I've never noticed that JD Drew's voice sounding like he had a lot of phlegm stuck in it.

I have no independent recollection of J.D. Drew's voice.

Somehow, I see what is happening in Boston and hearing the Boss saying "Excellent."

I also think that those early Simpsons episodes that featured Mr. Burns yes men being very similar to what goes on in Tampa during one Goerge's meetings.

Who cares what you give up?

Hes a hall of famer power hitter in his prime. he instantly makes the dodgers the favorites in the west and they got enough prospects to deal

Phlegm, to Hippocrates, was one of the four humours, along with blood, black bile and yellow bile. Each humor had a personality type associated with it, and some of those metaphors have survived the advance of medicine past this concept. In addition to phlegmatic, a person can be "sanguine," "choleric," or "melancholic" (black + bile in Greek).

From Wikipedia:

Phlegmatic: A phlegmatic person is calm and unemotional. Phlegmatic means pertaining to phlegm, corresponds to the season of winter (wet and cold), and connotes the element of water.

"While phlegmatics are generally self-content and kind, their shy personality can often inhibit enthusiasm in others and make themselves lazy and resistant to change. They are very consistent, relaxed, and observant, making them good administrators and diplomats. Like the sanguine personality, the phlegmatic has many friends. But the phlegmatic is more reliable and compassionate; these characteristics typically make the phlegmatic a more dependable friend."

Which is exactly the way I looked at J.D. Boring but dependable. Dependable at a high level. Jon's right -- the average fan thought Drew was miserable in the clutch, when in fact he was our best clutch player game in, game out. Even from the standpoint of our season-- his best month was September, and you can't get clutchier than that.

3 I used to think like that too, but then I came to see that it is way too expensive to run a ballclub that way. Sure, Manny is just one player and I would love to see him in a Dodger uniform this spring, but he is just one injury short of being a $20 million cheerleader. Just my concerns.

Good article, Jon.

his best month was September, and you can't get clutchier than that

Ahem (clears phlegm in throat). What about October...?

Steve Phillips on Sportscenter (I know my comment should stop there) reported that Drew and Boras were going to be investigated by MLB because they felt Boras may have had inside info from Boston before Drew opted out.

3
On the plus side of in his prime. With four years attached at 20 mil. per.

8 WHAT? WHAT?
Are you saying that Boras and an MLB GM were involved in tampering and that there was no chance that Drew was going to take a paycut?
What next? Pete Rose investigated for gambling?

On that note:
Los Angeles GM Ned Colletti said the Dodgers had not filed tampering charges against any club. However, he did not rule out the possibility that Los Angeles would in the future.

http://tinyurl.com/y2onac

Drew's contract was an engraved invitation to tampering.

12
I believe they just used intaglio.

Can you use intaglio on glossy paper...?

14
If you believe it can be done, it will be done.

7 Okay, okay. I tend to overlook the post-season. The regular season is where the real baseball is played.

October baseball is a fun tournament, high-profile, and career-making for certain players. It's also played in poor weather, with east coast games starting 90 minutes later than they're supposed to, with managers essentially using the same 5-6 pitchers to the point of breakdown, and GMs dealing with the ridiculous situation of not being able to replace injured players. It's also when emotions heavily influence performance (the best recent example being the Dodgers' complete offensive collapse after the double-play at the plate. They avoid that play -- even if they don't score -- and it's a different series).

For those and many other reasons, the best team rarely "wins it all." The best players don't always play their best. It's a crapshoot, like Billy says.

15. What if you don't believe it can be done? Will it still be done just to prove me wrong?

17
Only out of spite.

Gammons just said on the radio that he does not think that the Dodger's scouting staff will sign off on trading either Loney or Kemp with some pitchers for Manny Ramirez.

Gammons says that the Dodger's scouts are very powerful within the organization.

5 - I just don't see how money can be a huge issue with a team like the Dodgers, who drew more than 3.7 million fans last season and hosted an NLDS game. Manny is who he is, a $20-million-a-year player who's worth every penny at the plate. In a market where Gary Matthews and Juan Pierre are making roughly $10 million a year, quite frankly, Manny is a bit of a bargain (if you can actually use that term in this situation). I'm definitely on board if the Dodgers can make it happen.

8. Just thinking out loud, could Ned be so machiavelic, to blackmail Theo in to a deal for Manny???(based on the tampering, that actually would be impossible to prove), wishfull thinking.

19
With great power, comes great responsibility.

"Contracts are no longer made by a rational process of private discussion; they are made by a process of blackmail and intimidation, and they are executed in the same manner."

Paraphrase of H.L. Mencken

21 Why stop there? Maybe the whole aria about Drew's breaking his word was an act. Maybe Boras came to Colletti in September with a scheme that would a) Get Drew a bigger contract and b) Bring Manny to LA for less than he's really worth.

"Scott, it's so crazy, it just might work!"

Manny for a dozen Dodger Dogs and parking pass. Get it done!

19-Well we already knew that. Remember the octogenerian who insisted, to a room full of Dodger brass that had no idea who the Texas League Player of the Year was, that the Dodgers should trade for Ethier?

I guess helping a team win wasn't entertaining enough for the L.A. folk.

If only Drew knew how to make balloon animals...

22 - Spider-Man is scouting director? Cool!
"Plus fastball, plus-plus webslinging speed with plus accuracy, needs third pitch."

27. I guess he's gonna have to learn origami to apeace Sox fans!!

29
Is that you, Bluebleeder...?

20
I'm not saying money would be a problem, just that it isn't a sustainable or wise way (in my opinion) to build a franchise. I see your point about him being a bargain, and I would love to have him on the team, but I don't like the idea of "get Manny at any cost."

28 Are you kidding? Spidey throws a mean knuckler when he needs to... in fact, I wouldn't mind signing him as the roving minor league instructor down there in Tampa...

29 I'm guessing he could start with some baserunning drills. ;)

Jon asked for silly speculations on who to trade for Manny, so here goes:

Not Loney. Not Broxton. Not Kuo. Maybe Kemp, I like his potential but he could be a Billy Ashley too. If the Sox add Clements, we can consider Billz in the deal.

An Eithier, Werth, Biemel, Hall, Dessens (please take him!), Kemp combination is what I would want to consider. Not sure if that is enough for the Sox if they really think they can get Linebrink, Peavy, and/or Adrian Gonzalez from the Pads. But would Manny go there? He can veto any trade.

If Boston wants to dump Clements contract, we could consider Billz in the package. I think Clements can do well in a pitcher's park.

30. I'm an occasional poster from Ensenada

This new thread ruined the dramatic value of my Pierre nickname suggestion...

OBP Juan Kenobi

Maybe Kemp, I like his potential but he could be a Billy Ashley too. If the Sox add Clements, we can consider Billz in the deal.

kemp did his mashing inAAA at age 21. ashley did it at like age 25.

and if they want us to take clements, i certainly wouldnt give them billingsley.

37

I am concerned about Kemp's inability to hit off speed, like Ashley. In the bigs, you can't strike out as much as those kind of guys. That's where I think the Cubs blew it on Soriano and why I don't want Dunn. Of course, I'm just a fan.

As far as Billz goes, I want to keep him but would part with him to get Manny if we got a starter in return. He isn't a power pitcher like Kuo so I'd sooner see him go than Kuo. Of course Kuo has one whole win in the bigs so what do I know. Merely speculation is all.

How do they project Capuano or D. Bush in the future brewers rotation???, being a small budget team, are they tradeable???

36

Classic OBP Juan Kenobi is hillarious.

Jon, I really liked the phrase "frothy salaries". Great depiction of what is happening right now.

I can't think of a trade in these terms. The real trades hurt even while they're helping. I mean, yeah, why not Beimel for Manny, straight up?

Realistically, Manny will cost us two blue chip prospects, plus maybe a Dessens-level player. We would have to agree to his two option years and/or up his base salary to get him to waive the no-trade clause.

And at that price, I personally think it's worth it. If we aren't interested in Manny, why bother with any of our other veterans? Trade Lowe, Penny, Kent, Nomar. Don't sign Schmidt or Zito. Stockpile draft choices and AA studs. Aim for the stars, in 2010.

