spirited argument over how well the re-arrangement has gone?

Feh. Wake me when an actual player gets traded one direction or the other.

2006-07-25 15:33:56
203.   regfairfield
In the interest of full disclosure, I did a fist pump when I heard we resigned Odalis.
2006-07-25 15:35:06
204.   GoBears
er, "approximates"
2006-07-25 15:39:29
205.   LAT

If you are out there. . .in regards to BHCC one of the people I think you asked about was Vicki Tuschingham (sp?). Sad to tell you she passed away this week. But she had been with Gene up until then.

2006-07-25 15:42:55
206.   Steve
Holy Moses:

Furcal, SS
Lofton, CF
Ethier, LF
Saenz, 1B (I'll know more about Nomar's knee when I get downstairs)
Ledee, RF
Hall, C
Izzy, 3B
Martinez, 2B
Hendrickson, P

I want my money back.

2006-07-25 15:43:41
207.   natepurcell

Good thing I have work tonight.

2006-07-25 15:44:13
208.   King of the Hobos
Our lineup is Drewless, Kentless, Nomarless, Martinless, and Aybarless. So much for beating Chan Ho.

Furcal, SS
Lofton, CF
Ethier, LF
Saenz, 1B
Ledee, RF
Hall, C
Izzy, 3B
Martinez, 2B
Hendrickson, P

2006-07-25 15:44:17
209.   D4P
The Odalis re-signing should be considered in its context. At the time, other available starters included hacks like Eric Milton and Esteban Loaiza. I remember thinking that Odalis was a much better option than those guys, and among the better options at the time. Yes he makes a lot of money, but so do most starting pitchers. Most starting pitchers are overpaid these days. That's just the way it is.
2006-07-25 15:44:56
210.   regfairfield
206 Where's J.D.?
2006-07-25 15:45:49
211.   the OZ
203 I'm with you. That was the Eric Milton/Jaret Wright/Russ Ortiz offseason of insanity. Odalis at $2.4x10^13 nanodollars over three seasons seemed wholly reasonable and I was pleased at the time.
2006-07-25 15:45:56
212.   D4P
BTW: The person who will "know more about Nomar's knee" upon arriving downstairs is not Steve, but rather the Dodgers' blog guy.
2006-07-25 15:46:03
213.   jasonungar05
"It hasn't been easy," he said. "If it was easy, it would've happened a while ago."

Despite the team's recent public comments, Colletti had been in active discussions about trading Perez.

"I'd rather not say exactly how long, but I'll say quite a while," he said.


I love it. Yeah, I have been lying. And no, we are not trading _______.

2006-07-25 15:47:09
214.   JoeyP
I think the Dodgers are waving the white flag with that lineup.

Shades of Izzy, Robles, Aybar, Edwards, Grabowski, Phillips....

2006-07-25 15:49:06
215.   JoeyP
And here I was thinking Jason Repko was going to spark the team.

At least, thats what Grits and Ned told me.

2006-07-25 15:49:45
216.   MartinBillingsley31
Wow, considering saenz doesn't hit right handers, we have 1 legit hitter in our lineup tonight, ethier.
2006-07-25 15:52:00
217.   JoeyP
How did Nomar hurt his knee?
Was that on that spike play with Barfield last nite?
2006-07-25 15:52:13
218.   blue22
214 - Maybe it's "showcase time" for Lofton, Ledee, Saenz, Hall, Izturis, and Martinez.
2006-07-25 15:53:16
219.   jasonungar05
Well, our other lineups have gotten us to 1-9 in our last 10 so who really cares.
2006-07-25 15:53:26
220.   JoeyP
Or Grits is just benching the veterans as some sort of punishment. Although, why Russ Martin? Didnt Hall just play on Saturday?
2006-07-25 15:54:17
221.   GoBears
208. Wow - I might just miss my first game of the season tonight.

OTOH, I might delude myself into thinking that it'll be Bizarro day, and this lineup of misfits will score 8 runs. The only odd thing is that Ethier is still in there, not Cruz. Maybe Little is thinking that AE is the only guy not slumping, so why break up his routine?

Or maybe Little just thought Hendrickson would pitch better with a Devil-Ray quality offense supporting him.

