Baseball Toaster was unplugged on February 4, 2009.
Jon's other site:
Screen Jam
TV and more ...
1) using profanity or any euphemisms for profanity
2) personally attacking other commenters
3) baiting other commenters
4) arguing for the sake of arguing
5) discussing politics
6) using hyperbole when something less will suffice
7) using sarcasm in a way that can be misinterpreted negatively
8) making the same point over and over again
9) typing "no-hitter" or "perfect game" to describe either in progress
10) being annoyed by the existence of this list
11) commenting under the obvious influence
12) claiming your opinion isn't allowed when it's just being disagreed with
Kevin Goldstein ranks top Dodger prospects at Baseball Prospectus this morning. Clayton Kershaw is No. 1 among true prospects, while Chad Billingsley climbs over him when you include non-rookies age 25 and under:
The Big Picture: Rankings Combined With Non-Rookies 25 Years Old Or Younger (As Of Opening Day 2007)
1. Chad Billingsley, RHP
2. Clayton Kershaw, LHP
3. Matt Kemp, OF
4. Andy LaRoche, 3B
5. Scott Elbert, LHP
6. Russ Martin, C
7. Jonathan Broxton, RHP
8. James Loney, 1B/OF
9. Hong-Chih Kuo, LHP
10. Andre Ethier, LF
Pretty exciting list, considering that five prominent participants in the 2006 Dodger playoff team fill out the bottom five. Goldstein's article has details on the top 10 true prospects.
P.S. Looking at Kershaw's birthdate made me realize that the Dodgers' No. 1 pick in 2007 probably will have been born after the Dodgers' last World Series title.
Update: Here's a lineup and rotation the Dodgers could bring to a 25-and-under tournament.
C - Russell Martin
1B - James Loney
2B - Tony Abreu
SS - Chin-Lung Hu
3B - Andy La Roche
LF - Andre Ethier
CF - Delwyn Young
RF - Matt Kemp
P - Chad Billingsley
P - Scott Elbert
P - Hong-Chih Kuo
P - Jonathan Broxton/Jonathan Meloan/Greg Miller
* * *
Kevin J. Cunningham at Scout.com is tracking who's getting which free-agent compensation draft picks. (Link courtesy of Baseball Think Factory)
Update 2: In Ken Gurnick's preview of the winter meetings at MLB.com, there are these tidbits:
Colletti said he remains committed to Plan B -- create a surplus of starting pitching that can be used to trade for a hitter, although he cites the convenient GM shield of tampering when specific trade targets are suggested because they belong to other clubs. ...
After watching middle relievers land hefty contracts, Colletti backed off earlier comments about bolstering the bullpen through the free-agent market and said he hoped to take care of that from within. ...
Assuming Colletti can land a bat and it isn't a natural right fielder to replace Drew, the defensive position that player plays would set some dominoes in motion. Nomar Garciaparra could move around the infield or even to left field. Wilson Betemit could become a second baseman. Colletti has started mentioning Andy LaRoche as an outfielder, and Jason Repko is expected to return from injury. ...
They have considered signing free agent Mike Lieberthal to watch Russell Martin play every day. They'll know by Friday night if the Phillies offer Lieberthal arbitration, which is unlikely but would require the Dodgers to fork over draft-pick compensation, something clubs don't do for backups.
The Dodgers are expected to offer arbitration to two of their free agents -- Julio Lugo and Greg Maddux -- for different reasons. For Lugo, it's because they expect him to reject it and sign a multiyear deal elsewhere, which would entitle the Dodgers to compensation. For Maddux, they wouldn't mind if he accepts, because that would bind him to the club for one year, not the two years he's seeking.
They are not expected to offer arbitration to Eric Gagne, Kenny Lofton, Aaron Sele or Einar Diaz. By the terms of the contract (J.D.) Drew voided, the Dodgers cannot offer him arbitration.
In a sidebar, Gurnick calls the unloading of Joel Guzman "curious," which is not a sentiment I would have expected Gurnick to express. I tell ya, you think you know someone you barely know ...
* * *
New features coming to Baseball Prospectus for 2007:
Will Carroll has a video report up at BP. I'm not sure I understand the logic of video reports without accompanying text, considering how many people sneak in their reading of BP at the office and wouldn't be allowed to view a video report with sound.
omitted for good reason.
The Irrelevant: After missing some time in his high school season with an oblique strain, Kershaw pitched five perfect innings in his return, striking out 15. You do the math.
its just like Emeril going "Bam!"
Does anyone else get the feeling that we could ditch everyone on our team making over $3 mil, replace them with kids in our system, and still win as many games as we won in '05?
I still have high hopes. He has some power in that bat, just not sure if he is projected to make the team or is even trade bait.
I really hope he gets a shot and makes it.
How much is it to join? Can you cut and paste articles after you join?
I think you are going to have to revise that...
Split the time between cheap marginal (easily discarded) pick-ups and the youth, and go with the youth when they are fully ready.
Why waste their time on 2-year rentals like Ramirez?
If they absolutely have to trade someone, get a young player with plenty of future, like a Cabrera.