Or, add a player like Manny now, and by also adding Schmidt or perhaps Maddux, the Dodgers go into 2007 as the NL's strongest team. From the list of Broxton, Loney, Kemp, LaRoche, Ethier, Billingsley, Betemit and Kuo, I think we can afford to sacrifice two (one everyday, one pitcher) and still see a bright future. (My untouchables are Billz, Kuo and LaRoche, but I can see arguing for and against others.)

He isn't a power pitcher like Kuo so I'd sooner see him go than Kuo.

how is billingsley not a power pitcher?

Matt Kemp and Billy Ashley are not comparable in any way shape, or form. For one thing, Billy Ashley never hit over .300 anywhere at sea level, even in the minors. Kemp's last four minor league batting lines read .368/.327/.306/.351.

Kemp has progressed through the minors at a much faster rate and reached the majors at a younger age. Kemp is an athletic specimen; Ashley was a plodder. I could go on, but let's just say that mentioning them in the same breath does Kemp a disservice.

so is the deadline to offer arbitration 12PM ET tonight? or...when?

i mean, 12AM ET

In this interview, I don't think J.D. Drew did anything to change the impression that he is bland. But his "favorite ballpark" looks more interesting now.

http://tinyurl.com/y4z2uh

44

just to add to what eric is saying, just because kemp looked overmatched in the majors at age 21, doesnt make him a liability for life. He was 21!!! most 21 yr olds are playing college ball. He was significantly more advanced then his peers and that should be taken into serious consideration when evaluating matt kemp.

43 I saw Bills touch 97 on the gun in Vegas, but I don't recall him breaking 93/94 up here. Is the Vegas gun considered fast?

I recall Billingsley hitting 95/96 with the Dodgers, though obviously not consistently. 92/93 would probably be on the borderline of what's considered a power pitcher. His K rate in the minors screams "power pitcher," while his K rate in the majors screams "finesse pitcher." I guess the jury's still out.

I guess you can tell it's Hot Stove time when we begin debating semantics like who's a power pitcher and who isn't.

Aren't the Sox looking for a second baseman? Surely Epstein doesn't plan to go into 2007 with Alex Cora at 2B every day. I'd give them Kent, LaRoche, and a low minors pitching prospect throw-in (i.e. not Kershaw). That sound fair?

If they don't want LaRoche, I'd consider the alternative of giving them Kemp or even Ethier, but not any of our young pitchers with major league experience such as Billingsley, Kuo, or Broxton.

Bills seems to have an inability to put anyone away with his speed. Perhaps not enough movement on the fastball but hitters seem to fould him off all day. His best pitch (especially towards the end of the year) seemed to be that 12 to 6 curveball. When he threw that with control he was golden.

Kemp and Billingsley (and Elbert, but he's been conspicuously absent in prospect/trade talk) are untouchables in a Manny trade, IMO.

If Schmidt ends up in LA, I'd offer up Penny, Loney, and one of Betemit/LaRoche. Maybe LA can get some cash in that deal too.

I saw Bills touch 97 on the gun in Vegas, but I don't recall him breaking 93/94 up here. Is the Vegas gun considered fast?

i remember specifically in the game in florida he was touching 96/97. I think it had to do the the humidity and making it easier to loosen up his arms. In his first game in san diego he was touching 96. He is mostly 91-94 though with two power breaking balls and that nice cutter he developed up here.

Year in, year out we hear those who say, keep the prospects, don't throw away the future. Year in, year out we sit at home with those prospects, watching other teams advance in the playoffs. At some point you gotta say the future is now. Which recent prospects that we have hung onto have taken the Dodgers into the world series? Deal those prospect for Ramirez for a REAL world series chance now.

Premium Dodger prospects, ranked in the order that I'd like to see them traded:

1. Ethier
2. Broxton
3. Loney
4. Kershaw
5. Elbert
6. Billingsley
7. Kemp
8. Martin

(Not that I'd really like to see any of them traded.)

billingsleys k rate at each stop in the minors
2003 Odgen: 10.33
2004 Vero: 10.86
2004 Jax: 9.99
2005 Jax: 9.99
2006 Vegas: 9.93

i think those are power numbers.

55 Sigh... I don't even know where to begin.

Konerko for Shaw. That's all I'm going to say.

56

You realize you have a ton of talent when you get the #2 prospect on that list, it just hurts your stomach to think about them being traded.

Year in and year out we sit home and watch other teams advance with lots of silly expensive free agents and garbage like Julio Lugo.

55

blasphemer!

I didn't write that correctly. I don't care.

44, 48

My point on Kemp is not that he doesn't have a tremendous upside (he absolutely does), just that we might not have the power bat from within that we want and that Manny is that guy. We thought we developed Billy Ashely to the point where he would succeed at the major league level. Kemp is a five tool guy with a higher OBP and younger than Ashley, my point is we can wait on him like other prospects in the past or get a power bat that is proven to put it together now.

My personal choice based on my own eyesight would be to keep Loney rather than Kemp. Seems the BoSox like both. Not the power guy (yet?) but he drives the ball and is a great glove around the bag even though he'll likely be a projected outfielder.

This could muddle the waters but would we all be willing to have traded Loney or Kemp for Wells if we would be guaranteed a trip to the WS last year?

Billz isn't a power pitcher (yet?) due to his strike out ratio last year. He didn't put guys away with two strikes, got into a lot of long innings with deep counts on a lot of batters. His arm also came up sore and he wasn't the same pitcher he was after the lay off. I recall velocity in the low 90s. Compared to Kuo (when he isn't having control issues), I would lean toward Kuo. But again, I am a fan not a GM.

Also, I guess I would point out that Russell Martin and James Loney advanced further in the playoffs this year than Manny Ramirez did.

56 Did you intentionally leave LaRoche off?

I didn't write that correctly

I didn't think so

65 No I did not. Put him in between Kershaw and Elbert.

Billz isn't a power pitcher (yet?) due to his strike out ratio last year.

look at his minor league krate. first year in the majors never tells the whole story.

He didn't put guys away with two strikes, got into a lot of long innings with deep counts on a lot of batters.

again, you can attribute that to being 21 and in the majors. he will learn how to harness and use his stuff better and gain more knowledge of the hitters as he pitches more big league innings.

His arm also came up sore and he wasn't the same pitcher he was after the lay off.

that is false. he had a strained oblique musicle. nothing was wrong with his arm.

55 When was the last time we actually had good prospects? I'll give you a hint, before the current crop, the last good player we drafted and kept was LoDuca.

Does Manny give us a world series chance? His lack of defense makes him about as valuable as J.D. Drew according to WARP, he's only had one season over eight wins. Without any noticable improvements anywhere else on the field, along with likely declines from Nomar and Kent, the Mannified 2007 Dodgers aren't much better than the 2006 Dodgers.

to add to 68.

How excited was everyone when Chad went out in the playoffs in relief and dominated the mets? Seriously, you want to trade that!!?

if he goes, i go. there... i said it.

Trading Matt Kemp would be a huge mistake. We are so desperate for power we have to spend 20 mill a year to get it. In my opinion, Kemp will hit 30-40 a year in due time.

Just to continue to beat the drum- if SF gets Burrell for Randy Winn and a PTBNL and we give up the farm for Manny- I'll just go home and bite my pillow!

71 Agreed. The only guys that should be labelled untouchable right now are Kemp and Billingsley. Maybe Martin due to the extreme lack of catching talent in the organization.

The world will have turned upside down the day a National League team trades for Manny Ramirez.

Obviously, the hang-on-to-prospect strategy has not worked for two decades.

it's not like the prospects have been this strong for the last 20 years.

Obviously, the hang-on-to-prospect strategy has not worked for two decades

How has the "sign/trade for high-priced superstars" strategy worked out...?

69

Has someone here posted a comprehensive statistical and scouting review of Manny's defense? Sorry to ask. Just haven't seen it. Would love to know if he's really that bad.

75 - I can see taking that position pre-2006, but with the impact that many young players made just last year, how can you not be excited about them?

Stuff like this is why I'm so glad Kemp got called up midseason, even though he wasn't ready. It will vastly reduce the pressure on Colletti to trade him. Now your average Dodger fan who doesn't follow the minor leagues knows who Kemp is, instead of him being just a name on a piece of paper. They got excited when he went on his HR binge and they heard his manager compare him to Joe DiMaggio.

