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

02  01 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prospects Proper
2006-12-01 09:53
by Jon Weisman

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 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, 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:

  • A BP blogging project, tentatively titled Baseball Prospectus Unfiltered, in which BP authors share their quick takes on the latest baseball developments;

  • Community-based pages, including a series of forums for BP articles and unfiltered posts;

  • Increased use of multimedia, including original photography and podcasted audio

  • Improved sortable statistics, including player splits (what was Johnny Damon's VORP in games played at Yankee Stadium?)

  • Earlier debut of the PECOTA cards, in time for early-bird fantasy drafts.

    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.

  • Comments (324)
    Show/Hide Comments 1-50
    2006-12-01 10:02:08
    1.   Disabled List
    I'm trying to get my head around the fact that the next crop of incoming college freshmen will include quite a few who were born in the 1990s.
    2006-12-01 10:14:14
    2.   LADfan in IL
    Looks exactly like what should be the 10 untouchables! As in, if and when other teams come calling for prospects, the Dodgers simply answer, "any but these 10, any but these 10!"
    2006-12-01 10:28:15
    3.   norcalblue
    2 well said!
    2006-12-01 10:45:36
    4.   ToyCannon
    Can't believe that BP with it's on line only content and great IT resources still doesn't accept PayPal for payment. It is so annoying to pony up 4.95 on a credit card.
    2006-12-01 10:46:53
    5.   hotblackdesiato
    Preston Mattingly as a 1B? Is that a typo, or did he move to dad's position?
    2006-12-01 10:59:35
    6.   paranoidandroid
    Where is Delwyn Young on the list?
    2006-12-01 11:00:56
    7.   natepurcell
    the big picture list makes me smile and brings tears of joy to my eyes.
    2006-12-01 11:02:01
    8.   natepurcell
    Where is Delwyn Young on the list?

    omitted for good reason.

    2006-12-01 11:04:56
    9.   natepurcell
    Goldstein just layed down the law on his readers..

    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!"

    2006-12-01 11:09:11
    10.   jdm025
    I may follow the Dodger system too closely and know too many names, but it's pretty awesome that this list doesn't even include names like Greg Miller and Mark Alexander.

    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?

    2006-12-01 11:10:52
    11.   paranoidandroid
    I teach in the same town Delwyn is from. His dad coaches the high school team now. I had his step sisters in class. They are genuine people and I so want to see Delwyn break through at the major league level.

    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.

    2006-12-01 11:12:18
    12.   Benaiah
    How long is the list? I wish I could just buy that article, I don't want to joing BP... I have held out for so long and I don't want to take the plunge... yet I am so tempted.
    2006-12-01 11:14:12
    13.   Benaiah
    12 - For the record I know it is only 5 bucks, but if I pay for this then the next thing you know I will be buying something worthless like ESPN insider.
    2006-12-01 11:14:31
    14.   jdm025
    What's really scary is that every one of the players on that list is ready for the Majors or is already performing with the possible exceptions of Elbert and Kershaw.
    2006-12-01 11:14:37
    15.   paranoidandroid
    How much is it to join? Can you cut and paste articles after you join?
    2006-12-01 11:16:08
    16.   Jon Weisman
    10 - See update above.
    2006-12-01 11:16:53
    17.   Jon Weisman
    15 - Pasting entire articles from a subscription site is not allowed.
    2006-12-01 11:17:59
    18.   natepurcell
    CF - Delwyn Young

    I think you are going to have to revise that...

    2006-12-01 11:19:39
    19.   LADfan in IL
    10 Not only do I get the feeling, it's what I've been waiting for them to do for a couple of years now.

    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.

    2006-12-01 11:21:01
    20.   OaklandAs
    5 It's not a typo. A lot of people think Mattingly won't be able to handle SS or 3B defensively, and will have to be moved to 1B or a corner outfield spot.
    2006-12-01 11:22:16
    21.   paranoidandroid
    I sure wouldn't violate copyright laws on purpose nor post anything on your site Jon that would be unlawful or immoral. Just wondering if I would be able to share aspects of an article with friends.

    I think my question has been answered. Thanks. Only $5? I'll get a look at the site soon then.

    2006-12-01 11:25:41
    22.   jdm025
    I would love to see us trade Elbert and maybe a B-type (Abreu or DeWitt) for Carl Crawford. With a surplus of cheap leftys (Kuo, Hendrickson, Elbert, Kershaw, Miller) we could make that happen I think. Even better if we could trade Elbert for Rocco Baldelli straight up while his value is fairly low.
    2006-12-01 11:28:46
    23.   Jon Weisman
    18 - Open to nominations.
    2006-12-01 11:29:06
    24.   LADfan in IL
    A little off-topic, but is there any truth to the rumor about there being a provision in Drew's contract preventing the Dodgers from offering arbitration?

    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?

    2006-12-01 11:30:58
    25.   natepurcell
    lugo blurb from heyman

    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.

    2006-12-01 11:32:19
    26.   natepurcell

    just stick Kemp in CF. hes the closest thing we have to a CFer.

    RF ethier
    CF kemp
    LF Josh Bell/Preston Mattingly

    2006-12-01 11:34:38
    27.   Benaiah
    22 - If it would have prevented signing Juan Pierre, maybe. Now, I would rather just keep Elbert. I don't see how you can say Rocco's value is low if you have to trade an excellent prospect to get him.
    2006-12-01 11:35:26
    28.   DodgerHobbit
    26 i agree with RF and CF but Young is so much farther along than Bell and Mattingly that I think he'd win/perform better as the starting LF'er despite his awkwardness and weak arm at the position.
    2006-12-01 11:36:43
    29.   Jon Weisman
    26 - I want a lineup that I could put on the field this season - if I were projecting in the future we'd have Kershaw on there, for one thing.
    2006-12-01 11:37:07
    30.   bigcpa
    This Podsednik contract makes the Pierre deal look shameful. Granted he's not a FA, but Pods got an $800K raise for this .262/.331/.354 plus 40 sb.
    2006-12-01 11:37:08
    31.   Jon Weisman
    29 - I mean, this is all just for fun - but that's the rule I set for myself.
    2006-12-01 11:37:13
    32.   jdm025
    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).
    2006-12-01 11:37:22
    33.   paranoidandroid
    Is it true that Philly offered Howard for Baldelli straight up before last season?
    2006-12-01 11:37:23
    34.   natepurcell

    RF Orr
    CF Kemp
    LF Ethier

    Ethier/Orr combo takes the cake.