I think my question has been answered. Thanks. Only $5? I'll get a look at the site soon then.
I find it strange that the rumor came up about a week ago, and without any confirmation, or at least any I have read, the topic disappears.
I would think it's at least somewhat interesting to Dodger fans, no?
The Red Sox and Mets don't seem anxious to meet Julio Lugo's $36 million asking price over four years. Presumably after lowering his high demands, Lugo could have a very interesting choice of staying at shortstop with Boston, going home to play second base for the Mets or rejoining Lou Piniella to play center field for the Cubs.
4/36 eh. i was expecting more.
just stick Kemp in CF. hes the closest thing we have to a CFer.
RF ethier
CF kemp
LF Josh Bell/Preston Mattingly
I wonder how much his stint at the Dodgers lowered his market value. Having 6 extra base hits in 146 ABs has a tendency to underwhelm suitors even in this current market of Mike Tyson Craziness (That for all you readers of Bill Simmons out there).
RF Orr
CF Kemp
LF Ethier
Ethier/Orr combo takes the cake.
My wish for Christmas would be to see many of these prospects succeed as Dodgers in the next few years.
I'd offer arbitration to every Dodger on the A and B free agent list: Maddux, Gagne, Lugo, Lofton (while making it clear to Lofton that if he accepts, he'd be a bench player -- and to Lugo that he'd have the same role as last year). Next year's draft is considered extremely deep, so what the Dodgers decide to do this afternoon could have a hugely significant impact on the future of the franchise. The risk of offering those guys arb is low and the reward is high. Logan White's batting average with first round picks is pretty great.
And I see Drew is also on there even though he's something of a special situation. Do we still get compensation for him when he signs with Boston? And do we have to offer him arb to get it? (Not that there'd be any chance of his accepting if we did.)
I also respect Jon's rule about not pasting entire articles from the subscibser sites (I also have ESPN Insider but that is because some of their best stuff only appears there.
Of the three, with Kevin's work, BP is becoming a necessity for any fan and I think instead of buying one article, look into the site.
I still think it would take 1 A+ guy or a combination of two lesser guys, but wait a year and he will be as untouchable as anyone this side of Travis Hafner (Assuming that he can stay healthy; no small feat for a guy that just missed 18 months before the season).
I think that you are right about this now that Pierre is signed. Better to have a long list of young cheap arms.
I would not offer Gagne arbitration as he might accept it and make 6-8 million next year.
I agree with you about offering arbitration to all of them, except Lofton. They don't need him, and they don't get much in terms of compansation.
Ive been thinking about that and I dont think that is that big of a risk.
the downside...
-gagne doesnt even pitch in 2007, and the 6-8mil is a sunk cost.
the upside...
-gagne comes back and makes our bullpen lethal
-gagne retains his type A free agent status for next offseason where offering arb is a no brainer and we gain picks from losing hi,
-gagne declines this years arb and signs a 2yr deal with like the yankees or something.
no one knows the answer. not even steven henson. i emailed him tuesday night with the question and he responded saying he thinks the dodgers will offer drew arbitration since they have nothing to lose. he also didnt know anything about a "clause" in drews contract but he said he would find out and get back to me.
considering its been a couple of days now and there hasnt been any updated articles from henson, maybe there really isnt any news concerning a no arbitration clause and it was just wishful thinking by red sox media.
It is not that unusual. Really. A cursory Googling turned up several contracts in recent years that required the involved ballclubs to decline arbitration. If Drew's contract is so designed -- and I'm sure it is -- it isn't the end of the world.
For instance, with Drew's money, we can now sign Steve Kline, whose contract with the Giants requires the team not to offer arbitration.
Kline @ 3 years for $33 million. It's just crazy enough to work!
I kind of disagree, but only if Ned thinks that Saito is coming back and Broxton is staying and not being traded. If we want a high risk/reward guy, we have Brazoban coming back and Miller nearly ready for bullpen duty. Better to spend that 6-8 mil on a FA or save it for mid season needs.
If that is the case, how brilliant is Scott Boras? He always seems to find a GM that will grossly outbid other teams in terms of $$ or incentives. Most GMs may not like him, but he may be the best negotiating mind in the history of American business.
I'm still surprised that no one in the LA media or baseball circles have responded to that rumor since it first started.
I mean, if we can read countless articles about Drew opting out, and teams waiting to find out if a team offers arbitration before signing a particular player, you would think there would be some comments regarding the validity of such a clause, were it to exist.
And it's a small risk, IMO. Can anyone think of any examples of Boras accepting arbitration? He just doesn't do it. He trusts that he can top any arbitration ruling with his negotiating skills on the free market, and he's probably right. Especially in a year like this when people are giving $18 mil to the likes of Danys Baez.
This whole discussion would be made much simpler if we had a complete picture of what Ned values in a hitter. I always try to picture what I would do in a situation where I am running the team.
In defense of your position, I tend to not look at the "less popular" stats like VORP and ISO stats and am sometimes enamored with a guy's reported "makeup" and "work ethic". This is ironic since I am a statistician.
I racked my brain for his equivalent and can only come up with JFK during the Cuban Missle Crisis.