Because of that, Kemp's as untouchable in the eyes of the average fan as he is among our community here. Even your most reactionary, short-sighted fan will understand if Colletti refuses to trade him for Ramirez. And since Colletti seems big on making trades that have more PR value than baseball value (see: Lugo), I think Kemp's callup this year was really important to the future of the franchise.

75 That's because all of our "prospects" sucked except the ones we traded.

Useful (and I'll be generous here) major leaguers drafted by the Dodgers prior to Logan White from 1993 on:

Paul Konerko
Alex Cora
Ted Lilly
Scott Proctor
David Ross
Shane Victorino

Six guys in 10 years. Granted, this doesn't include latin talent, but the hold on to prospects model doesn't work when you get nothing in four out of 10 drafts. Now that the Dodgers actually have prospects, let's hold on to them.

75 Right. Let's see, in the last two decades....

That Piazza guy really sucked. We should have traded him a lot sooner.

Those 5 Rookies of the Year in a row were sure useless.

Konerko and Wetteland... boy am I glad we got rid of those losers.

It's actually the last 10 years that the hanging onto prospects strategy hasn't worked. And that's because we never had any prospects to hang on to. Now we do.

82 Also, Pedro and Ramon Martinez were really terrible.

83 I would think the death spiral we went into after trading possibly the best rookie class ever (Pedro and Piazza) would be reason enough to hold on to prodpects.

81 I guess you'd have to count Beltre among the prospects "held onto" because his name was floated frequently from '00 to '04. Still I don't think there's much to learn from that. Circa '99 we should have held on to him and Konerko.

Why is it widely thought that only a package of blue chippers will get Ramirez? Why not a package centered around Penny? Brad Penny NL all-star starting pitcher, the guy who blew away AROD, ORtiz and Suzuki(in no particular order.) Maybe a Penny,Hall and Beimel gets it done. If the Padres are truely offering Both Peavy and Adrian Gonzalez then let them do it.

85 Right, I had to avoid Latin talent since there's no convient list of them.

86 The Red Sox are the last organization that would want Hall and Beimel.

There's got to be some balance between prospects and established players. You can win on either extreme (ask the Marlins and Yankees) but it becomes a tedious exercise. Just like there needs to be a balance between winning now and winning in the future.

The problem with trading for Manny is that we have to give up Ethier or Kemp (because one of them will be blocked). I think both have shown enough promise that they should be given the chance to succeed in the Ravine.

At this point, I'm rather happy with the Dodgers line up. I wouldn't have resigned Nomar, but his willingness/ability(?) to play positions other than first can be useful. If there's anyone worth moving right now, I think it's Kent (but I've never been a big mark for him).

I think the question of whether the Dodgers should trade for Manny Ramirez is answered when you figure out how to replace J.D. Drew's production (.900 OPS) in the lineup.

If Martin, Ethier, Kemp, or Loney can put up that number, then the lineup will be just as good as it was last year. If the lineup's production is equal to last year's, then I'd say don't overpay for Manny, and spend his money overpaying for starting pitching. Get Schmidt and re-sign Maddux.

The only way I'd trade for Manny is if the Sox took an aging veteran (Kent or Penny) and no more than one premium prospect off our hands.

I think the best hope the Dodgers have next season comes from the kids progressing. While I'd normally expect players that young to improve, I don't know if Martin, Ethier, or Loney will see any performance increase since they all far exceeded expectations. If they do, great, but I won't hold my breath.

88 How do you figure? They need pitching and a catcher.

To chime in on Billz speed:
I went to the one game the Dodgers won after the all star break and Billz was pitching 97 and touched 98 once or twice in the 7th inning!

92 Yeah, but they'd want ones that aren't useless trash. The Red Sox are a team that can recognize that Beimel won't repeat 2006.

Now the Orioles on the other hand...

When did Beimel come back, anyway?

Listening to all this, I begin to worry that we really aren't interested in Manny; it's all a smoke-screen while Coletti irons out the details with Sammy.

Now where did I put that Russian revolver?

94- What do you mean wont repeat 2006? Wouldn't 2006 be an indicater that he vastly improved? Maybe playing on a playoff caliber team gave him the motivation to pitch better, but I guess since theres no motivational stat he is useless garbarge. And why is Hall useless trash? Though Beimel isn't officialy on the 07 roster doesn't mean Colletti wont offer arbitration.

95
Sammy Sosa. That would be hilarious.

ZIPs projects Ethier to be the highest OPSing Dodger in 2007, so maybe it'd be a good idea to hold onto him. Also, LaRoche projects to have a higher OPS than both Loney and Betemit. Lastly, does Tydus Meadows ever expect to see the majors?

3.85 K/9
1.43 K/BB
.9 HR/9

Thinking Beimel's not going to escape with a sub-4 ERA again with those numbers.

This is why Hall is useless: .265/.301/.384.

99- Hall makes a great BackUp catcher though.
as Backup .368/.383/.439

"Thinking Beimel's not going to escape with a sub-4 ERA again with those numbers."

Is what?

I say we trade Hall to the Blue Jays. Greg Zaun is currently their only catcher.

I think it was a big fabricated story that JP Ricciardi worked under Billy Beane.

47 - JD Drew must have made an impression on Takashi Saito:

Favorite Meal: "I don't know, that's a tough ... I have a bunch of 'em ... probably pizza now. I eat a lot of pizza."

55 et al - Unless 2006 was just a figment of Tommy Westphal's autistic imagination, the Dodgers made the playoffs thanks in large part to prospects (as well as players acquired for traded prospects).

There obviously is a good deal to be made for Manny and a bad deal to be made for him. Making universal judgments about what should be done with prospects doesn't have any meaning.

Only one team can win the World Series. The fact that the Dodgers made the final eight, with sub-27-year-olds in two starting pitching slots, catcher, third base, and left field among other places, is not a sign that youth isn't moving the Dodgers forward.

99, 100
Hall will likely be gone, I don't see us offering him arbitration so he will go free agent, no?

Same with Biemel although we might offer him arbitration or he also goes free agent, no?

101 I'd take Jason Phillips before Toby Hall, mainly because Phillips costs less.

100 I'm thinking Beimel's not going to escape with a sub-4 ERA again with those numbers.

What we need to do is go out and sign a quality relief pitcher. Someone like Don Stanhouse. That's the way to go.

105

I'd take Jason Phillips before Toby Hall, mainly because Phillips costs less.

But we already have Nomar to play first base!

103

Jon - True, we need a combination of veterans and youngsters. And sometimes you need to give up a young kid to get a veteran. But the prevailing sentiments here seems to be, give up no prospects -- hang on to them all. I'm not blaming the youngsters, but when we needed them to come through in the playoffs -- Eithier, Kemp, Loney -- they were nowhere to be heard. Perhaps, just perhaps, if they were veterans who had been through the pressure cooker, we might have advanced further along.

103

Loney absolutely came through in game 3, his only start, he looked like a veteran.

Eithier was on the bench and hit a bullet (double play)as a pinch hitter.

Kemp didn't make the playoff roster.

109 Weren't they either, chillin' at home, or on the bench? Or did we lose because Ethier went 0 for 1?

Oops, I meant I was responding to 109, not 103.

I think the "prospects" vs. "veterans" discussion, if I can reduce to that, is in some ways reflective of the the conflict that many fans have with baseball as it is structured today. Many of us remember the days when the Dodgers built from within--eight years of Garvey-Lopes-Russell-Cey, etc.--and long for that again, as players who come up through your system somehow feel like truer members of the team than those acquired via trade, or free agents. While we may LIKE a Furcal or a Nomar, we all LOVE Russell Martin, and want to fall in love with Kemp, Loney, LaRoche, etc. Who wouldn't love a team full of homegrown Dodgers that stays together for a decade? This kind of thinking is part of the mythology of baseball (ironically, having developed largely because players were unable move from team to team before the 1970s.)

I think the conflict arises because in this age of parity, it is really hard to figure out how to build a winning team (the 83-win Cardinals are World Champions????), and as a result, few teams are confident enough to have the patience to build long-term. If you are Ned Colleti, do you say, "hey, we won 88 games last year, the only player we lost was Drew, and with expected improvement from Kemp, Ethier, Martin, Billingsley, Broxton, Kuo and Loney, we should make-up for JD's loss and more, and expect to win 90-95 games," or do you think that baseball has become so unpredictable that the only way to push an 88-win team into a championship team is to shoot the moon and acquire vets like Manny Ramirez, Jason Schmidt, etc.? Obviously, the best teams are able to combine the two strategies, but I do think it makes for an interesting discussion on how to build a team in this day and age. Look at all the controversy when Ned traded Guzman and Navarro last year in a "win now" mentality.