2006-07-25 15:55:40
222.   Blu2
What you have to remember about the players is than any investment at all, trades, minor league development, whatever, is totally gone the minute you spent it. In effect we have no money at all invested in a player. What we do have is a productive employee when he is producing, and a continuous money eating liability when he isn't. From what I have seen in the last year and a half of J D Drew is a once great player who, probably because of so many injuries, is aging prematurely. His body is actually 4 or 5 years older than it should be. If you can find anyone to take his contract off our hands, now is the time to do it. He is finished and sometime in the next year or two we're going to have to eat that contract. Better the Yankees do it. I would remind you of Driefort. Neither last year nor this has Drew produced commensurate with his salary. It would be incredibly foolish to bet that either of the next three years would be different. We just managed to wiggle out of one bad contract, let's do another.
2006-07-25 15:55:49
223.   King of the Hobos
219 I suppose that's true. It's just too bad we couldn't DL Drew/Nomar/someone and call up Robles to play LF and bat 3rd.
2006-07-25 15:56:22
224.   D4P
From CBS:

The slumping Los Angeles Dodgers, who acquired reliever Elmer Dessens from Kansas City on Tuesday, appear to have cooled in their pursuit of Milwaukee slugger Carlos Lee...Sources said the Dodgers...backed away when Brewers GM Doug Melvin asked for a package that included outfielder Andre Ethier and power-hitting third base prospect Andy LaRoche.

2006-07-25 15:56:23
225.   Jon Weisman

The Dodgers will be paying Perez's signing bonus. However, Kim Ng said on a conference call that the Royals are paying Dessens' entire contract.

In the end, it appears that the Dodgers will save $3 million (without Dessens' salary taking away from that). But don't hold me to that. Details are still becoming clear.

2006-07-25 15:56:36
226.   JoeyP
If you want to reason this out:

Hall is in there bc he's familiar catching Hendrickson.
Nomar and Drew might be legitmately hurt. Both are definitely slumping.
Aybar, he made an error last nite so he's back in the doghouse.

Not sure why Lofton is in there instead of Repko though? Or Ledee in there instead of Repko? Maybe Repko's still hurt too.

2006-07-25 15:57:13
227.   Paul Scott
I am very dissapointed in the opportunity being lost with tonight's lineup. If you are going to put together a comically bad lineup, you have to go all out. AE should not be in there and Izturis and Martinez need to be moved up to the 3 and 4 spots.
2006-07-25 15:58:10
228.   JoeyP
224. Lee for Ethier/LaRoche I'd probably do, but then again Carlos Lee can be signed as a free agent, so its best to keep the prospects and sign him when he's a FA.
2006-07-25 16:00:30
229.   Steve
This is a good lineup to have out there when the Mormons are sitting in the bleachers.
2006-07-25 16:00:32
230.   blue22
228 - Lee for Ethier/LaRoche I'd probably do

Just when I think I have you figured out...

2006-07-25 16:02:25
231.   MartinBillingsley31
Not sure why Lofton is in there instead of Repko though? Or Ledee in there instead of Repko? Maybe Repko's still hurt too.

We are facing a righthander.
Not that it advocates lofton and ledee.

With this lineup so weak, why not just give ethier the day off.
We're gonna lose, so give ethier the day off.

2006-07-25 16:02:39
232.   Linkmeister
205 Thanks, LAT. If that was a married name, then it might be the woman I knew. The "with Gene up till then" part would fit.
2006-07-25 16:02:48
233.   natepurcell
228 youre insane.
2006-07-25 16:03:54
234.   JoeyP
You think LaRoche and Ethier are better than Carlos Lee?
2006-07-25 16:04:42
235.   underdog
224 As much as I'd like to add Carlos Lee, for Ethier and LaRoche? No way. I'm really glad they backed away from that one. In fact, I'm picturing the Dodgers looking like Homer in that one Simpsons episode where he looks in on (the real) Flanders' bedroom while on a ladder and then backs away, on the ladder, all the way down the street, fully creeped out by the whole thing. That's about how the Dodgers' faces looked when the Brewers pitched them that one. As Joey notes above, he's a free agent after the season - so that is especially why I'd say no thanks to this one unless it was a "sign and trade" and even then...
2006-07-25 16:05:11
236.   Paul Scott
234 - it is clear that LaRoche and Ethier over the next 6 years (our control of them) are worth far far far more than Lee for 2 months.
2006-07-25 16:05:33
237.   underdog
I think Carlos Lee is having one of those "free agent years" that he may not top. Meanwhile, you give up your rookie of the year candidate and a potential future rookie of the year. I wouldn't trust it.
2006-07-25 16:06:25
238.   D4P
Oh yeah. And there was that weird music playing when Homer was backing up. Kinda freaked me out.
2006-07-25 16:07:21
239.   natepurcell
234 what paul said in 236. its just not worth it.
2006-07-25 16:07:33
240.   JoeyP
No one in the Dodgers position would trade Ethier/LaRoche for 2months of Carlos Lee.