    2006-12-01 11:38:43
    35.   Daniel Zappala
    Someone expressed the sentiment, the other day, that keeping all our prospects and seeing a team full of home-grown stars is what many of us would love to see. I wholeheartedly concur. There is bound to be a drawback -- all of them trying to cash in on big free agent contracts eventually, and at roughly the same time -- but it would be so much fun.

    My wish for Christmas would be to see many of these prospects succeed as Dodgers in the next few years.

    2006-12-01 11:40:23
    36.   Eric Enders
    Regarding the free agent compensation list, I guess we may have a better idea by tonight who we've offered arb to and thus how many first-round or sandwich picks we'll have next year.

    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.)

    2006-12-01 11:42:09
    37.   bhsportsguy
    I subscribe to both BP and BA sites and find them to be pretty useful and fun. BA does a good job covering the draft and since Kevin Goldstein's move to BP, he has added a lot of information about prospects.

    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.

    2006-12-01 11:43:12
    38.   jdm025
    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.

    2006-12-01 11:43:20
    39.   Benaiah
    36 - If we don't offer Drew arbitration then we are foolish, plain and simple. It is a free 1st round pick, or at the very least a sandwich pick.

    I would not offer Gagne arbitration as he might accept it and make 6-8 million next year.

    2006-12-01 11:45:14
    40.   LADfan in IL
    36 I just asked the same thing regarding Drew. I figured someone on here would know the answer.

    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.

    2006-12-01 11:46:41
    41.   natepurcell
    I would not offer Gagne arbitration as he might accept it and make 6-8 million next year.

    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.

    2006-12-01 11:48:49
    42.   natepurcell
    I just asked the same thing regarding Drew. I figured someone on here would know the answer.

    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.

    2006-12-01 11:50:31
    43.   Terry A
    On the subject of the Dodgers being (allegedly) contractually obligated to refuse to offer arbitration to Drew:

    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!

    2006-12-01 11:51:20
    44.   jdm025
    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.
    2006-12-01 11:54:28
    45.   jdm025
    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.
    2006-12-01 11:54:43
    46.   Benaiah
    38 - He had a good year and he would be a major, major upgrade over Pierre, but Baldelli is not worth all that much yet. He had a great 230 ISOslugging in a little more than half a year's at bats, but he also a pathetic .037 ISOpatience, making him the rich man's Jeff Francquoer. Considering his slugging percentage jumped 100 points over his career best and his batting average jumped 20 points over his career average to that point, plus he is often injured and hasn't improved his patience at all, I have to say that I wouldn't trade a lot of people on this side of Travis Hafner for him. A LOT of people.
    2006-12-01 11:56:24
    47.   Jon Weisman
    45 - I felt D4P's hackles rising up from here.
    2006-12-01 11:56:29
    48.   LADfan in IL
    42 Thanks Nate! I appreciate that. I have been trying to find out if it were true, and it's good to hear that the reason I've been unsuccessful is that, as you say, nobody seems to know.

    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.

    2006-12-01 12:01:24
    49.   Eric Enders
    Like Nate, I would have no problem with Gagne accepting arbitration if he's going to fall in the $6-8M range.

    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.

    2006-12-01 12:02:04
    50.   jdm025
    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.

    Show/Hide Comments 51-100
    2006-12-01 12:04:39
    51.   Eric Enders
    44 Aren't Brazoban and Miller pretty much the definition of low risk, high reward? (Or maybe low risk, medium reward)
    2006-12-01 12:05:09
    52.   Benaiah
    49 - I don't know. Maddux is a Boras client and he accepted arbitration to the chagrin of the Braves. Plus, is Gagne really even close to getting a 6-8 million dollar contract when he spent the past to years almost entirely on the rack? I think Gagne is set for the relief pitcher equivalent of Nomar's contract a couple years ago, 2-4 million with incentives that could boost it into the 8-10 million range if he returns to 2003-2004 form.
    2006-12-01 12:06:33
    53.   jdm025
    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?

    2006-12-01 12:06:40
    54.   Eric Enders
    52 That kind of money would make it even better.

    I'm not stuck in the past or anything, but having Gagne as a Dodger isn't really such a terrible thing, is it?

    2006-12-01 12:08:10
    55.   ToyCannon
    It is nice to finally hear that some players actually want to play for us. Was getting a little tired of players wanting to stay on the East Coast. Lieberthal would be a perfect backup for Martin at 1Mill per year. It should keep Ned from wearing him down. Toby Hall must have made the worse impression in the world to not even get to be a Sunday backup catcher.
    Here is the article.

    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.

    2006-12-01 12:09:28
    56.   jdm025
    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).
    2006-12-01 12:12:50
    57.   Eric Enders
    Isn't the Matt White who we signed (see link in 55) one of those big loophole prospects from a few years back, along with Travis Lee and John Patterson? I wonder if he still throws mid-90s.
    2006-12-01 12:13:29
    58.   Benaiah
    54- That money would be great. My point is that he isn't going to make 6-8 million, which is what we would have to give him if he accepted arbitration.
    2006-12-01 12:14:04
    59.   uclasway
    LF: Delwyn
    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:
    Brazoban if healthy
    Greg Miller
    Jose "Jumbo" Diaz
    Zach Hammes
    Mark Alexander
    FA's Like Schoenweiss, etc.

    2006-12-01 12:15:20
    60.   DodgerHobbit
    but he has that'
    2006-12-01 12:16:28
    61.   Benaiah
    59 - The Sox won't be sending much if any money with Manny. At this point his contract basically seems like fair market value.
    2006-12-01 12:16:43
    62.   Eric Enders
    60 That is still one of the funniest DT posts ever.
    2006-12-01 12:22:30
    63.   LADfan in IL,%20Gagne,%20FA%20market.mp3

    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.

    2006-12-01 12:23:46
    64.   dkminnick
    What exactly is Toby Hall's contractual status with the Dodgers? I thought we had him at least through 2007.
    2006-12-01 12:27:36
    65.   Bumsrap
    In my way of thinking there are 12 players that should be in the category of non-tradeable:

    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.

    2006-12-01 12:30:36
    66.   blue22
    57 - Different guy. Here's our guy:

    2006-12-01 12:31:00
    67.   Benaiah
    65 - I would take Broxton, Ethier, Maloan and Miller off the list. Not to say that I want to trade them, its just that there certainly are things I would trade them for.
    2006-12-01 12:31:41
    68.   DodgerHobbit
    That mp3 seems like a smoking gun to me.
    2006-12-01 12:32:25
    69.   blue22
    65 - It's a nice thought and all, but I don't put LaRoche, Broxton, Loney, Kuo, and Ethier on an "untouchable" list. Not saying they should be traded, but if the right deal came along I wouldn't be heartbroken if any of those should leave.
    2006-12-01 12:34:17
    70.   jdm025
    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.
    2006-12-01 12:37:30
    71.   LADfan in IL
    68 I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

    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".