Either Kemp and Loney didn't get to play. Instead, pricey free agent veterans like Jeff Kent and JD Drew were running us out of Game 1, while not to be condoned rookie presence Russell Martin was standing on second base.

109 "I'm not blaming the youngsters, but when we needed them to come through in the playoffs -- Eithier, Kemp, Loney -- they were nowhere to be heard."

I'm trying to figure out a way to respond to that statement without breaking all of Jon's rules. I'll get back to you on that as soon as my head finishes exploding.

This just in from ESPN.com

"The Dodgers signed lefty reliever Ray King today to a two-year contract with performance incentives and a team option for a third year. With a bench anchored by hitting specialist Olemeda Saenz and a bullpen including the ever expanding youngster Jonathan Broxton, the Dodgers become the first team in baseball to establish a calorie cap."

Of all the things I have read here my hands down favorite is where the scouting department and Logan White have decision making power regarding trades.

I want to see great defense and solid offense throughout the lineup. One big bopper does not an offense make but one weak link in the defense does wreck a defense.

With Pierre leading off do the Dodgers really need Furcal? I would rather see AROD as the power hitter playing shortstop.

Boston needs a shortstop, Yanks want a right handed first baseman to go with Giambi and who knows, maybe Manny can play first or DH and let Giambi play first.

Furcal to Sox, Manny to Yanks, AROD to Dodgers. Those would be the main pieces of the trade and if the Dodgers were to have to antiup additional players then choose from:
Betemit
Penny
Kent
Tomko
Hendrickson

Keep the kids.
The rotation: Billingsley, Kuo, Lowe, Wolf, Maddux with Elbert ready to help out by June and Maloan no later than 2008.

Brad Penny and Jumbo Diaz want you to know they feel left out.

117 A-Rod is absolutely not going anywhere, and even if he did, he's got the same opt-out clause Drew does.

With Pierre leading off do the Dodgers really need Furcal?

With Furcal leading off did the Dodgers really need Pierre?

But the prevailing sentiments here seems to be, give up no prospects -- hang on to them all.

Personally, I fear who Ned would trade them for. Suppose Manny falls through. Does he look for someone like Burrell or Dunn, or does he go with Jeff Francoeur?

I'm not blaming the youngsters, but when we needed them to come through in the playoffs -- Eithier, Kemp, Loney -- they were nowhere to be heard.

Here's the combined numbers of those three in the postseason:

3 for 5, .600/.667/.600, 3 RBI
Kemp did not play, Ethier had one AB, Loney played one game and got 4 AB. They weren't the problem, Grady was.

Perhaps, just perhaps, if they were veterans who had been through the pressure cooker, we might have advanced further along.

Well, in the sense that they could have gotten playing time sure, but that's Grady's fault. Nomar was clearly banged up, and Loney would have been more productive. Kenny Lofton had the most experience in the postseason of anyone and he sucked.

113 I don't think anyone here is looking to check a box next to 'prospects' or 'veterans.' It's all about talent evaluation with the prospects and performance per $ for veterans. So when your cupboard is full of Joe Thurstons you look outside the organization. When the FA market is gone berserk you sit one out.

My problem with the local fans is they scream bloody murder when the homegrown guys leave- but rarely bat an eye when the prospects are dealt. My friends and family are clamoring for Manny at all costs. The same people called Konerko a washout after 50 Dodger ab's. To that point I'll agree with Eric that Kemp's early promo helped earn him near untouchable status. If Guzman would have put one in the parking lot in the freeway series who knows if he'd still be here.

116 Crap. Just to compare King to those Beimel stats I put out earlier:

4.63 K/9
1.10 K/BB
1.21 HR/9

The home runs should go down a little, moving from Coors, but if King as a successful year, it won't be through his own doing.

Fortunately, you can say "Hey-Hey-Hey!" everytime he comes into the game for a guaranteed laugh.

116 - haha . . . please tell me we didn't really sign Ray King

118
Yeah, forgot about Penny's belly.

117
Furcal isn't getting traded. Period.

123 - Coors was a pitchers' park this year.

Remember when the Dodgers had to sweep the Astros in the final three games of the season to force a one game playoff with those same astros?

I was hoping the rookie would start that game for the Dodgers, namely Fernando. But instead, the Dodgers played it safe and started the veteran.

The Astros played a few more games after that and the Dodgers did not.

Ken Gurnick's response on the Dodger website to a question about Juan Pierre's signing is one of the hackiest examples of Orwellian double-speak that may ever be written. How embarrassing.

126 Didn't it make it back to a hitters park by the end of the year? I don't have the final park factors.

I guess Beimel's return is not guaranteed?

Uhhh..... Ray King is not a Dodger. That was a joke. A bad joke, but I don't know any good ones.

Biemel is looking more forgiven. If not, there is Matt White around now.

128
Yeah, I noticed that the other day. This part was great:

Considering that this general manager improved the club 16 wins in one season after taking over barely a year ago

The King thing is a joke right? I don't see it anywhere. Oh, and he sucks.

130 Not as long as there are bars in Pittsburgh, I guess.

Maybe we are trading Hendrickson?

Im grasping at straws here.

119 & 125 If you are so sure that Furcal and AROD will not be traded then I will add to that that Manny won't either.

I feel much better now. Just knowing that Manny will stay a RedSox leaves me with much peace.

How do I know this? Well, like you, because I just said so.

The Rockies' park factors, accoring to B-R, were 107 for pitchers and hitters this year. While favoring hitters, they're also the first ones in the history of the Rockies to be lower than 110.

If they trade Ethier, he'll become the next Konerko.

I heard that Werth hit balls recently, does anybody know how he felt afterwards? Any other info? Not that he can replace Drew, but I think he's likely to be more valuable than Pierre.

And is Marlon Anderson FA, or under contract for another year?

To be honest, I'd rather have one of Zito or Schmidt over Manny at that price. Let him hit in Petco and have fun petroling that outfield, and let's trade for somebody a step below Manny.

131 - boo, creepy foot doctor

I'm a little biased on the Manny question. He was my favorite player when he arrived with the Indians and continues to be one of the top players I love to watch hit a baseball. I probably more then anyone would like him to man LF for us. All in all I think it would be very cool if the RedSox end up with JD and we end up with Manny.

Just to raise a ruckus on DT, Ned should trade Furcal even up for Manny and then sign Lugo to be our SS. Ned did not trade for Lugo because of PR reasons. He made the deal because he thought he was getting an infielder who could post a plus 800 OPS and help him win a pennant. The idea that Ned does anything for PR purposes when it comes to player movement is off base. It turned into a terrible deal just as the simple trade for Marlon turned into the best Sept deal in Dodger history. Bad Luck, Good Luck.

136
No offense dude, but I can't imagine a scenario where we trade Furcal. Arod is the Yankees problem, I just don't think we'd give up Furcal for anybody right now. He was our MVP. He sure made that 13 million a year look like a good contract. I'd sign him to an extension if he'd consider one right now.

And I don't want to see him traded because I truly enjoy his after game interviews on FSN, he answers every question with "Yeah, well..." then gets a really good variation of "beisball been berry, berry good to me" going before he says "we just try to win the game."

139
creepy foot doctor? huh?

140 If it makes you feel any better, I'd do that in a heart beat if Lugo got less money than Furcal.

138 "petroling" was a typo and not intended as some sort of oil-industry-haliburton-link ... I think that should be patroling.

anyone know the arbitration deadline?

He made the deal because he thought he was getting an infielder who could post a plus 800 OPS and help him win a pennant

I doubt Ned cares much about OPS. I think Ned liked the fact that Lugo was hitting over .300 at the time, and joined the team with a whopping (by Dodger standards) 12 HRs.

Maybe playing on a playoff caliber team gave him the motivation to pitch better
It didn't give him the motivation to avoid the New York nightlife. That's why he was on a playoff team but didn't pitch in the playoffs.

better question, will we know tonight whether dodgers offer arbitration to guys such as maddux, lugo and drew?

anyone know the arbitration deadline?

Ask natepurc..., oh, never mind.