If it was for 5 prime years of Lee, and through a trade was the only way to get him, I'd pull the trigger.

2006-07-25 16:07:36
241.   Blu2
Flanders might be telling the other GMs that anybody on the big club is available with the exception of Ethier, Martin, and Penny. At least that's what I'd tell them...
2006-07-25 16:08:03
242.   underdog
As for tonight's lineup, well, as someone noted above, a lot of guys we wish were in there are the ones who haven't done diddly over this 1 and 9 streak so it's not like they could do worse. Still, I wish Repko was in there and Drew, too, despite his slumping. Not as upset about Saenz over Nomar because Nomar's been pressing as of late and seriously needs a day off. (I wish we could put in Loney in these kinds of games though. Can we call him up on an ad hoc basis?)
2006-07-25 16:09:54
243.   Andrew Shimmin
225- Have you thought about putting that in an update to the post? It might save a lot of time for anybody coming to the party late.
2006-07-25 16:14:24
244.   JoeyP
Slow news day???

OP gets traded and Harold Reynolds gets fired!
Crazy lineup for tonite's game.

Today was plenty interesting.

2006-07-25 16:16:42
245.   Linkmeister
But the really important question is:

How was Jon's lunch?

2006-07-25 16:18:47
246.   GoBears
Nomar is 6-44 since the ASB. For a guy who relies so heavily on batting average to be productive, yeah, I'd say that's a slump. A day off is not a bad idea.

Repko came out of yesterday's game early, although it's hard to know if it was because he was in pain, or just because Little so enjoys the double-switch.

Speaking of Chan Ho (weren't we?) didja see that the Orioles just brought up Fernando Tatis? I thought he'd eaten his way out of baseball. Dodgers should have traded for him in time for tonight's game.

2006-07-25 16:21:06
247.   GoBears
244. Your threshold for "interesting" is very low. Which isn't an altogether bad quality to have.

I stopped caring about OP when he was finally punted out of the rotation. I stopped caring about or ever watching Baseball Tonight about 3 years ago.

2006-07-25 16:27:30
248.   NPB
Why not recall Kuo, stick him in center, and bat him cleanup? Might as well. Unbelievable.
2006-07-25 16:37:32
249.   OCDodgerfan
I'm heading out to the game in about an hour and a half, my second game of the season. (I will say that the Dodgers won the last game I attended.)

By the way, is it just me, or does Brian Giles look like an excellent suspect for someone on the Jason Grimsley HGH diet? Just a little rumor-mongering on a slow afternoon (at least, until more news comes out about Nomar's knee).

2006-07-25 16:40:33
250.   thinkingblue
No one in the Dodgers position would trade Ethier/LaRoche for 2months of Carlos Lee.

If it was for 5 prime years of Lee, and through a trade was the only way to get him, I'd pull the trigger

OK, now you've gone too far Joey. If we gave away LaRoche, who would be our next 3B? LaRoche, Kemp, Ethier> Lee-Kemp for the future.

Show/Hide Comments 251-300
2006-07-25 16:41:07
251.   underdog
Any word on why Repko isn't in tonight? Are they just slowly easing him back in? I'm going to assume he's not hurt again. As for Nomar, assume he just desperately needs a rest, has been tired and pressing, and tweaked himself last night. Don't think it's anything serious.
2006-07-25 16:44:38
252.   Daniel Zappala
This lineup is what you get when baseball has over-expanded itself. If anyone gets hurt, there just aren't good replacements available on any team. Contraction would do wonders for the sport.
2006-07-25 16:50:07
253.   MartinBillingsley31
LaRoche, Kemp, Ethier> Lee-Kemp for the future.