    2006-12-01 12:38:47
    72.   Robert Daeley
    Couple of new Gurnick stories on

    * 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."

    2006-12-01 12:40:49
    73.   LADfan in IL
    68 If you are unable to listen to it, you can go over to

    It's on there.

    2006-12-01 12:40:54
    74.   dsfan
    I wouldn't include Russell Martin on my prospect list. He's moved past that status. However, if one insisted on including him, I would rank him first. His combination of proven production -- at every level, notably the majors -- and potential is just too strong to drop him.
    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).
    2006-12-01 12:42:49
    75.   dsfan
    No draft picks for Drew?

    The wily Boras strikes again. If, indeed, the Dodgers include the no-aribtration proviso to go with the opt-out clause, advantage Boras.

    2006-12-01 12:43:09
    76.   DodgerHobbit
    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.

    2006-12-01 12:44:22
    77.   dsfan
    2006-12-01 12:48:17
    78.   Eric Stephen
    Put me in the camp that would offer Gagne arbitration (as well as every Type A & B).

    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.

    2006-12-01 12:48:39
    79.   Jon Weisman
    I did an update above with highlights from Gurnick. Interesting note about LaRoche.
    2006-12-01 12:49:46
    80.   dkminnick
    72 - I don't understand why the Dodgers wouldn't offer Gagne arbitration. Not sure what type of free agent he is, but even if offering arbitration wouldn't give us draft picks, it seems unlikely that an arbitration win for Gagne would cost more than what the Dodgers would have to pay on the FA market.

    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?

    2006-12-01 12:50:59
    81.   Eric Enders
    So the bottom line is, if we want to pay Gagne less than $8M, we have to sign him to a multiyear deal.

    In that case, I think Colletti will decline to offer him arbitration. I'd do it, but I don't think Ned will.

    2006-12-01 12:52:50
    82.   dkminnick
    78 - That's good info, I had forgpotten about the max 20% cut - but I bet Gagne will get at least $8 million in this market anyway. Am I nuts?
    2006-12-01 12:55:07
    83.   blue22
    80 - I think they don't want to be committed to $8M for a player they feel may not contribute in '07.

    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?

    2006-12-01 12:55:47
    84.   bhsportsguy
    Wrong blog but I thought I would pass this along, NBC picked up the entire season for 30 Rock so the comedy block will be around at least this year.
    2006-12-01 12:59:25
    85.   DodgerHobbit
    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.

    2006-12-01 12:59:32
    86.   Benaiah
    84 - Nice. I thought last night's episode was hilarious. Alec Baldwin carries the show, he is consistently funny and can pull off the say silly things comedy that most can't.

    The bad news is that since Zach Braff is supposedly not coming back, Scrubs probably won't be around next year.

    2006-12-01 12:59:40
    87.   Jon Weisman
    84 - No faith in Screen Jam, huh?
    2006-12-01 13:00:03
    88.   blue22
    Gammons is saying that Glavine is taking a 1-year deal to stay with NY.

    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.

    2006-12-01 13:00:32
    89.   Eric Enders
    83 "Is a sandwich pick worth possibly owing Lofton ~$5M?"

    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.

    2006-12-01 13:03:15
    90.   Jon Weisman
    86 - That's been expected for years, now. The only question was whether Scrubs would make it this long.

    Donald Faison gave an interview this week on that left the door slightly ajar for Scrubs' return in 2007-08. But without Braff and with mediocre ratings, I doubt it sticks.

    2006-12-01 13:04:15
    91.   LADfan in IL
    I find it funny when I read comments where the "trade demands of the Red Sox for trading Manny Ramirez have lowered so much that they are no longer expecting to get major league talent in return, and that all it would take now is a couple of top prospects".

    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!

    2006-12-01 13:05:51
    92.   bhsportsguy
    84 Now Jon, I put it here because of the traffic, I love Screen Jam.
    2006-12-01 13:08:52
    93.   jdm025
    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.

    2006-12-01 13:10:06
    94.   blue22
    89 - I think that depends on how close to the budget limit Ned is getting, and what he's got in store for the remaining dollars. If he's got his eyes on Schmidt, but only has $15M to play with, I'd pass on Lofton too.
    2006-12-01 13:14:53
    95.   Eric Enders
    93 Lofton hits 60-70 points higher, walks, and steals bases, which Repko can't. Repko has an arm and HR power, which Lofton doesn't. They're actually very different types of players, and Lofton's clearly better, but you're probably right that there isn't a gigantic difference between them in value.
    2006-12-01 13:17:50
    96.   Jon Weisman
    92 - Right, but in theory, anyone who reads me and would care about 30 Rock would see it over there.

    I want people to read my entertainment stuff too, but that's where I'm putting it now.

    2006-12-01 13:22:53
    97.   Jon Weisman
    96 - That being said, it's not a big deal - it's not as if TV talk is banned here.
    2006-12-01 13:23:08
    98.   paranoidandroid
    93 and 94

    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.

    2006-12-01 13:23:51
    99.   bhsportsguy
    96 No problem.

    And by the way, nice job today with all the information and commentary on what will be the start of a busy December.

    2006-12-01 13:26:25
    100.   Benaiah
    95 - Honestly I don't know if I would say Lofton is clearly better. For one he doesn't hit 60-70 points higher and only draws walks at an average rate. I would put Lofton at ~300/360/400 going forward, if he is lucky on balls in play that might be 320/380/430, but it is more likely to be 280/340/380. Repko's major league performace is largely unpredictable only 400 ABs in two shortened seasons. He is a 250-280 hitter, and he actually has a higher ISOpatience in the majors the past two years than Lofton at ~.070 and hypothetically he can slug .160-.20 higher than his average. So concievably he might be something like 265/335/440 hitter, with a lot more upside and obviously the potential to be... a cipher. He is also defensively superior and on the upswing. All in all, you could make an argument for Repko, as I just tried to.
    Show/Hide Comments 101-150
    2006-12-01 13:28:35
    101.   blue22
    100 - Also, he's right-handed. I don't think that should be overlooked as LA potentially heads into the season with a Ethier/Pierre/Loney OF, with Marlon as one of the backups.
    2006-12-01 13:29:44
    102.   D4P
    I felt D4P's hackles rising up from here

    Thanks for feeling my pain.