Did I just compare Scott Boras and JFK? Did I just compare the Drew negotiation with the Cuban Missle Crisis? Am I now going to hell?
I'm not stuck in the past or anything, but having Gagne as a Dodger isn't really such a terrible thing, is it?
Here is the article.
http://tinyurl.com/y49drz
For those who get so caught up in prospects, once upon a time Toby Hall was a top catching prospect and projected to be a good power hitting catcher. He never posted less then a 417 slug% in the minors and hit 568 as high water mark his last year in the minors. His 1st year in the majors he posted a slug% of 447 in 200 at bats. Since then he's never touched 400 again until his short time with the Dodgers where he actually outhit Martin while receiving only 57 at bats.
My point is that Brazoban is coming off season-ending surgery also. Miller is zero risk (other than that weird scapular surgery he had to have).
CF: Kemp
RF: Ethier
If the Red Sox demand Broxton, one of Laroche/Loney/Kemp and a 2nd tier prospect (Alexander/DeWitt/Abreau) for Manny and $12-18 mil, the Dodgers should consider pulling the trigger and using some of the return money on re-signing Gagne to a Nomar-esque deal (4-6 mil guaranteed and an escalator clause up to 10 mil)
Possibilities for Bullpen w/o Broxton:
Saito
Gagne
Beimel
Brazoban if healthy
Tomko
Dessens
Greg Miller
Jose "Jumbo" Diaz
Zach Hammes
Mark Alexander
Stults
Kuo
Osoria
FA's Like Schoenweiss, etc.
but he has that strip--and...it's...so...wrong.
The above audio link is an interview with Ned Colletti (lasts about 1 minute and 28 seconds). At the very end, Colletti states the Dodgers CANNOT over Drew arbitration.
I'm still surprised this received so little attention.
1. Chad Billingsley, RHP
2. Clayton Kershaw, LHP
3. Matt Kemp, OF
4. Andy LaRoche, 3B
5. Scott Elbert, LHP
6. Russ Martin, C
7. Jonathan Broxton, RHP
8. James Loney, 1B/OF
9. Hong-Chih Kuo, LHP
10. Andre Ethier, LF
11. Jonathon Maloan
12. Greg Miller
While these players are playing with cheap salaries, money should be placed in a sinking fund to subsidize their future salaries when they start cllimbing.
http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/W/Matt-White-1.shtml
That mp3 seems like a smoking gun to me.
Interesting post. I agree with Benaiah and might even take Kuo off of the list as well. Again I don't want to trade ANYONE, but of those guys on your list, we will be lucky if 6 of them end up as type A free agents in 6 years.
At the very end, the interviewer asks Ned if the Dodgers are going to get draft picks for Drew, and Ned responds, "No. The way his contract was structured, we are not able to offer him arbitration, so he's history, free and clear".
* Dodgers to test waters at Meetings
* Dodgers Winter Meetings checklist
End of the first story:
"The Dodgers are expected to offer arbitration to two of their free agents -- Julio Lugo and Greg Maddux -- for different reasons. For Lugo, it's because they expect him to reject it and sign a multiyear deal elsewhere, which would entitle the Dodgers to compensation. For Maddux, they wouldn't mind if he accepts, because that would bind him to the club for one year, not the two years he's seeking.
"They are not expected to offer arbitration to Eric Gagne, Kenny Lofton, Aaron Sele or Einar Diaz. By the terms of the contract Drew voided, the Dodgers cannot offer him arbitration."
It's on there.
As for guys I wouldn't trade, Martin might be first on my list of Dodgers under age 27. Perhaps Kemp has a tad more upside, but it's fairly close and his chances of sticking around as a good player aren't as good as those of Martin (and I say this as one who would exempt Kemp from trade talks).
The wily Boras strikes again. If, indeed, the Dodgers include the no-aribtration proviso to go with the opt-out clause, advantage Boras.
I mean that the mp3 seems to answer the question definitavely.
Smoking gun being another way of saying a significant piece of evidence that proves/disproves a theory.
included
But, if he did accept arbitration, the absolute minimum he could be paid in 2007 would be $8m if Gagne and the Dodgers completed the arbitration process (he made $10m in 2006 and cannot have a cut of more than 20%). Of course, they could agree to any type of contract without going to arbitration.
Kind of bummed about not receiving draft picks for losing Drew, though.
On the other hand, there used to be restrictions on re-signing arb-eligible players as FA's until June or so. But I thought I had read that those restrictions had been relaxed iunder the new CBA.
What is the reasoning here? So the Dodgers can wait to evaluate his health and then decide whether to make a FA offer to him in January?
In that case, I think Colletti will decline to offer him arbitration. I'd do it, but I don't think Ned will.
All in all, I think the arbitration offers appear to be correct. I'd probably avoid Gagne too, especially if the budget is getting close to capped (I'd prefer that $8M go to Schmidt, should it come to that).
Offering arbi to Lofton would be a mistake. Given the all left-handed OF LA is currently fielding, Lofton is redundant. I could see him considering accepting it (though I don't think he would). Is a sandwich pick worth possibly owing Lofton ~$5M?