142 - reference to a Red Stripe ad.

That and the thought of adding Ray King really scared me. My dad always wondered why Bobby Cox brought him in.

Funny thing, King was latter used, along with Jason Marquis and Adam Wainwright, to trade for JD Drew and Eli Marrero.

The only thing I like about Ray King is that when he exits a game, I get to say "Ray King leaves"

Here's the ad if you're interested.

http://tinyurl.com/p9cyg

And is Marlon Anderson FA, or under contract for another year?
Under contract for one more year. I'm surprised that his name doesn't come up more here. I completely understand that his time with the Dodgers doesn't mesh at all with the rest of his career but he sure looked great for that time. Isn't it possible that he will keep playing like that? I know most here will say "no". I don't mind the idea of a "platoon" of him and Ethier (meaning whoever proves themselves gets more playing time).

153

Marlon Anderson is a great utility player. Lets just leave him there.

148
Along with that stuff, what progress are we making on Saito? Maddux?

By the way, if we signed Lugo and somehow got Manny for prospect(s) and maybe a SP (Penny?), we would have a payroll in the $110-$120 mil range. I wonder if that is really feasible. If the Cubs can do it, I think we could.

155 I suspect whether Maddux and Gagne return depends on whether they control Boras or Boras controls them.

156 To what extent does anyone control Boras?

I mean this honestly, not to be snotty. Why would anyone be Boras's client if they didn't want to do business the way that Boras does business?

I think I'm starting to get the picture. Every move Colletti ever made was a bad one. Every move Colletti will make will be a bad one. Whoever is available to trade for is not worth it. Do nothing. Keep the farm intact. Nothing pleases you. You have no plans, but lots of whining and criticism. A world series appearance will be certain when each and every prospect turns into a superstar.

158 I think that's a 4 and a 6 violation. Which post are you addressing there?

Not every move, but quite a few. Baez was a "proven veteran" who was a bust. Hendrickson was a bust. Lugo was a bust. Carter was a bust. Seo was a bust (and a trade that almost everyone here liked).

Nomar was good, Anderson was good (at least for that month). Furcal was great.

159 Don't forget 3.

Actually, I would like to retract my post #161, which, in hindsight, is itself a rule number 3 violation. I apologize.

158 - That is a big exaggeration of what people are saying.

160
Come on Marty, play fair. Saito, Beimel, Sele, R Martinez, and Betemit for his power all help tip the scales. If you're going to grade, grade them all. I don't see how Marlon Anderson does not get an A+ for what he did in such a short amount of time.

158
Your comment is uncalled for. If you don't like the content of DT then maybe some other website would better serve your Dodger fix.

164 One reason Anderson might not get an A+ is that we have no idea what we gave up yet. This is the problem with doing definitive evaluations of a guy who's been GM for a year.

164 I shouldn't inject myself into these arguments since I never can remember all the moves.

163 I'm not sure it even qualifies as an exaggeration; it's more of a distortion. Posters here are constantly coming up with hypothetical trades that involve dealing prospects for the likes of Ramirez, Dunn, A-Rod, Peavy, Vernon Wells, whoever. Certain of Colletti's moves have been almost universally praised here -- Betemit, Maddux, Saito, and Ethier come to mind. And hundreds of armchair GM suggestions in the archives are sufficient evidence that posters here don't want the team to "do nothing."

I was out of town when we signed Wolf. It finally gave me something to smile about this off season. Now if we can trade Loney for Conor Jackson we'll start building an ECR powerhouse. I Like the pitcher and the deal. I hope he turns out better then Dennis Cook did, the last sweet hitting LHP we acquired from the Phillies. The only downside is if we break off negotiations with Ted Lilly. I was optimistic when the Yankee's won the battle for the Japanese Moyer since I felt they were the main competition for his services.

Tomko and Hendrickson should be finding homes next week.

Whoever posted the Ray King joke scared the crap out of me.

Something tells me the Dodgers' moves this offseason have been hotly debated here:

http://tinyurl.com/yynyex

Things like this continue to bug me long after the dust has settled.
From BA Chat about the Royals:
Aaron from Minneapolis asks:
Why did Baseball America rank Hochevar eighth in a bad year's draft class if he has true No. 1 potential like you claim. That would be rather inconsistent, no?
A:

Matt Meyers: He hadn't pitched in a year with the exception of an Indy League stint. There were also some makeup questions after the way he handled his negotiations with the Dodgers. He has gone a long way to assuaging those doubts.

116 Ray King? Now we'll get to hear Vinnies tell us about Ray's 25 brothers and sisters every game...

171 And how he's thick, not fat.

One thing I haven't heard anyone ponder is whether Manny's production will fall off. Assuming that we'd have to pick up his two option years to get him, that would cost $78 million through age 39. Granted, he's been the most consistent run producer in the game the last 10 years, but he did it within some powerhouse lineups in Boston and Cleveland. How would he do at Dodger Stadium and in the National League, and playing a lot of games in pitchers parks like SD and SF? In our lineup, at the Ravine, I'm skeptical that he can post .330/42/120, but I'd love to be talked into it.

And while he's been so consistent at the plate, at what point is he defying the odds when it comes to injuries or age-related fall-off? I think the odds are good that for at least part of that time we'd be paying him a lot of money while he nurses an injury, or even worse, pouts about something.

My feeling right now is that we got a taste of that youth movement last year and for the most part we should see if they take it to the next level. In the 2007 NL West, the Padres would seem (on paper) to be our only competition and 90 wins probably gets us through again.

172 - I remember Vin once saying that guys like Tony Gwynn and Andres Galarraga always heard they were fat when they're slumping, but if they're hitting well, they're "strong."

A little graveyard humor here: What if we had thoughts of trading Furcal and so offered Lugo arbitration; his extremely poor performance in the NL for 2 months would probably severely impact his arbitrated salary, right?

One subjective assessment:
2005 (off-season)
Tomko (2 years) - F
Lofton (1 year) - B
Mueller (2 years) - F
Nomar (1 year) - A
Alomar (1 year) - D
Furcal (3 years) - A
Saenz (2 years) - B

2006
Martinez (1 year) - B
Sele (1 year) - B
Baez/Carter for Jackson/Tiffany - F
Seo/Hamulack for Sanchez/Schmoll - F
Saito (1 year) - A
Hall/Hendrickson for Navarro/Seo/PTBN - F
Maddux for Izturis - B
Lugo for Guzman/Pedroza - F
Betemit for Baez/Aybar - B
Dessens for LHP OPerez/Johnson/Pimentel/cash - D
Alomar Jr. for LaMura - Inc
Anderson for Nunez - A

2006 (Off-Season to date)
Martinez - B
Nomar (2 years) - C
Pierre (5 years) - F
Wolf (1 year) - C

Lugo has to get offered arbitration, because there's no way he wants to rot on the bench for another season.

Grades for Mueller, Alomar, Dessens/Perez, Wolf, the Seo trade, and Nomar 2006 are too low. The Furcal, Anderson, and 2006 Martinez grades are too high. The Tampa Bay trades deserve their own category of futility.

Man, I can't believe I forgot Jon's birthday.
Happy birthday, Jon!

176

2005 (off-season)
Tomko (2 years) - C (Started off well and also did well in MR until he got a bad call in NY)
Lofton (1 year) - B
Mueller (2 years) - Inc.
Nomar (1 year) - A
Alomar (1 year) - C He did well as a backup and PH
Furcal (3 years) - A
Saenz (2 years) - A (Olmedo did what he does well and Grady may have even underused him)

2006
Martinez (1 year) - B
Sele (1 year) - A (Considering the cost and he was a big reason they started their climb in May)
Baez/Carter for Jackson/Tiffany - D
Only becaues Baez did a pretty good job in April, Carter was a disaster. No comment on the prospects since Edwin remains an enigma and Tiffany got hurt.
Seo/Hamulack for Sanchez/Schmoll - F - Agreed because Seo could not fill the 5th spot, Duaner's was loss after Gagne and Brazoban went down.
Saito (1 year) - A
Hall/Hendrickson for Navarro/Seo/PTBN - C Will have to see how they use Hendrickson this season, never all that high on Navarro.
Maddux for Izturis - A
He was probably the best pickup at the trade deadline
Lugo for Guzman/Pedroza - C
Understood the rationile for the deal. And whether or not he produced, he played a lot when the Dodgers made their late season runs.
Betemit for Baez/Aybar - B
Another guy who played a lot during the late season success, among the Dodger's leaders in HRs after the ASB.
Dessens for LHP OPerez/Johnson/Pimentel/cash - C-
Elmer did well when he filled in, but real value was in getting rid of Odalis.
Alomar Jr. for LaMura - C
LaMura helped out in Jacksonville
Anderson for Nunez - A

2006 (Off-Season to date)
Martinez - B
Nomar (2 years) - B
Pierre (5 years) - C
Wolf (1 year) - C

Until May 15th, Tomko had the best ERA on the team. He was 5-1 before he imploded. In the 2nd half he posted a 3.64 ERA. Is that really a grade F?