    2006-12-01 13:31:24
    103.   ToyCannon
    Nice to see that Schmidt is the number one priority of the winter meetings. To me he'd only be signing him because he has a trade worked out for Penny to bring in the big bat he's looking for.

    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.

    2006-12-01 13:33:35
    104.   gibsonhobbs88
    91 - While that would be the preferred plan, I still think he would take at least three, a MLB SP (Penny), an A prospect or MLB budding star like Kemp or Ethier and we can throw in Hall.

    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!

    2006-12-01 13:39:31
    105.   ToyCannon
    The winter meeting are almost as exciting to me as opening day. Nothing much happens compared to what is talked about but it still gets my juices flowing. To be a fly on the wall would be very interesting. I wonder if any teams have started to use some of the latest listening devices(bugs you ask) to give themselves a leg up during this time. Wonder how teams might be employing ex-Cia or Far East operatives in defensive or offensive postures. A mole on the Boras staff would be worth his weight in gold as would a mole employed by agents in the front office of key money heavy teams.
    2006-12-01 13:40:40
    106.   Fallout
    45 jdm025
    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.

    2006-12-01 13:45:49
    107.   Eric Enders
    75 How could the Drew contract be a lose-lose situation for the Dodgers when it actually turned out to be a "win"?

    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"?

    2006-12-01 13:46:35
    108.   Eric Enders
    That referred to 106, not 75.
    2006-12-01 13:48:35
    109.   ToyCannon
    Good news. Durham has reportedly resigned with the Giants. I was very afraid he'd sign with the Padre's where he'd be a perfect fit. Anything that doesn't strengthen the Padres at this point is a plus by me. Giants not to afraid of but I can't wait to see Linecrum pitch.
    2006-12-01 13:51:08
    110.   robohobo
    106. That has always been my biggest problem with Drew. His contract was horrible, not for the money so much as for how it was structured. He had a history of injuries and it seemed like a good chance he would end up another Dodger expensive cheer leader (he was for 2005 season). And if he was good, he could leave for more money. Win-win for him. I think the Dodgers are extremely lucky he didn't hurt himself last year.

    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.

    2006-12-01 13:52:44
    111.   Benaiah
    107 - The point is that we took on huge risks and only got what we paid for, not a penny more. No free agent compensation, no insurance against injury, and he opted out to make a few million more a year. I like Drew, but the contract really was written strongly in his favor. Those two clauses alone are huge concessions. I agree it was a "win", but it didn't cover the spread.
    2006-12-01 13:54:22
    112.   Uncle Miltie
    Durham re-signs with the Giants for 2 years $14 million

    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.

    2006-12-01 13:56:05
    113.   blue22
    110/111 - Would you have preferred that Drew spent the past two years somewhere else? Because apparently that's what it took to get the deal done.
    2006-12-01 13:58:50
    114.   D4P
    Ray Durham's stats are a little suspicious to me. All of a sudden, at age 35, he exceeds his career SLG average by nearly 100 points, and sets a career high in HRs, more than doubling his HR total from the previous year in the same number of ABs? And 191 pounds is a lot for a 5'8" guy to weigh...
    2006-12-01 13:59:30
    115.   jdm025
    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.

    2006-12-01 14:01:03
    116.   jdm025
    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...
    2006-12-01 14:02:39
    117.   Fallout
    Durham is a great hitter but his defense is poor.
    2006-12-01 14:02:41
    118.   natepurcell
    i cant believe we are going to lose drew without any compensation.

    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.

    2006-12-01 14:04:22
    119.   ToyCannon
    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.
    2006-12-01 14:06:47
    120.   Andrew Shimmin
    Is Ethier the only trade acquisition that Colletti ever really wanted? He got rid of Seo and Baez in the first three months. Dessens he didn't want in the first place, and would seem to be a candidate for release, unless Mr. Ned finds another way to unload enough pitchers to open a roster spot. If he has to pay a broken down Lieberthal to be the backup catcher, instead of the dead man walking he picked up (with a pitcher he seems to clearly not want in the starting rotation), I wonder what the deal is. It's like he doesn't want these guys any more than the rest of us do.

    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?

    2006-12-01 14:07:46
    121.   ToyCannon
    And that D4P is what Boras is about. Many agents might have thought about the opt out clause but he went a step further and increased his clients ability to negotiate with other teams by removing the possibility of losing a 1st round pick. He covers all the angles.
    2006-12-01 14:07:50
    122.   sanchez101
    115. I think what you mean by 'wilting under the pressure' by Drew in Boston, you mean his play will get worse by playing in Boston becuase of all the media and fan pressure, right? I agree, unforturnately, what this really means is that when Drew struggles (he will, even in a good healthy season) or is injured, the media will declare that his 'indifferent' attitude means he can't 'handle the pressue.'

    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)

    2006-12-01 14:08:38
    123.   natepurcell
    and would seem to be a candidate for release,

    royals are paying dessens salary (and we are paying perez's) so i dont think he is going to be released.

    2006-12-01 14:10:17
    124.   Andrew Shimmin
    123- Doesn't that make it more likely, not less? He dropped Cruz, even though it cost however many million dollars to do it. He can cut Dessens without losing an extra penny.
    2006-12-01 14:10:29
    125.   Uncle Miltie
    119- agree. I really doubt that Durham is juicing. He's always had a really solid build, kind of like a running back. Durham should be able to hit between 15-20 home runs a year for the life of his contract. Durham is below average defensively, but he'd still be an upgrade over Kent. 4 years ago, Jeter didn't belong at SS (now he's about average defensively). It's time for Kent to move to 1B or demand a trade (hopefully the later). At the very least, having Kent and Nomar swap positions would likely improve the infield defense.
    2006-12-01 14:11:54
    126.   ToyCannon
    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.
    2006-12-01 14:11:56
    127.   D4P
    He covers all the angles

    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...

    2006-12-01 14:15:31
    128.   D4P
    And PS: What is in the best interest of an individual client may not necessarily be in the best interest of the team. The more concessions made to one player, the less resources available to allocate to other players.

    To what extent is this a "collective action" problem, where individuals competing for themselves actually bring about outcomes that are worse for the group?

    2006-12-01 14:16:34
    129.   trainwreck
    LaRoche in the outfield? Kind of a waste of his talents, but at least he has a better chance of sticking with us.

    I am not sold on Betemit myself.