Your original post was great. The link worked. I was able to listen to the audio and now there is no question in my mind that Drew cannot be offered arbitration. I'm sorry I didn't state how I felt about your post as clearly as I should have.
I also agree with your surprise that that information had not been mentioned/posted before you did.
The bad news is that since Zach Braff is supposedly not coming back, Scrubs probably won't be around next year.
Sounds like Boras was using Glavine as the model for Maddux wanting a 2-year deal. I wonder if this may lead to Maddux accepting arbitration now.
Given that
1) He's unlikely to accept
2) If he did accept he would be a rather useful fourth outfielder,
3) It would be a short-term commitment at a non-outrageous salary,
4) A sandwich pick in the 2007 draft is basically equivalent to a regular first-round pick in an average year,
I would say the answer to that question is "yes." But debating it has probably become moot if Gurnick knows what he's talking about.
Donald Faison gave an interview this week on EW.com that left the door slightly ajar for Scrubs' return in 2007-08. But without Braff and with mediocre ratings, I doubt it sticks.
I find it funny, because I'd rather the Dodgers trade major league talent, (so long as they are not young players like Martin, Billingsley, Kuo, or Ethier. Let the Red Sox pick some of the older Dodger major league talent. Choose away! Stay away from the young players!
Don't we have Kenny Lofton signed to a $400,000 contract under the name "Jason Repko"? Am I the only one who thinks that Lofton is only a marginal upgrade over Repko?
Just in case he accepts, I think that the $4-5 million that he would get would be better spent on Gagne.
I want people to read my entertainment stuff too, but that's where I'm putting it now.
I agree. Lofton would only have made sense if we didn't sign Pierre. Now he simply doesn't fit with our team. At 1-2 million for one year, perhaps. I think he signs somewhere, but can't take the chance that he would accept arbitration. He is a piece that just doesn't fit right now.
And by the way, nice job today with all the information and commentary on what will be the start of a busy December.
Thanks for feeling my pain.
I found it curious that they mentioned Werth is eligible for arbitration but never mentioned his name as someone who is in the mix for an outfield spot. It would seem to me that even the crappy version of Werth in 2005 is better then Repko or Lofton as the backup CF. It would sure get interesting if Maddox accepts arbitration and we sign Schmidt then we have Lowe, Penny, Schmidt, Maddox, Wolf, Billingsly, and Kuo as serious starting pitching with Hendrickson, Tomko, and Stultz as possible rotational filler and Elbert just bubbling beneath the surface. A plethora of pitching with some quality mixed into the quantity. I guess I can end my campaign for Lilly. Joey will be dissapointed.
I'm starting some wishfull thinking that Mark Teixeira could be a target using Penny and Loney as beginning bait.
Even then, I would only do this deal for Manny if we can land Schmidt as a bonafide #1 starter. I want to stay away from giving up Broxton, Loney, Bills and Martin!
If that is the case, how brilliant is Scott Boras? He always seems to find a GM that will grossly outbid other teams in terms of $$ or incentives. Most GMs may not like him, but he may be the best negotiating mind in the history of American business.
75 dsfan
No draft picks for Drew?
The wily Boras strikes again. If, indeed, the Dodgers include the no-arbitration proviso to go with the opt-out clause, advantage Boras.
Out of 30 GMs you know that Boras is a better negotiator than 80% of them (put whatever % you want, but it's a large majority) and that puts the other 20% at a disadvantage too.
This contract for Drew was a lose-lose situation for the Dodgers. If he does poorly or gets injured the Dodgers were stuck for 5 years. If he did well he could leave with no strings attached. I think that this is a case where DePo was out matched. What incentive was there for Drew to stay if he performed at a high level? (higher or injury free than he did for the 2 yrs he was here) Nothing. Why didn't the contract provide more $ in the later yrs and/or some other bonuses as a substitute for not including a no arbitration provision and no draft choices if he did leave? The biggest issue is that DePo did not negotiate some agreement to balance the opt-out clause.
He was the best hitter on the team in 2005, for half a season. He was the best hitter on the team in 2006, for a full season. So for our money we got a guy who played 75% of the time, and during the time he played was the best player we had. Clearly the team misses the playoffs in 2006 without him. How is that signing a "loss"?
In my optimistic world, Werth returns to the form that had him hit 16 home runs in 290 AB. He could single handedly make us forget who JD Drew is.
http://tinyurl.com/um2w2
Kent's contract is worth up to ~$21 million (if the option for 2008 is picked up). That Kent extension really looks bad now. I also wanted the Dodgers to sign Durham to play CF and expected that he'd get around $18 million over 2 years. This has to be the best signing of the offseason, so far.
I would like to go on record as saying that the columnists in Boston saying that Drew will wilt under the Boston pressure just don't know him.
I feel like, after watching him for the past two years, he is as impervious as any player in the league to what others say about him. Joe McDonnell, Simers, and some of the other media in this town hated his DL rep (even though he has largely been healthy for 3 years minus a pitch to the wrist) and it did not really affect him. That 0 for 25 run he went on in '05 just didn't seem to get into his head in the long term.