176, 180 -- Both of you omitted the Ethier for Bradley/Perez trade. That gets an "A" from me.

I actually like the Wolf signing, I would probably give it a B.

182 Agreed.

He's under contract for another year and is already dead weight, so I'd have to say the Tomko deal is unfavorble, if not quite an F.

Not sure why folks are down on Alomar for LaMura. (one C and one incomplete). There is no way that trade can hurt us, since Alomar was a nothing. Either the trade will be a wash, or it will come out in our favor.

I think the Lugo trade doesn't necessarily need to be an F, because it got Logan White 2 more first-round picks in what is considered to be the deepest draft in recent memory. (Unless we shoot ourselves in the foot by re-signing him.)

The Baez/Carter/Jackson/Tiffany trade would be a clear F, except we got Betemit for Baez so it will probably turn out in our favor.

I would have to agree with 176 on Pierre -- that's a clear "F!" in my book. (And not just because that's what came out of my mouth when I heard about it.)

I notice the absence of Ethier for Bradley, which would still probably have to be ruled an "incomplete" at this point, although so far it looks good.

181
$8 million for two years of sub-replacement level middle relief starts Tomko's grade at D- for me. Looking at his secondary numbers
(112/123 IP-HA ratio; 76/29 K-BB ratio and a 1.353 WHIP) in one of the very best pitching parks in MLB makes him an F.

Colletti should known better after watching him "implode" regularly for 2 years in SF. If Dave Duncan couldn't get it out of this guy, what made Ned think Tomko had any upside? I just have to think there were better options than $8 million/2 years for Tomko.

182
I understand the temptation to view Ethier for Bradley in a positive light. On August 30, I would have agreed with you. Ethier's and Bradley's September-October makes this a B for me after 1 year. 185's "incomplete" is probably the most fair assessment.

Are we assigning grades on the wisdom of the moves at the time or in hindsight? I still think 3 yrs of Wilkerson for 1 year of Soriano was an indefensible move- especially since the Nats were not a contending team going into '06. I prefer the "wisdom at the time" method and to rank these in order of magnitude.

Furcal (3 years) - A
Pierre (5 years) - D
Nomar (2 year) - B- (a C if Loney rots because of it)
Nomar (1 year) - B+ (the position snafu took this down a notch)
Bradley/Ethier - B+ (assuming we had to deal MB and this was the best we could get)
Wolf (1-2 yrs) - B+
Tomko (2 years) - C (smarter than the Matt Morris or Eaton deals going in)
Baez/Carter for Jackson/Tiffany - F
Hall/Hendrickson for Navarro/Seo/PTBN - F
Seo/Hamulack for Sanchez/Schmoll - B
Lugo for Guzman/Pedroza - D
Betemit for Baez/Aybar - B+
Mueller (2 years) - B (decent bridge to LaRoche)
Lofton (1 year) - B
Maddux for Izturis - B
Saito (1 year) - C (low risk, who knew?)
I'll stop there.

So prior to the Pierre deal I'd rate Ned pretty well on the key moves. On the Ethier, Seo I and Betemit trades he netted some upside. But he revealed some win-now recklessness in the Hendrickson, Lugo and Baez I trades.

I think a GM always has to battle the win now vs. long term in any deal, obviously in a market in LA moreso than lets say in Tampa Bay.

An example would be a deal for Manny, that would certainly go into that win now category but it would also probably put the spotlight on the Dodgers as opposed to the Angels going into next year.

[128] gurnick lost all credibility with me a long time ago.

127
As has been mentioned by Jon countless times here, starting Fernando in the tiebreaker wasn't in the cards. He had pitched in relief the day before for 2 innings. He also pitched two innings in the Friday game.

The Dodgers were pretty much doomed in that playoff game.

From Ken Rosenthall;
Think about it: The Dodgers could sign free-agent right-hander Jason Schmidt, trade right-hander Brad Penny for a corner outfielder, then take a run at Jones, Wells or Torii Hunter next off-season while retaining all of their top prospects...I can only hope.

188
How is the Seo trade for Sanchez a B? Just can't figure that out. I would love to have Duaner in the pen this year. Seo brought us Henderson. Schmoll can still be a good one down the road. Hamulack is a journeyman, a AAA guy for insurance and September call ups.

That trade is at least a D. Or lower.

194 Trading a middle reliver for a starter is never a bad idea.

195: I can think of a starter or two I might trade for Cla Meredith. Not that your point isn't clearly most almost always correct.

Attention Scrubs viewers: pay particular attention (which you might have anyway) to Dr. Cox's hair.

Paul Bako an Oriole.

196 If you would do that, then he's not a middle reliever.

I would trade Mark Hendrickson for Scott Shields. Does that count?

So I'm trying to figure this out. What did Baez get? $6mm/year? So, considering he is not a good pitcher, what does that mean Gagne, coming off of two years lost to injury, will get guaranteed from someone? Is there any chance Colletti will pay up?

there can be middle relievers who are closers and closers who are middle relievers.

middle relievers is just another phrase for sucky pitchers.

201
I have no idea what Baez did to warrant a salary increase.

203 Nothing. But it was done. How, if at all, does it affect what Gagne will get? How high will Colletti go? I mean, it seems to me, considering it in my characteristically superficial way, that Gagne is the kind of pitcher who is actually worth a lot of money. With Broxton and potentially Saito and Gagne, the Dodgers would look to have an exceptional bullpen next year.

How, if at all, does it affect what Gagne will get?

Rest assured that the details of Baez' contract will make their way into Gagne's agent's glossy book

Or middle relievers who become usefull starters. I'd be willing to bet that Clay Meredith was a one year wonder. If not then the Sox ought to stop trading with the Pod's as they aren't doing themselves any favors.

193
Maybe Rosenthall didn't notice that were committed to a CF for the next 5 years. Does anyone think we can get a corner outfielder for Penny that would be any better then a Ethier/Werth and Kemp/Loney combination? I don't. Now I believe that Penny could be part of a bigger trade to get a corner OF but then the deal would need to involve prospects and it negates the point of his comment.

Here's my biggest problem with the lineup constructed right now: we have too many "versatile" guys. Last year we started 4 shortstops in several games. Guys like Nomar, Betemit, Izturis, Martinez, Anderson, et cetera are great, but not 4 at a time, and not as starters, for the most part. Who plays first? Well, Nomar, but maybe he plays right or third, even though he's a shortstop by trade. If not him then Kent can move over from second and Betemit can play there and Saenz can go to third or maybe Anderson and Loney's a great first baseman, but he might move to right... All that mess is great in a little league team, but I think most major leaguers need a defined role. It clearly affected Lugo last year.

In my mind we need a set starting lineup with a corner infielder, middle infielder, and outfielder who can play all three as backups. Obviously there's wiggle room (say an Eli Marrero or a Chone Figgins type guy would affect the dynamic) but I feel a team's best chance to win is to have starters with set roles. They don't have to fit "traditional" molds (power hitting corners, speedy glove guys up the middle) per se, but we need a lineup that's comfortable with their defensive roles, tough outs top to bottom, but with a definite "scary" middle. Right now it seems like Grady could almost pull cards out of a hat to construct both thedefense and batting order.

Thoughts?

I just noticed Lakers are on TNT!!!

the deadline for teams to offer their impending free agents arbitration is friday 9pm pst . . .

Isn't his full name "Brig. Gen. Cla Meredith"?

And what is the DT consensus on how much offense will be gained from a full season of Betemit at 3B?

OH no, is that kinbote as in Pale Fire???