    2006-12-01 14:16:47
    130.   ToyCannon
    JD could have a great season but if he pulls the same October dud that he pulled for us they will all want his head in November. Dodgers fans pretty much ignored his failing in October. Not because they understand sample size but because Basketball had started and most people in LA don't even know who JD is. Everyone in Boston knows everything about the RedSox. My wife's 4th grade class couldn't even name one Dodger even when they were in the playoffs except for Gagne while I expect the opposite would happen in Boston. He liked the quiet life in Pasadena, he will never see that again.
    2006-12-01 14:17:11
    131.   natepurcell
    Rosenthal having "sources" stating the obvious...

    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.

    2006-12-01 14:18:50
    132.   Daniel Zappala
    55 Congrats. You've just guaranteed that Toby Hall will become next year's David Ross.
    2006-12-01 14:19:18
    133.   Benaiah
    113 - No one knows if that is true. We know that he would sign with those concessions in the contract, but no one knows if he would have signed without them and for how much. Those two concessions were bargaining chips and like all bargaining chips they have a price, Depo obviously thought that they either didn't matter or they weren't weren't the price of getting them out of the contract. In retrospect he was probably wrong, though again who knows what it would have taken to get rid of those clauses.
    2006-12-01 14:19:21
    134.   sanchez101
    120. Isn't Dessens essentially free, or at least being paid by the Royals? Marlon is exceedingly cheap thanks to Washington. Combined, your getting 3 veterans (which on a team as young as the Dodger IS important, as unsexy as that fact seems) for less than $2m, or less than 1/50th of the teams payroll. Considering who much guys like DeRosa, Stanton, and others (Im shoudn't even mention 4th outfielder extrodinare Gary Matthews II) are making, it seems more about cost-efficiency than anything.

    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.

    2006-12-01 14:19:30
    135.   Andrew Shimmin
    I am not sold on Betemit myself.

    Nobody is. Forgot to include him, but he's part of my ponderings in 120.

    2006-12-01 14:20:22
    136.   Daniel Zappala
    65 This idea of tradeable vs nontradeable prospects is all relative. Taking the guy on the top of the list -- Billingsley -- I'd certainly trade him for Santana.
    2006-12-01 14:21:26
    137.   Steve
    The interesting story here is how the news media got hooked on the opt-out clause, which was a non-issue, and not on this issue, which is a disaster.
    2006-12-01 14:21:59
    138.   Benaiah
    I think Boston should bat Drew ahead of Ortiz, not behind him. Plus, they should keep Manny and not sign Matsusaka, but that is another thing altogether. Why not bat the guy with huge OBP in front of the guy with huge Slugging, instead of vice versa? If they keep Manny, a Drew, Ortiz, Manny 2-3-4 or 3-4-5 would be absurd.
    2006-12-01 14:24:33
    139.   Andrew Shimmin
    134- I'm not saying the moves are bad, in and of themselves. I'm saying, it seems like his trades are mostly a means of acquiring players he doesn't much want. That he looks at that aspect of his job as a way to fill holes (real or imagined). It makes me wonder whether the Manny thing is even more unlikely; if that's not his M.O.

    It's still too early, though, to decide what his M.O. is, so it probably means less than I think it does.

    2006-12-01 14:26:17
    140.   sanchez101
    131. I can't see, in my wildest imagination, Ned trading more than one of those young guys for Manny. Why would you blow up, or take a big bit out of, the rebuilding project (5 years in progress, mind you) for a well-combensated, albiet top-tier, DH? This is almost as fantaticly, obviously, out-of-line with what Ned Colletti has claimed are his long-term objectives as the David Wells for Kemp or Loney 'deal' was. Why do columnists not recongnize this? If Colletti wants to win now, and is willing to trade prospects to do it, why sign Pierre? If Colletti really wanted to persue that strategy he would be trying to trade for Vernon Wells or Carl Crawford or Rocco Balldelli. Not Manny.
    2006-12-01 14:26:22
    141.   natepurcell
    lugo needs to hurry up and sign with boston. All this talk of him going to the cubs and us only getting a 3rd round pick isnt something i want to keep pondering about.
    2006-12-01 14:27:19
    142.   dsfan
    106, 110, 118--

    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.

    2006-12-01 14:29:26
    143.   dsfan

    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.

    2006-12-01 14:30:09
    144.   ToyCannon
    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.
    2006-12-01 14:30:23
    145.   natepurcell

    I agree. I was a proponent of the betemit trade at the time and i still like. I like his power potential alot.

    2006-12-01 14:31:01
    146.   Steve
    Who is to say that if we had multiple number one picks that we'd even sign them?

    Thank God for the Lugo trade.

    2006-12-01 14:31:11
    147.   natepurcell

    we signed all our number 1s in this past draft.

    2006-12-01 14:31:12
    148.   Steve
    [/end sarcasm]
    2006-12-01 14:31:13
    149.   trainwreck
    NO! Lady Bruins dreams were just shattered!
    2006-12-01 14:32:16
    150.   sanchez101
    139. Unless you have an unlimited payroll, and maybe even if you do, you can't only acquire players you 'like.' You try to fill holes and keep guys like Mike Edwards and Scott Erickson in AAA. Colletti can't afforde to be any less pragmatic than that or the Dodgers will miss the playoffs and his job wil be endangered.

    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.

    Show/Hide Comments 151-200
    2006-12-01 14:32:47
    151.   Sam DC
    It may be that DePodesta didn't appreciate the significance of this issue, or it may be that he pushed back on this and concluded it was necessary to get the deal done. We don't know. But it doesn't seem logical to me to evaluate just this clause (or this clause plus the opt out) in isolation from the rest of the contract. Was it an overall good deal for the Dodgers given that they got the two years they got from Drew for the price they paid? Could they have been doing something better with the money and the roster spot they gave Drew and, I suppose, whatever draft picks they lost when they signed him in the first place.
    2006-12-01 14:33:20
    152.   robohobo
    113. If I were a GM, I would stay away from giving long expensive contracts to injury prone players. JD Drew is a very good player but he is also the prototype for an injury prone player. The Dodgers took a big risk signing him to that contract and they won, sort of. He played for all of a season and quarters worth of games in two years. Had he stayed, I would not be surprised if he had been injured again.
    2006-12-01 14:34:52
    153.   jdm025
    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.
    2006-12-01 14:35:37
    154.   ToyCannon
    Betemit will lead the team in Home Runs in 2007 if given 450 at bats as the current roster stands. Course that may not be saying much but I like him.
    2006-12-01 14:36:27
    155.   blue22
    152 - Had he stayed, I would not be surprised if he had been injured again.

    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.