I agree.
And i would add (since we are talking about 3b, lf, cf) that if we gave up laroche with ethier for lee that we would have to sign some mediocre veteran 3b or stick with izturis.

so: ethier, kemp, laroche > lee, kemp, and some mediocre veteran at 3b.

2006-07-25 16:56:47
254.   JoeyP
I'd play Joel Guzman at 3b.
LaRoche has had a better year than Guzman, but its not like one is way way way better than other other. They are pretty similar.

However, Lee is a definite difference maker.

2006-07-25 16:56:54
255.   overkill94
251 et al

It has been the plan all along to have a platoon in center, it's not like Repko was supposed to come back and be the everyday centerfielder. He'll probably get some of the starts against righties in CF and will play the other outfield positions as well, but he's not exactly a full-time player.

2006-07-25 16:58:29
256.   thinkingblue

In fact, if you look at the minor league careers of both LaRoche and Wright, LaRoche is very comparable, and in fact if you add this year, maybe even better. Which would make an Ethier LaRoche for Lee trade just awful.

2006-07-25 16:59:10
257.   Johnson
225 OK, so this is how the numbers look to me.

Perez is owed: $4.5M (signing bonus), $~2.75M (remainder of this year), $7.75M (next year), and $1.5M (2008 buy-out). That comes up to $16.5M left to pay on the contract.

We have agreed to pay the signing bonus ($4.5M) and about $8M in cash, for a total of $12.5M. Dessens is free, as KC is paying his contract.

Looks to me like we've saved $4M, so long as all of the reported numbers (particularly the $8M cash to KC) are correct. Colletti is quoted as saying that we saved over $3M, so things look to be jiving pretty well.

2006-07-25 16:59:42
258.   thinkingblue

LaRoche has had a minor league career as good as, or even better than David Wright. I'm taking LaRoche.

2006-07-25 17:00:01
259.   trainwreck
We dump ODP and save 3 million, I like it.
2006-07-25 17:07:42
260.   Xeifrank
690AM radio says Nomar has a sprained knee ligament, out atleast 5 games probably not headed to the DL but it's a wait and see situation. vr, Xei
2006-07-25 17:09:22
261.   ssjames
260 This season is really starting to feel like deja vu all over again.
2006-07-25 17:09:31
262.   ToyCannon
LaRoche has a much better chance of having a Joe Crede career then David Wright. Don't get your hopes up to much on Laroche, he's a nice prospect but he's no lock to be an all-star.

Kenny Rogers gets started on his normal post all-star meltdown.

I think the subtraction of OP from the clubhouse and the saving of whatever money is worth two minor prospects who have a 10% chance of having a Dessens like career. Ned wouldn't have been working so hard to trade him if he didn't feel OP was a huge distraction in the clubhouse.

This lineup is terrible which mean we will probably win, baseball is that bizarre.

2006-07-25 17:11:39
263.   Bob Timmermann

Susan Saint James?

2006-07-25 17:12:16
264.   still bevens
260 Get me James Loney on the phone, stat
2006-07-25 17:13:19
265.   ToyCannon
The worse kind of injury, not severe enough to get a DL call and get some kind of roster relief but enough to be day to day so you never know when he's going to play.
2006-07-25 17:14:49
266.   JoeyP
Nomar needed a couple days off. Maybe those HBP's have taken a toll and he's just wearing down.
2006-07-25 17:15:11
267.   ToyCannon
Sure glad I gave my tickets away tonight. I'd be bummed to have to sit through the Dante heat and traffic and show up to see that dribble playing. Hendrickson must think he's the one who was traded to KC.
2006-07-25 17:17:20
268.   ToyCannon
It does except that if we do continue to fall off the cliff at least we can look forward to lineups of Ethier/Kemp/Loney/Aybar/Martin/Guzman and the like instead of what we endured last Aug/Sept.
2006-07-25 17:17:44
269.   Bob Timmermann
that dribble playing. Hendrickson must

Hendrickson was more of a post up guy I thought.

2006-07-25 17:19:39
270.   ToyCannon
And of course to top off the posting of the lousy lineup Cody Ross has popped two home runs in his 1st two ab's.
2006-07-25 17:19:59
271.   bobbygrich
BTW - Another difference between college and pro sports - Ben Howland gets his best recruit, 2007 No. 2 prospect, Kevin Love (son of former Laker Stan Love), who said that Howland has been recruiting him since he got the UCLA job and he was in 8th grade.