188 Are we assigning grades on the wisdom of the moves at the time or in hindsight?

I think hindsight is the only way to grade roster moves from the past. Delino for Pedro made a lot of sense at the time it went down; hindsight has shown it to be one of the worst trades of this generation.

Only the 2006-07 offseason moves (Pierre, Wolf, etc.) can be graded on the "wisdom at the time." The rest have to be judged on the results.

207 - I don't really understand your post - it seems like you're inventing a problem. Sure, some of these guys can play more than one position, but in all likelihood, Kent and Furcal will play second and short all season (Kent will play first in a pinch), and Betemit will play third when he plays. Garciaparra might play two positions, but it's no lock he'll play anything but first.

Loney might play first and outfield - but it's November and he knows that. Martinez and Anderson are utility. Just because Grady could in theory move people all over the place doesn't mean he will.

Speaking of Kent, no one graded the Kent extension. That was on Ned's watch wan't it. Uncle Milte and D4P, you guys can go first.

Kent's extension: F

213- I guess my problem stems from last year, where we seemed to be cutting and pasting players into positions (which admittedly had a lot to do with Anderson being our hottest hitter and acquiring Lugo with no particular obvious purpose). And add that to some big defensive mistakes that stick in my mind (most notably when Kent was playing first late in games we were leading and Loney was on the bench)

Jump to this year where so many rumors surround where our existing parts will go if we were to acquire Manny, or Aramis Ramirez, or Soriano or any number of other guys. Granted that's a product of message boards and columnist speculation, but I just want to see some national columnist say: the Dodgers won't be trying to acquire so and so because they don't need that position. I'm looking at you, Jon Heyman (mostly because he's right a lot more than he isn't).

I just want to see a less amorphous roster and more addressing needs. It even goes to the rotation.

I guess it comes down to the hot stove league and a general frustration that we can't, you know, play games. Grr, not baseball season sucks.

Kobe has 23 points in the 3rd quarter, 45 overall, after back-to-back 3s.

217

best stat is that he is 18 for 24 from the field. Hes playing a great game.

Can't criticize Kobe's performance tonight, but earlier in the season (prior to his debut), I was hoping that he wouldn't come back and end up taking all the shots and scoring all the points. Before he returned, the team was very balanced and the scoring was evenly distributed.

215- F-

Kobe is having a monster game. For a max player, Lamar Odom is really pathetic.

Lakers can't miss. Odom just hit a crazy three as time expired in the third. Walton is playing very well again.

Thankfully Kobe does this when I am able to watch.

After the start the Jazz had, I can't believe the Lakers lead 95-73 after 3 quarters.

I attended UC Santa Cruz back when grades were optional, so people should probably take this comment with a grain of salt, but I think that people's grades of Colletti's moves here fail to take the national trend of grade inflation into account.

But seriously, any evaluation of Colletti as a GM should not just look at the moves he made, but also the moves he didn't make. In this regard, the grade for Colletti's tenure deserves to be bumped up a grade point for not giving away the farm.

On the whole, for constructing a team that reached the playoffs, preserving the team's future, and doing all that under a reasonable player payroll budget, Colletti gets a B+ from me.

Lamar Odom is really pathetic

He's averaging 21, 9, and 5.

225- for a max player. His averages will drop down near his numbers from last year now that Kobe's back. Odom is a good role player; he's not a guy deserving of a max contract.

226
I'm not sure it's really possible for anyone else to be a "max" player on the Lakers when Kobe takes 30 shots. That doesn't leave much for the other guys.

I'm not sure it's really possible for anyone else to be a "max" player on the Lakers

max player refers to odoms contract. theres a contract cap in the nba for dollars and years.

228
OK, but still, there's not a lot of scoring to go around when Kobe's on your team. The guy led the team in rebounds and assists last year, and if Kobe wasn't such a ballhog, he'd have scored a lot more points too.

No way the Kent extension deserves an F, unless you are giving Nomar's new contract a G.

I was dubious about it when it was given, but it's not as if the Dodgers were overflowing with middle infielders. Worst case scenario is what happened - the Dodgers have Betemit (instead of Aybar) and LaRoche competing for third base next March, when possibly Betemit could have played an adequate second base. A situation that provides legit depth is not worthy of an F. Getting worthless players - then you can talk about an F.

While Kent is undeniably fading, he is an above-average hitter at second base, and he's not blocking a key prospect long-term.

229 If all the players he passed the ball to last year had been able to score, he would have had way more assists. Assists != passes.

Radman has a monster beard. I wonder if he can pitch. We could really use some grizzly looking players who look like they got lost in the woods for a few years.

radman looks like a euro Wolverine.

230- his defense is awful and there's a vesting option for 2008 if he reaches a certain number of plate appearances next year. Paying a 40 year old second baseman who is a terrible defender $11.5 million doesn't seem like a very bright idea to me. Kent's glove belongs at 1B, but he wouldn't be much better than average at that position offensively.

234 - I'm not saying it's a bright idea, but the bottom line is if you give Kent an F, your scale just isn't big enough to cover the players who actually don't produce. Kent is above-average.

Setting aside my personal feelings about Mr. Kent, my biggest issue with his extension was the timing. I'm not convinced Ned needed to be in such a hurry. Given his age, there was a decent chance Kent would end up like Mueller. Why not wait until later in the season to offer an extension after having a chance to monitor Kent's health and productivity?

236 - I agree with that. All I'm saying is it's not an F.

236 I think you have to look at whether his contract is a bargain or not in terms of this offseason's free agent market. For a second baseman with Kent's level of production (.862 OPS), I think one year at $11 million is a reasonable gamble.

For a second baseman with Kent's level of production (.862 OPS), I think one year at $11 million is a reasonable gamble

Yes, except for the fact that Kent had preseason wrist surgery, and he's old. The extension was signed before he played a single game in 2006. If Ned had waited longer into the season to see how Kent was doing, I think he still could have extended him for $11 million.

Kent is the highest paid 2b in baseball. When you are looking at the entire package, I wouldn't put Kent in the top 5.

240
For a max player, Jeff Kent is really pathetic

240 Most of the second basemen who are better than Kent haven't reached free agency yet. When they do, they'll make a lot more than $11m.

It'll be interesting to see what Ray Durham ends up signing for in this market.

242- besides Utley, I doubt any of the other 2b in baseball will make at least $11 million in the near future. Money issues aside, I still wouldn't place Kent in my top 5 rankings of 2b (unless you are playing fantasy baseball). His defense is atrocious (rate2 be damned).

Jons right...you cant give it an F. We dont have any stud 2b prospects that are being blocked, and currently he is our biggest power threat. There is no one ready to step up right now from the farm and I would take kent over any of the 2b free agents on this years market. Compared to the Pierre signing I would give it a C.

rate2 be damned

In 2006, Rate2 loved Kent and hated Loney

only chase utley and ray durham had a higher OPS among NL 2b than kent last year, and kent was injured for much of the season

I could be wrong...but odom does not have a max contract.6 years $60 million. arguably overpriced...i like him though...

224 In this regard, the grade for Colletti's tenure deserves to be bumped up a grade point for not giving away the farm.

Gone:
Aybar
Guzman
Jackson
Tiffany
Navarro
Pedroza
Nunez

Ned has been here for one year and these guys are all history. Whether these were good moves has been debated till there was nothing left of the horse to kick, but he has not exactly preserved the farm. In the one year he has been here he moved quite a lot of them. Let's see what he does with the rest of the prospects in the coming year or two.

249 Only Guzman was in the Dodger's top 10 from 2006, Tiffany and Aybar were in the top 20, Navarro and Jackson did not qualify as prospects, though Navarro was outside of the Dodger's top ten going into the 2005 season.

Aguably the one prospect he picked up in Ethier had a much bigger impact than of those players after they were dealt off.

There are only 25 players on MLB active roster, the rest are in the farm system.

We are not talking Scott Kazmir, Francisco Liriano, Ramirez (SS Marlins) or even Adrian Gonzalez on the Padres here.

Again, I am not saying that he kept every prospect but Billingsley, Broxton, Martin, Loney, Kemp, LaRoche, DeWitt, Elbert still belong to the Dodgers and while I would think its a strong possibility that they all won't be here next year, I think he has done a pretty good job of deciding which ones stay and which ones go for now.