    2006-12-01 14:36:46
    156.   bhsportsguy
    BTW - A byproduct of not signing Hochevar, the number one prospect according to BP, Clayton Kershaw.
    2006-12-01 14:37:17
    157.   Andrew Shimmin
    Wasn't slot pricing part of the new CBA? I don't remember any enforcement mechanism, so maybe that won't actually happen, but it seems like the chance of not signing a first rounder was supposed to decrease significantly, this year.
    2006-12-01 14:37:25
    158.   dsfan

    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.

    2006-12-01 14:37:35
    159.   trainwreck
    I would like Betemit at second base and LaRoche at third. Betemit needs to work on his on base skills and his defense, which can be sloppy.
    2006-12-01 14:38:12
    160.   bhsportsguy
    I don't think teams are going to sign anyone today, why would they unless they think another team is in the running.
    2006-12-01 14:39:05
    161.   Benaiah
    139 - I personally hate that the Dodgers don't have and haven't had a GREAT hitter or starter since Piazza. I know that balance up and down the lineup is more important, but I wish the Dodgers had a star to build around. I know that Brown was sick in 03 and Beltre carried the team in 04, but those were a rare non-injured year and the fluke-steroid aided-contract year respectively and not someone to build around. This all ties around your comment in that I hate it when the team spends 30-40 million dollars in annual contracts in an offseason and gets decent players, bench guys and middle of the rotation starters. We are the team of Koufax and Robinson and the second biggest market in the country, we deserve better.
    2006-12-01 14:39:30
    162.   Fallout
    How could the Drew contract be a lose-lose situation for the Dodgers...

    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.

    2006-12-01 14:39:37
    163.   sanchez101
    152. What GM doesn't want to stay away from giving long expensive contracts to injury prone players? It isn't that simple.

    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.

    2006-12-01 14:39:49
    164.   Andrew Shimmin
    None of you would move Nomar to third (if he were willing and able) and put Loney at first, in front of playing Betemit? I didn't mean to say nobody liked him; I really only meant nobody was sold on him, the way everybody is sold on Martin, and halfish are sold on Ethier. It's possible that I'm putting to much credence in the rumors that the Dodgers were in on the AmRam talks. Or that I'm completely wrong, for any of a number of other reasons. . .
    2006-12-01 14:40:29
    165.   jdm025
    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.

    2006-12-01 14:41:03
    166.   ToyCannon
    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.
    2006-12-01 14:41:39
    167.   robohobo
    155. True. Because Drew was healthy-ish last year, his contract effectively became a good 2 year deal instead of an bad 5 year deal.
    2006-12-01 14:42:32
    168.   Jon Weisman
    151 - I've been trying to make this point for two years and I just meet with such resistance. So many people look at that clause out of context. I find it frustrating.
    2006-12-01 14:42:35
    169.   natepurcell
    what is the fascination with ted lilly? can someone explain this to me.
    2006-12-01 14:42:36
    170.   bhsportsguy
    157 Slot pricing was not part of the CBA, what they did to screw non-MLB players was to extend the protection for putting players on the 40-man rosters another year and eliminate basically all draft and follows by setting a firm sign or be set free date.

    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.

    2006-12-01 14:42:58
    171.   trainwreck
    They are going to make a ton of money from all the Matsuzaka mania. The guy is the star of stars in Japan. They also are trying to work a deal with the Seibu Lions, which will only give them more power.
    2006-12-01 14:43:19
    172.   Benaiah
    161 - Let me stress that I am not talking about signing Soriano or Zito. I just wish that we had a hitter like Pujols, Arod or Ortiz or a pitcher like Santana or Carpenter.
    2006-12-01 14:43:40
    173.   dsfan

    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.

    2006-12-01 14:44:27
    174.   sanchez101
    165. I think this is probably pretty close to Ned's thought process. At the end of the day, it's effectively Drew and change for Manny. In a wierd, karmic kind of way, it would echo the Hochevar-Kershaw situation.
    2006-12-01 14:47:45
    175.   sanchez101
    169. He's lefthanded and has shown the ability to handle a full starters workload at the major league level. Those two facts alone make him worth, at least, $6-8 million and a multi-years commitment. This is why my kid will have his right hand tied behind his back in infancy and his heroes will be Eric Milton and Denny Neagle.
    2006-12-01 14:49:35
    176.   trainwreck
    He also has good stuff, shown by his good strikeout ratios. Inconsistency is Lilly's biggest problem.
    2006-12-01 14:50:07
    177.   DodgerHobbit
    169 Lilly seems like the left handed version of Jeff Weaver to me.
    2006-12-01 14:51:35
    178.   jdm025
    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.
    2006-12-01 14:51:56
    179.   ToyCannon
    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.
    2006-12-01 14:52:34
    180.   natepurcell

    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.

    2006-12-01 14:53:07
    181.   Steve
    JD Drew probably wishes he felt this much love while he was still here.
    2006-12-01 14:55:44
    182.   jdm025
    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.

    2006-12-01 14:55:47
    183.   Eric Enders
    144 "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."

    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.

    2006-12-01 14:57:51
    184.   trainwreck
    I think the Wolf signing made Lilly pointless for us.
    2006-12-01 14:58:16
    185.   sanchez101
    180. Oh, don't mistake my response for my approval of Lilly on the Dodgers. Keep him as far away from Chazev ravine as possible, unless he's wearing Brown and Orange.
    2006-12-01 14:58:38
    186.   Sushirabbit
    179 I'd wager on Kent playing more than Drew next season. Some of his time off was from getting beaned. He consistently gets alot of at bats year after year.

    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.

    2006-12-01 15:01:22
    187.   blue22
    186 - Kent hit the DL last year with an oblique strain (not from getting beaned).

    And, of course, he's never been 39 before either.

    2006-12-01 15:02:59
    188.   Jon Weisman
    Five players hit 10 or more home runs for the 2003 Dodgers. Without researching, how many can you name?
    2006-12-01 15:03:12
    189.   sanchez101
    For the Laker fans out there, who would you rather see reach their potential, Bynum or Kershaw? Or is Bynum's equivilent Matt Kemp? Would that make Farmar Martin's equal, is it still to soon to give Jordan that status?

    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?