I did not like watching him much, but at the end of the day, I think that Epstein will deem him a bargain once Hunter, Jones, and Wells hit the market next year. He is exactly what the Boston market needs: unemotional, focused, predictable, and quietly valuable. Let Ortiz be the face/voice of the franchise and Varitek be the "locker room guy". Drew will show up and bat .290/25/110 for that offense batting behind Ortiz.
Nah. I am 5'8" and weigh 210. I have absolutely no problem with it. Then again, I haven't seen my feet in a while...
i cant believe depo agreed to a contract provision that prevents the dodgers from offering arbitration if drew exercised his opt out.
well, go ahead sox, sign both drew and lugo now. I want that sox first round pick.
True but even the pre 2006 version of Durham is worth 7 Million per year. Haven't heard anyone speculating that he just happened to exceed his career slug totals at about the same age that Bonds went off on the greatest slugging streak of someone over 35 in history and they both happen to cohabitate in the same clubhouse. I'm sure it is all just coincidence.
Merlin, I guess, he still wants. Although, he reupped Lucille II, who's the same, if marginally better, right? Does he change his mind that quickly, that often, or is he really acquiring players he doesn't want?
The media is already drawing up the story-line for next season in Boston, and Drew has yet to officially sign or even agree to sign. Drew, as Dodger fans are well aware, can be frustrating to watch because of his passive approach. When Drew struggles, or even annoys the fans and media in Boston, they will turn on him like NY turned on AROD. (not-so-fealess prediction: Drew will have a heatlhy .900 OPS season, and it will be percieved as a dissapointment)
royals are paying dessens salary (and we are paying perez's) so i dont think he is going to be released.
I think he's finding which scouts to listen to and which ones gave him bad advice. Anybody in a new position has to find out which of his/her people are the people to listen to, you can't know when you 1st walk in until experience teaches you who to trust. That is why so many career baseball guys bring their own guys in because they have already gotten the trust issue ironed out. Plus that whole familiarility thing.
But do other agents really not know about these other "angles", or do they just choose not to pursue them?
From what I can tell, other agents are not necessarily worse than the Boss of the Gloss; they just might be nicer and willing to negotiate "in good faith." I doubt they're unaware of all the angles...
To what extent is this a "collective action" problem, where individuals competing for themselves actually bring about outcomes that are worse for the group?
I am not sold on Betemit myself.
At the time, a rival executive says, the Sox ranked outfielder Matt Kemp, third baseman Andy La Roche and first baseman James Loney as the three Dodgers' position prospects they coveted most.
Rival clubs also like several Dodgers' pitching prospects, most notably left-hander Scott Elbert and right-handers Chad Billingsley and Jonathan Broxton.
I think one of the popular misconceptions about Ned is that is cuddly nature makes him overly loyal to players, he seemed remarkably pro-active in keeping non-producers out of active duty even as they were popping up all over the place. If you disagree with that point, I'll remind you of how much playing time Grabowski, Repko, and Edwards recieved back in the dark days of 2005.
Nobody is. Forgot to include him, but he's part of my ponderings in 120.
It's still too early, though, to decide what his M.O. is, so it probably means less than I think it does.
I agree.
It's a shame the Dodgers won't get draft picks for losing Drew. Shoot, IIRC Arizona got two picks for losing Tim Worrell.
Boras lived up to his reputation. To get an opt-out clause is pretty impressive. To get the no-arbitration proviso is just showing off. Shrewd how Boras manipulated the Mariners and Dodgers in his simultaneous negotiations for Beltre/Drew.
As for Drew's impressive OPS for 2005, which invariably get cited in reviewing his Dodgers tenure, I think it only fair to also include his games mised total and acknowledge that it's damaging in many ways to be without a frontline player for that long, really taxes a club in several ways.
Boras got the better of Malone several times and it appears he took advantage of Depo's inexperience on this one, although the Lowe contract is looking like a good one. If Ned, as reported, is looking to avoid Boras clients, perhaps this is a good idea. Near as I can tell, Lowe and Maddux are the only Boras clients on the team. That seems manageable. Texeira, by the way, is a Boras client.
I can see why one isn't sold on Betemit. However, bis slugging power, playoffs included, seems pretty enticing, especially considering the team's present slugging prospects for 2007.
Not getting a number one is a disaster? Remember we couldn't even sign the number one pick we had in 2005. Who is to say that if we had multiple number one picks that we'd even sign them? The team has a finite budget for the draft.
I agree. I was a proponent of the betemit trade at the time and i still like. I like his power potential alot.
Thank God for the Lugo trade.
we signed all our number 1s in this past draft.
I get the feeling like Ned is more interested in the Manny sweepstakes to see if he can be stolen for 50 cents on the dollar than in actually getting him. Manny isnt the final piece of the puzzle, Ned knows this, and isn't going to make any move to jepordize the teams future for him. I really, really, hope Im right.
YES! I want to see what Mr. White can do with about 3 first rounders and a sandwich pick or two. I just hope that we don't go with another Hocheaver, though that $3 mil seems like kind of a pittance now.
Sounds eerily like another "win" for LA here. First, LA got quality production from Drew for the low price of 2/$22M. Now, they're able to free themselves of the commitment of JD's potentially injury-prone mid-30's years.