Per THT, Kent was 6th in WinShares in 2006 with 18. He had 4.7 from defense which was more then Uggla, while Utley only had 4.9. The great fielding Hudson had 6.6 but Ellis from Oakland had 7.3 to take the crown of the highest defensive WinShares.

If you only look at offensive production, Kent comes in 4th behind only Utley, Durham, and Uggla. If I did the calculation correctly, THT says that Kent was worth 7,677,103 in 2006.

Other then Kent at 317, Biggio at 425 career win shares has more then double any other active 2nd baseman.

249 Besides Guzman he hasnt given up what I would consider a stud prospect. Jackson had been struggling for some time, and Navarro was passed over already by Martin. Although I dont like any of the deals we made for these guys, I dont think Colletti has really given up the farm.....yet

I think it is safe to say that he preserved the top prospects but it is also safe to say he didn't get much for the prospects he dealt. Your also forgetting Ruggiano who should become a very capable 4th outfielder. I liked Pedroza's power and think he may end up having more of an impact then JtD. It is curious that a team loaded with outfielders like the DevilRays took 3 of ours in deals. They have already tried to move JtD to 1st and Ruggiano and Pedroza have no chance to play for Tampa unless they do some serious unloading of some outfielders.

I could be wrong...but odom does not have a max contract.6 years $60 million. arguably overpriced...i like him though...
Odom signed with the Heat for 6 years $65 million. I believe that his contract was heavily back loaded (he'll make $14.5 million in the last year of his deal). Odom's contract also included a trade kicker which means the Lakers had to pay an extra 15 % of his contract ($9.75 million). Odom had $55 million left on his contract when he was traded to the Lakers, so it's like the Lakers signed Odom for 5 years/~$65 million.

That essentially means Odom is being a max salary. His contract is almost identical to some of the big boys -- guys like Ray Allen, Elton Brand, Michael Redd, Carmelo Anthony, Pau Gasol, etc. Odom is a nice complementary player, but he's being paid like a superstar.

Just because Navarro was passed over by Martin wouldn't automatically cause him to cease being a top prospect. It would only cease if his ability was not top notch. He has been the starting catcher in the 2nd half for the Dodgers and DevilRays before the age of 23. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many current starting catchers who had caught 136 games before the age of 23 who weren't considered top prospects.

I was not passing judgment on whether Ned has kept the right prospects or gotten enough in return for the ones he traded (although I agree with Cannon that he has not). I was simply responding to the notion that he had preserved prospects. In his first year he disposed of approximatly 8 of them. It appears he is working his way up from the bottom. Let's see what he does this year. If he dispatches another eight (or even half as many) I suspect there will be a DT riot.

254. So what you're saying is Slappy is not the worst contrat in LA.

Not if Miggy is playing 3b:)

That essentially means Odom is being a max salary. His contract is almost identical to some of the big boys -- guys like Ray Allen, Elton Brand, Michael Redd, Carmelo Anthony, Pau Gasol, etc. Odom is a nice complementary player, but he's being paid like a superstar.

umm..you do realize that Odom is a better player than Allen, Redd, Anthony right?

Michael Redd is a nice player, but he is the definition of complimentary. He doesn't do anything but shoot. Odom covers everything and is arguably the league's leading mvp candidate right now. Tonight Odom was close to a triple double with two steals and only two turnovers...those numbers are absolutely stellar. There are a TON of guys in this league making A LOT more money than Odom that aren't worth it.

Wordsmiths: Is the assertion that Navarro was not a prospect uncredible, incredible, or not credible?

The word you seek is "acredible."

"Non-credible" would also suffice.

I think we'd need to check in with Fran Tarkenton and Cathy Lee Crosby to decide if the assertion was Incredible.

Beginning 2009, the Dodgers could stuggle to have a payroll over $50M if the Kids prove they can play.

The rotation could be Billingsley, Kuo, Elbert, Maloan, Miller and the position players could well be Martin, Loney, Dewitt, LaRoche, Ethier, Kemp, Werth/Repko/?.

I am not stuck on AROD but he does have four years left on "that" contract and the Dodgers could afford to pay it at least beginning in 2009.

I like Furcal but he will probably not be resigned after his contract ends after 2008.

Boston does want a shortstop and apparently they really want to trade Ramirez.

Nomar, AROD, Kent in the 3, 4, 5 hitting spots would be decent.

Pierre4now, Ethier, 3BNomar, AROD, Kent, Loney, Martin, Werth/Repko/Kemp would work for me.

Post has an essay on the LA Times today. May be a little cliched, though hard to tell. Too busy to read it all, but here's how it starts:

"If there was ever a 'there there' in Los Angeles, it could be found at the Los Angeles Times. In a region whose hallmarks are traffic snarls, sunshine, the Lakers and taco trucks, the paper has been an adhesive binding this crazy jangle of centrifugal energy into something bigger -- the future, perhaps, the first totally modern city."

http://tinyurl.com/wspnc

Time to head to work in the centrifuge I guess!

259 umm..you do realize that Odom is a better player than Allen, Redd, Anthony right?

Sorry, but that is a truly un-credible sentence.

Useless predictions:

Kent's signing the extension will be seen as a very valuable move. We pick up 08 option. Kent leads us to the playoffs and performs like he did in NY in October, except he scores on a ball off the wall in 07.

Nomar will have a solid season, lead by example on what it means to be a team player. His twins are born and he names them Ramon and Rufus.

Loney will be rookie of the year, playing right field and first base.

Broxton will move into the starting rotation when we sign Gagne.

Penny and Eithier get traded for Burrell, Dodgers sign Schmidt.

Vernon Wells gets traded in July to????

I base these predictions on absolutely nothing.

BTW, I have my season ticket playoff and WS tickets from 06. Does anybody out there want a souvenir? They look pretty and I sure wish I got to use them, but they are now just bookmarks.

In a rotoworld tidbit on Julio Lugo, they mention that signing JD Drew won't require forfeiting picks. Did I miss something? Did LA not offer arbitration to Drew, or is it specific to his opt-out?

268
We learned within the last few days that Drew's contract had a clause in it that stated that any other team signing him after his first 2 years in LA would not have to forfeit picks.

Even Depo was not immune to the gloss...

269 - Oops, not so good. I guess it doesn't matter whether he's offered arbitration then.

Lugo, on the other hand, could render that a moot point by signing with Boston. We'd get that same pick that would've come for JD, correct? Is there a better potential Lugo destination for LA's draft pick slot?

Is there a better potential Lugo destination for LA's draft pick slot?

I think Nate had this all worked out.

We learned within the last few days that Drew's contract had a clause in it that stated that any other team signing him after his first 2 years in LA would not have to forfeit picks.

no we didnt. its still all speculation.

Not immune to the gloss or willing to have knowingly given up something of value (right to compensation if Drew opted out) in exchange for something else (getting the deal done at this price). I realize we don't (and can't) know if it would have been possible to hold out and resist that demand. But we certainly can't assume the deal would have happened anyways.

And here's Pam. http://tinyurl.com/yy2hel

If the Elmer Dessens fiasco is any indication, Ned may not care about draft picks anyway...

274
Did I miss something while I was gone regarding the Dessens deal? Since you can't trade draft picks I'm a bit confused how Ned doesn't care about draft picks relates to the Dessens deal.

275
Ned failed to offer arbitration to Dessens before he left, only to trade for him less than a year later.

New post up top.

For those interested below I posted what Betemit's numbers would most likely look like over 556 PA's ...........

I based these numbers off his current plate discipline (K/BB), which we can only hope will impove as he is finally getting a chance to play everyday, until LaRoche over takes him........

AVG: .263
OBP: .324
SLG: .464
OPS: .787

BB: 49
K: 138
2B: 31
HR: 24
RBI: 71

Last season Betemit played in 143 games, but only averaged 2.89 PA's per game. Assuming he gets more playing time this year I bumped him up to 3.89 PA's per game and left the games played at 143. My numbers are based off 3.89 PA's per game.

I would certainly expect LaRoche to be starting at 3B by July if Betemit is not hitting ahead of those "very mediocre" projections. That is essentially the stat lines that Beltre provide on average before he busted out in 2004.

Tx

An outfield of Werth/Repko/Kemp would scare the daylights out of me...

Navarro wasn't a prospect because he had too much big league time. He was still young and good and all the other things prospects are, but he wasn't a member of the category for reasons of semantics. So, maybe: credible, but not particularly true.