By difference, I mean that given time and the natural turnover in college, a good coach can turn a program around in a relatively short time while in pro sports with CBAs and guaranteed contracts and other barriers, it is harder to make changes.

Anyways, good for Coach Howland and UCLA.

2006-07-25 17:20:58
272.   JoeyP
If Cody can get his OBP up, I think he might have a future as a David Dellucci type of OF'er. Not really good enough to be an everyday player, but useful.
2006-07-25 17:21:25
273.   Jon Weisman
Hi guys. Sorry I've had to miss out - work was just too busy and I couldn't afford the time to participate in this.

225 I really wanted to get double confirmation of what I wrote before I put it up top as part of the main post, but just didn't have time. It should all be sorted out by the morning papers, so I might leave it alone until then.

2006-07-25 17:24:53
274.   Andrew Shimmin
I'd like to thank ToyCannon for doing his part to fight the weather. Dropping the Crede bomb on LaRoche is cold.
2006-07-25 17:26:50
275.   overkill94
274 Have you guys seen Crede's numbers this year?
2006-07-25 17:27:11
276.   Claire Malone-Evans
At least we didn't acquire Jimmy Gobble. The thought of all bad puns coming from Charlie Steiner would of been too much.
2006-07-25 17:27:39
277.   Andrew Shimmin
273- That makes sense. It's just the 106 comments trying to do the math based on too little information were, while unavoidable in real time, not really useful for latecomers. But, it's not that much of a problem.
2006-07-25 17:28:17
278.   confucius
When it comes to third base I hope Laroche is going to be the Dodgers guy over Guzman. I would be dissapointed if they traded Laroche before Guzman. I know the potential Guzman has, but he seems so undisciplined at the plate.
2006-07-25 17:31:57
279.   Andrew Shimmin
275- I knew he was better than he'd been, but not as good as his numbers show. Crede is 28. LaRoche is going to be 23 in August. If it takes five years before he'll be worth anything, then there's nothing to be done about it. But that's not something anybody can be looking forward to.
2006-07-25 17:33:56
280.   Mr Customer
I've been trying to feel good about Odie being gone for 5 hours, and I can't seem make it happen. In the end, I probably resonate more with 60 than I thought I ever would. I've been as disgusted as anyone with his performance, but I can't help but feel for the guy. I just stinks to go out like that.

Just my $0.02. Maybe I wanted to like the guy more than I thought I did.

2006-07-25 17:36:32
281.   Mr Customer
...or I'm just less of a jerk than usual.

could go either way...

2006-07-25 17:39:37
282.   ToyCannon
I got nothing against Crede, he's been a usefull 3b in the past and this year he's been even more but the hope of LaRoche becoming Wright is very farfetched. Not because LaRoche can't be a good 3b but because Wright is already one of the best players in baseball and I don't think LaRoche will ever be in that discussion.
2006-07-25 17:41:11
283.   King of the Hobos
Moore makes his second trade of the day, and third in the last two: Graffanino to Milwaukee for Jorge De La Rosa.
2006-07-25 17:45:46
284.   Andrew Shimmin
282- I agree that he doesn't belong in the same discussion as Wright (his minor league numbers are only comparable if one ignores age vs. level of competition, a fetish I didn't realize was spreading), and might not ever be an all-star, thanks to the NL East. Crede has been useful, but not good. If LaRoche has a Crede career, that'll be disappointing. Like if Loney has a J.T. Snow one.
2006-07-25 17:46:09
285.   Jon Weisman
Game thread is open.
2006-07-25 17:52:31
286.   skybluestoday
Re: 260

Oh, for goodness sake, why not just go ahead and put Nomar on the 2-week DL and bring up Loney? This is a little maddening. Unless they're worried about his # of plate appearances needed to qualify for the batting title, which seems kind of pointless considering the injury. Sigh.

2006-07-25 18:03:31
287.   Blu2
286 I think he has plate appearances tied to his paycheck,too, which is a lot more relevant. But I don't really think he's thinking about it, I think it is the typical athlete 'I can play through pain' syndrome. I agree, I'd rather DL him, we can use the roster spot right now. He has nothing left to prove.

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