Assuming the team has a fighting chance to sign its upper-end picks, I say the more the better. Even if you fail to sign the guy, extra options can encourage you to take more risk elsewhere in the draft. Beyond that, under the new rules, IIRC, if one doesn't sign the first-round pick, you get an extra pick the following year.
If Drew played poorly or got hurt it was a 5 yr contract. If Drew played well it was only a 2 yr contract with the Dodgers taking on all the risk. The way it was structured left the Dodgers vulnerable whether Drew played well or poorly. The opt-out clause had no balance and left the Dodgers is a bad position.
I think Drew is a perfect fit for a team like Boston or NY. When he's on the DL, these teams are still going to score plenty of runs, and when he's not on the DL (ideally in Sept and in the playoffs) he can push your team over the top. Generally, Drew is best on a team where he isn't the top offensive talent, rather he's the 2nd or 3rd best hitter. I think his passivity and durablity keep him from being an offensive centerpiece, even though his OPS might convince you otherwise. To bad he'll be paid like an all-star.
Does anyone else think that the signing of Drew will cause a slight sense of desperation in the Boston front office to make some payroll room? If Boras and Epstein meet in the middle for Matsuzaka, that contract will be worth at least $85 mil, Drew will be signing for $80 mil, and Manny will be owed almost $40 mil for the next two years.
My calculations have their payroll in the $145-160 mil area if all of those things happen and they still need a SS, closer, and one more SP.
I think that we could get Manny for much cheaper. "50 cents on the dollar" I think is how you put it.
That is because we had the 2005 1st round money that wasn't used on Hochevar to use in 2006. I just don't see the draft issue as a disaster. It is the cost of doing business. If you sign elite players you give concessions besides money. Crying about the JD contract seems overwrought to me. JD was being courted by Detroit at the time, we were not his only suitors. I never liked the deal cause I don't like JD but the contract was never a problem to me just the player it was given to.
There is some thought that teams may pick really tough signees if it means that they can get the same pick the following year but remember those picks are only good for one year, I don't think you get to keep picking risky guys just to get another shot the next year.
Am probably belaboring this, but just because Drew had a nifty OPS in 2005 doesn't mean he returned good value on the $11 million. It wasn't his fault, per se, that he got hit by a pitch, but the fact is he missed a lot of games and that significantly reduced his value/production. Sometimes, counting stats matter.
I would grade his return on the dollar a C-minus, at the very best, for 2005 and a B-plus or A-minus for 2006. Really, if the Dodgers had gotten two draft picks for him to go with those returns, it's a pretty respectable return. But Boras certainly earned his commission by getting that aribtratioin exclusion.
He also has good stuff, shown by his good strikeout ratios. Inconsistency is Lilly's biggest problem.
Ever see his splits in Yankee Stadium. There's your difference right there. The Yankees could do worse, but I think that the Dodgers could do better.
We need power and Betemit is the only guy who looks to be able to provide it. I don't think it matters what we think now because come mid-summer Kent and Nomar will be fossils and will be tending to rib cage pulls, hamstring or leg problems, and we will throw in a wrist problem just to complete the trifecta. Drats I forgot the dreaded back problem which should really be what puts Kent on the pine.
i just dont see anything that would consider lilly to be anymore then a marginal upgrade to our staff and if you consider the price, basically not an upgrade at all.
I wonder if our new head trainer Stan "I'm not related to Victor or BALCO" Conte will help with that. I read yesterday that Jeff Kent is actually exercising this offseason rather than "chopping wood, fixing fences, and tending to his ranch."
Not making that up by the way.
No offense intended with this question, but did you read that somewhere, or just make it up? Because judging solely by the team's actions since, oh, forever, it doesn't appear to be true.
As far as I know, in the entire history of the Dodgers, the team has signed every first-round pick it has ever drafted.
Even Hochevar (who as you will recall was not a first round pick) agreed to a deal before reneging on it. (Which actually turned out to be fortunate for us, because it enabled us to draft an even better prospect the next year.)
On the converse side, there are countless examples of us using lower round picks on guys with signability concerns and then forking over the dough necessary to sign them. LaRoche and Kemp come to mind in this regard.
I'd say that the Dodgers, more than almost any other team over the years, have shown that we do not have a limited draft budget. We did have lousy picks for about 20 years running, but that's another ball of wax.
I think the Wolf signing made Lilly pointless for us.
I like Betemit and expect he does have HR potential, I think Kent will give him a run for the most HR by current Dodgers.
And, of course, he's never been 39 before either.
Dioner is to Martin as Smush is to Farmar?
Maybe not.
Would you rather see Bynum and Odom for Garnett or Kershaw and Furcal (is he a decent parallel for Odom's NBA value?) for lets say, Alex Rodriguez?
I don't see your point. We would have signed and drafted Kershaw even if we had signed Hochevar in 2005. We may not have signed the later picks but since this was the Dodger 1st draft in the top 10 in a while I think it was a given we'd sign whoever we picked in that spot. Maybe Morris who just had TJ surgery wouldn't have made it but I'll take Hochever a top 5 pitching prospect over a guy who just had TJ surgery.