    2006-12-01 15:03:33
    190.   trainwreck
    Betemit, Kent, Nomar, Ethier, and Martin?
    2006-12-01 15:04:02
    191.   trainwreck
    Maybe substiture Furcal for Martin.
    2006-12-01 15:04:26
    192.   trainwreck
    2006-12-01 15:04:35
    193.   ToyCannon
    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.
    2006-12-01 15:06:19
    194.   trainwreck
    oh 2003, I have to pay attention better.
    2006-12-01 15:06:23
    195.   sanchez101
    Drew, Nomar, Kent, Ethier, Furcal, Saenz, Martin?, thats all I can name. Betemit and Lugo hit >10 on the season, but not all for LA. I can't believe that Cruz, Repko, Aybar or Martinez did. Loney didn't, Kemp didn't, Navarro surely didn't do it. Wow.
    2006-12-01 15:06:46
    196.   Sushirabbit
    188 none. :-)

    Beltre, Green, Ventura, ... that's all I got

    2006-12-01 15:07:34
    197.   sanchez101
    194. Ill second that
    2006-12-01 15:07:53
    198.   Andrew Shimmin
    193- Kershaw was on the board because KC took Hochevar. If he wasn't available, Kershaw would have gone to KC, or one of the teams whose actual pick had been taken by KC in the number one spot. Probably.
    2006-12-01 15:08:14
    199.   D4P
    Ron Coomer, Jeromy Burnitz, Alex Cora, Daryle Ward, Rickey Henderson...?
    2006-12-01 15:08:15
    200.   Sushirabbit
    Show/Hide Comments 201-250
    2006-12-01 15:09:24
    201.   jdm025
    Did Betemit play for us in 2003?

    Green, Beltre, Lo Duca, uhhhh...

    2006-12-01 15:09:58
    202.   Sushirabbit
    Henderson? I guess that's not any wilder than Ventura. Does he hold the lead for lead off homers? Anyway, I'm out as I couldn't resist finding out the list.
    2006-12-01 15:10:07
    203.   Sam DC
    (nervously wondering how many of these gys were even on the team in 2003)

    Devon White

    2006-12-01 15:10:37
    204.   trainwreck
    Does Burnitz count?

    Did McGriff hit 10?

    2006-12-01 15:10:47
    205.   Eric Enders
    193 "I don't see your point. We would have signed and drafted Kershaw even if we had signed Hochevar in 2005."

    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.

    2006-12-01 15:11:04
    206.   sanchez101
    193. Hochevar at #1 dropped Andrew Miller to Detroit at #6, who until then targeted Kershaw for that pick. Kershaw was only availale to the Dodgers becuase Hochevar was in the draft, and because the Royals picked him. Otherwise, he'd be atop Detroit's prospect list. We would've used #7 for Morris, who we got anyway latter on, if Detroit had picked Kershaw.
    2006-12-01 15:11:46
    207.   trainwreck
    Hundley? lol

    Man, I think Dreifort was our best hitter.

    2006-12-01 15:12:48
    208.   Eric Enders
    I'll guess Green, Beltre, McGriff, Ross, Hernandez.
    2006-12-01 15:13:10
    209.   Sam DC
    Having looked, I'm afraid Paulie let us down that year -- you have to add him and Alex Cora together to get past 10.
    2006-12-01 15:13:34
    210.   saltcreek
    Green, Beltre, Burnitz, Ventura, Encarnacion?
    2006-12-01 15:13:51
    211.   ssjames
    I think Grissom hit 10 for us that year, or might have been 02.
    2006-12-01 15:14:11
    212.   ToyCannon
    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.
    2006-12-01 15:14:40
    213.   saltcreek
    crap was encarnacion even on the team?
    2006-12-01 15:15:04
    214.   Bob Timmermann
    Juan Encarnacion played on multiple teams in 2003. None of them being the Dodgers.
    2006-12-01 15:15:21
    215.   trainwreck
    I cannot remember if it was 02 or 03 when Lo Duca hit all those homeruns, but I think it was 02.
    2006-12-01 15:18:29
    216.   blue22
    215 - 2001.
    2006-12-01 15:18:39
    217.   Eric Enders
    All my other guesses may have been terrible, but at least I got the correct Dodger catcher who reached double digits that year!
    2006-12-01 15:19:15
    218.   ssjames
    I looked up the answer, although I won't reveal it, but found something even more interesting. That 03 team had 5 pitchers hit a homerun that year, how many can you name?
    2006-12-01 15:21:48
    219.   saltcreek
    215. wasnt 03
    2006-12-01 15:21:56
    220.   Eric Enders
    Dreifort, Mota, Ashby, Ishii, and Nomo.

    That's probably colossally wrong, but at least I'm reasonably certain they were all on the team that year.

    2006-12-01 15:22:45
    221.   trainwreck
    Nomo, Brown, Ashby, Alvarez, and Ishii?

    I am going with starters.

    2006-12-01 15:24:14
    222.   blue22
    220 - You definitely got two of them. I just don't see more than that as having homered that year.

    218 - You sure it's 5, not 2?

    2006-12-01 15:24:38
    223.   trainwreck
    I know for sure Nomo hit a homerun in 03 or 04 because he was on my friends fantasy team and he was mad he got no points for him hitting a HR.
    2006-12-01 15:26:43
    224.   blue22
    223 - I'm a commish in a league, and I get that a lot. I politely point out to them that if they want the homerun, they also have to accept the .167/.180/.220 line the pitcher puts up the rest of the year.
    2006-12-01 15:27:18
    225.   bhsportsguy
    212 The Dodgers reportedly paid about $4.6 million in bonuses for Kershaw, Morris and Mattingly.

    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.

    2006-12-01 15:27:20
    226.   ToyCannon
    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.

    2006-12-01 15:32:05
    227.   saltcreek
    223. i know he hit one in 04....i was at the game
    2006-12-01 15:35:50
    228.   Jon Weisman
    Eric came the closest:

    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)

    2006-12-01 15:37:08
    229.   sanchez101
    226. It doesn't make much sense if youre thinking the MLB draft is anything like the NBA's or NFL's, where the idea of guy worth a #7 pick could slide to #20 without much notice is inconcievable. But guys in that draft get taken well below, or well above, where the 'consensus' had them prior to the draft. Morris was a 'steal' becuase the Dodgers wouldve taken him much earlier, Mattingley was an 'overdraft' becuase most saw him in the 3rd round or lower. None of this actually matters, I think most teams decide what guys they like and really want in any given draft and just try to get as many of them as possible given their budget. Logan White, in particular, has made some head-scratching decisions at the top of the draft before. Most, for example, saw Loney as a pitcher coming into the 2002 draft, and not a first-round pitcher at that.
    2006-12-01 15:42:35
    230.   Eric Enders
    228 Except I should be penalized for guessing someone who wasn't even on the team!
    2006-12-01 15:46:26
    231.   Bob Timmermann
    Nomo homered four times in his career.