Beltre, Green, Ventura, ... that's all I got
Green, Beltre, Lo Duca, uhhhh...
LoDuca
Beltre
Green
McGriff
Devon White
Did McGriff hit 10?
No, we wouldn't have. The Tigers would have, because the Royals would have taken Andrew Miller with Hochevar unavailable. We would have then picked Bryan Morris with the 7th pick instead of where we picked him, and then taken Mattingly with the pick where we took Morris, etc etc.
This was well-documented after the draft in multiple articles which included confirmation by Logan White. Google it.
Man, I think Dreifort was our best hitter.
I don't care about the past unless it was the same management. What I do know is that under Ned's management we could have signed the 1st round draft pick that he was responsible for even if he was drafted under Depo at the time and he didn't. Given that he was then the number one pick in the whole draft his demands certainly did not seem out of order. Given that he is now just about ready to pitch in the big leagues and is certainly a top 5 pitching prospect his demands do not seem out of the ordinary. Given this information Ned will have to convince me that money is not an issue during the draft.
That's probably colossally wrong, but at least I'm reasonably certain they were all on the team that year.
I am going with starters.
218 - You sure it's 5, not 2?
In bonus money, Hochevar was paid a little more than $1.2M more than Kershaw but he also got a Major League Contract (which the Royals had not done since Bo Jackson) which guaranteed $5.2 million.
I always took those comments with a grain of salt. The idea that we'd waste a number 7 on Morris when he actually fell to our late 20 pick never seemed to make sense. If it was true then just by luck did Logan escape a terrible draft cause if we had wasted a number 7 on a pitcher who no one else wanted until we drafted him in the late 20's and then that same pitcher went lame and had TJ surgery before the summer was out it would not have looked to good on his resmue.
I'd gladly take any combo of Hochevar and either Lincecum, Snider, or Rowell over just Kershaw. Now if Logan was dead set on Morris at 7 and that was going to happen if Kershaw didn't fall to us then maybe we over adulate Logan to much.
Beltre 23 (in 158 games)
Green 19 (in 160 games)
Burnitz 13 (in 61 games)
McGriff 13 (in 86 games)
Ross 10 (in 40 games)
4/28/1998 against Jose Mercedes of Milwaukee
9/26/2002 against Jake Peavy of San Diego
7/17/2003 against Garrett Stephenson of St. Louis
6/19/2004 against Brad Halsey of the Yankees
All of the home runs were hit at Dodger Stadium
Based on his success with Peavy, maybe we should have gotten him at the deadline instead of Lugo.
Even Hendry can figure this one out.
I did not see Guillermo Mota hit a home run. The only Dodger pitcher I have seen in person hit a home run is Dennis Cook.
http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B08280LAN2002.htm
Beltre 23 (in 158 games) -- Most of them in the second half. His great 2004 really started in July 2003.
Green 19 (in 160 games) -- This was the season of the secret labrum tear in Green's shoulder. No one could figure out why his power dropped off so dramatically. W/out looking it up, I believe this is fewer than half the home runs he hit the previous season.
Burnitz 13 (in 61 games) - I'm surprised he hit that many, although it's possible he hit only home runs. I remember thinking he was one of the worst acquisitions ever.
McGriff 13 (in 86 games) -- McGriff was the big power signing for '03. He was going to reach 500 in a Dodger uniform. The team's marketing dept. had the "countdown" crap all ready. I saw him hit about five home runs -- I went to a lot of games early in the year. Then, at some point, he stopped. Then he got hurt. Then it was over. Burnitz was supposed to replace him.
Ross 10 (in 40 games) -- There's a guy we might've given up on for the wrong reasons. He was bad in '04, no question. But maybe it was just a outlier year.
A name I thought might be on this list: Brian Jordan. But I guess this is the year he was hurt. He had 18 in '04, 25 in Atlanta in '01, over 20 a couple other times. But he never hit double digits in homers again after '02.
That was also the game where Shawn Green paraded me around the clubhouse introducing me to everyone as Gagne's cousin. Quite the funnyman, Green is.
Ah, a wonderful case of "tragedy of the commons". One of the things that game theoreticians worry about is coming up with a system that enables you to act in your own self interest such that the result is something that advances the common good. If we could somehow come up with rules governing MLB free agents that preserve the common good while allowing everyone to act in their own self-interest ....... well, it would be theoretically interesting, let me tell you.
Think of a ringtailed cat wearing a blue ballcap, and you've about got him.
Rimshot!
We also signed Steve Andrade and Dustin Mohr.
Don't be surprised if you hear Dukes/Cantu-to-LA rumors with Andy's propensity to deal with Ned.
I also fondly recall the "Guess when McGriff hits his 500th" promotion. My brother is still waiting to cash his ticket for "never."
Ah, 2003 is starting to seem like the good old days.
There's a separatist movement in Tampa? Does Florida want more autonomy within a unified U.S.?
One of the reasons I support global warming so much is that the rising sea will reclaim that swamp.
That would be interesting indeed...
When you consider the contracts signed by Ordonez and Rodriguez, I don't think that the Tigers would have offered Drew a straight up contract.
When will the Giants learn they have to rebuild?
"By and large, if you're not a starter or closer, you're asked to get three outs in the sixth, seventh or eighth inning," said Colletti. "Many times, the bullpen can be created by what you have on the staff."
What's the difference between getting 3 outs in the 6th, 7th, or 8th inning vs. getting 3 outs in the 9th inning...?
lincecum isnt going to start next year in the majors so i dont know when that rotation is going to come to fruition. Alot of people are in denial about lincecum's walk rates, college abuse, andlimited stature. of course, you can point towards oswalt and pedro to prove me wrong but often times, they are the exception and not the rule.
Is there somewhere I can get professional help for my chronic linking incompetence?
Hence the reason he fell to 10. Every team who picked a pitcher except for the Dodgers will rue the day they passed on him.
http://www.snapshirts.com/custom.php
Well at least he tries harder at baseball then he did at school.
GAH!!! This is EXACTLY what I was talking about in my long winded diatribe for the Manny post. killing me slowly....
And a much more interesting one...
http://tinyurl.com/yespb9
(The picture refers to 292, not 291, if anyone was potentially confused.)
The Los Angeles Public Library played the part of the New York Public Library in "Ghostbusters."
In the film "City of Angels", the part of the Los Angeles Public Library was played by the San Francisco Public Library.
The Central Library played itself once in an episode of "The Rockford Files"
Nats nation is hanging on word of whether Ramon Ortiz was offered arbitration.
Nats nation is a pretty sad and empty place since Alfonso Soriano left, I'm afraid.
Nope, just for Lugo.
http://tinyurl.com/ttsao
Name that Senator:
"When he is discussing issues that are especially important to him (such as [IDENTIFYING DETAIL OMITTED]), he wears a necktie with The Incredible Hulk on it to show his seriousness. Marvel Comics responded by sending him free Hulk paraphernalia and throwing a Hulk party for the Senator."
Is the United States Senate really a place where a Hulk tie shows seriousness?
And what do you do at a Hulk Party?
(Disclaimer -- sourced to wikipedia)
I was more enthusiastic last year.
It also mattered more last year.
LAT lived a life of one of those kids in teen sex comedies.
I was just at a bar and had to explain to this guy what it meant that the Giants did not offer Bonds arbitration. Sure sounds stupid to people that do not follow baseball a lot.
Wow, if Ned did not offer Maddux maybe he really wants nothing to do with Boras.
Could be. I had also thought that maybe Ned wants to sign Maddux to a 2-year deal.
On another note, why isn't Colleti actively going after Manny? Why aren't we potential players in Burrell as a backup? We need 35+ HR's and a LF and both of those players fit those needs and have relatively short and financially doable salaries compared to recent deals (especially if money is returned in a deal)
On another note, why isn't Colleti actively going after Manny? Why aren't we potential players in Burrell as a backup? We need 35+ HR's and a LF and both of those players fit those needs and have relatively short and financially doable salaries compared to recent deals (especially if money is returned in a deal)
http://tinyurl.com/yb3dry
Me to, he's currently my favorite Dodger. I've followed him since his top prospect status and then was dismayed at the arm injuries. When he resurfaced in 2005 in the low minors I was giddy. To have him get his control problems under control in the rotation this season was one of the top developments in my mind. My fingers are crossed that Ned does not move him or screw with him back in the bullpen.
I loved this one comment by Christina Karl when asked what any team could do to get better, she said trade for the Dodger kids.
319 -- Pierre was a Type B free agent, not Type A, so we don't lose any draft picks to the Cubs.
That would be interesting indeed...
That's precisely what baseball is - between the lines. Anything that an individual player does that helps his own stats also helps his team. Anything. I've said this before. There is no joint production in baseball -- all team performance is the sum of individual performances.
Sure, turning a DP, or executing a relay requires more than one player, but it's pretty easy to see who screwed it up if it is in fact screwed up.
And sure, players can hurt their teams by trying for individual glory (taking an extra base, swinging for the fences) but only if they fail. If they succeed, it helps the team.
I guess I can think of two minor, occasional exceptions. One would be playing through injury. Even if you perform well and save a game or keep your consecutive games streak alive or somesuch, you could put yourself on the shelf and thus hurt the team. And incentive clauses in contracts based on plate appearances create the same bad incentive - but again, only if the player fails.
The second would be taking a walk on hittable pitches with two outs, runners in scoring position, first base open, and a lousy hitter on deck. But that's REALLY specific.
Lots of people are hoping Manny comes to L.A. Some are hoping that Colletti lets Ethier keep his job, and gives RF to James Loney. Manny would have to be enough better than what we have now to make up for what we'd be losing. It sounds like Ned is looking to make the deal, but whether he's going after Manny as hard as he could, I don't know. It'd be a good bargaining stance not to, though, I'd think.
"Looking at the MORE than impressive Dodgers Big Picture list (under 25), the question becomes are any of these prospects better then Andre Ethier. For me, the answer is no, and I don't think any of those players would have cracked their regular top 10 either."
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.