    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

    2006-12-01 15:47:26
    232.   jdm025
    Based on his success with Peavy, maybe we should have gotten him at the deadline instead of Lugo.
    2006-12-01 15:49:03
    233.   ssjames
    221 Trainwreck got 3 or the 5 pitchers to homer: Brown, Nomo and Ashby homered. As did Odalis Perez somehow and Omar Daal. I don't even remember what Omar Daal looked like.
    2006-12-01 15:49:23
    234.   Eric Enders
    I knew Mota homered in '03 because I was at the game. I think Bob might have been too.
    2006-12-01 15:50:07
    235.   Steve
    The Cubs have discussed acquiring Rockies right-hander Jason Jennings for right fielder Jacque Jones

    Even Hendry can figure this one out.

    2006-12-01 15:52:50
    236.   blue22
    233 - I only saw Nomo and Mota homering in '03.
    2006-12-01 15:53:02
    237.   Dave
    I really don't think DePodesta was hood-winked by Boras. He wanted a productive RF for two years. He signed a free-agent that cost him no players and gave him a deal that would leave the position open at the end of two years. He had to make the 5-year deal to get it done, but he wanted to assure that the player did leave after 2 years, because his intention was to bring up young players faster than the current management is doing. Giving up arb and draft picks to assure that result seemed like a reasonable way to assure that happening and it worked. JMO
    2006-12-01 15:53:13
    238.   ssjames
    234 After double checking I must be retarded, because I meant to ask about 02, and somehow asked about 03 instead. My confusion ruins everything.
    2006-12-01 15:54:52
    239.   blue22
    237 - That's pretty much my theory on it as well, that Depo wanted him to leave after two years.
    2006-12-01 15:57:40
    240.   saltcreek
    233 Omar Daal wasnt on the dodgers in 03, but rather hit the homerun for the dodgers in 02.
    2006-12-01 15:58:22
    241.   trainwreck
    Dang, I had Odalis but I changed it for Ishii.
    2006-12-01 15:58:54
    242.   saltcreek
    240 he only played 1 game in 03 and has been out of the game ever since.
    2006-12-01 16:01:11
    243.   Bob Timmermann
    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.
    2006-12-01 16:02:05
    244.   saltcreek
    sorry he played in 19 games in 03...he only batted in 1 game
    2006-12-01 16:04:17
    245.   blue22
    241 - That's a shame, since I'm sure you remember Odalis' homerun that year:

    2006-12-01 16:05:33
    246.   ssjames
    243 I was at the Dreifort 2 HR game, man those things were blasts. He really had some pop in his bat.
    2006-12-01 16:06:55
    247.   dzzrtRatt
    Oh does this bring back memories of 2003, a truly memorable season, not all good ones:

    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.

    2006-12-01 16:07:10
    248.   Eric Enders
    243 I knew you were in Denver then since I saw you the day before, so I figured you might have been at the game.

    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.

    2006-12-01 16:07:26
    249.   Daniel Zappala
    128 To what extent is this a "collective action" problem, where individuals competing for themselves actually bring about outcomes that are worse for the group?

    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.

    2006-12-01 16:08:22
    250.   Eric Enders
    "I don't even remember what Omar Daal looked like."

    Think of a ringtailed cat wearing a blue ballcap, and you've about got him.

    Show/Hide Comments 251-300
    2006-12-01 16:09:10
    251.   Eric Enders
    "A name I thought might be on this list: Brian Jordan. But I guess this is the year he was hurt."


    2006-12-01 16:12:04
    252.   Rocc
    The Rays officially signed HSC to a "split deal"(basically 2 yrs, 1.95 if he makes the team out of ST but less if he doesn't).

    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.

    2006-12-01 16:17:36
    253.   Jacob L
    I was at the Odalis homer, complete game shutout game. We've rehashed that one a number of times here.

    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.

    2006-12-01 16:18:30
    254.   Jacob L
    252 Noooo. Lose that phone number. Tampa is the new Montreal.
    2006-12-01 16:20:42
    255.   Bob Timmermann
    There's a separatist movement in Tampa? Does Florida want more autonomy within a unified U.S.?
    2006-12-01 16:25:53
    256.   CanuckDodger
    183 -- Eric, you lumped LaRoche and Kemp together as "guys with signability concerns" whom the Dodgers got by "forking over the dough." That is certainly true of LaRoche, a 2003 39th rounder we paid $1 million to sign, but we signed Kemp for slot money, $150,000 as a 2003 6th rounder. Kemp was a complete nobody (a raw athlete better known in high school for basketball) till Logan White "discovered" him while he was in a small Oklahoma town to look at a much more high profile draft prospect who ended up getting $300,000 from the Twins and is now forgotten.
    2006-12-01 16:31:58
    257.   Andrew Shimmin
    I'm a member of the Florida Secessionist movement. There aren't as many of us as I wish there were, but sometimes that happens when you're just too right for other people to handle it.

    One of the reasons I support global warming so much is that the rising sea will reclaim that swamp.

    2006-12-01 16:35:42
    258.   D4P
    a system that enables you to act in your own self interest such that the result is something that advances the common good

    That would be interesting indeed...

    2006-12-01 16:39:54
    259.   StolenMonkey86
    Apparently the Giants decided they should re-sign Ray Durham for 2 years, $14 million.
    2006-12-01 16:45:45
    260.   Fallout
    JD was being courted by Detroit at the time, we were not his only suitors.

    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.

    2006-12-01 16:45:56
    261.   CanuckDodger
    226 -- I don't think there is any justification for saying that Logan White would have been making a big mistake if he had taken Bryan Morris at #7 overall, if Kershaw were off the board, just because nobody took Morris between #8 and #25. Scouting directors don't have a hive mentality, and a consensus of opinion may be wrong. Russell Martin and Matt Kemp were not among Baseball America's Top 200 Draft Prospects in the years they were drafted. In 229, sanchez101 mentions that James Loney was not generally considered first round material when Logan White drafted him #19 overall, and most scouting directors thought more of him as a pitcher. Sanchez101 might also have mentioned that the following year Chad Billingsley was considered a second round talent by Baseball America before the draft, and White raised eyebrows by taking him #24 overall. As for Morris having TJ surgery, injuries are an occupational risk of pitching, and any pitcher can blow out his elbow at any time. The odds of full recovery from TJ surgery are very good, so likely Morris's timetable has just been set back a year.
    2006-12-01 16:47:17
    262.   CanuckDodger
    226 -- I don't think there is any justification for saying that Logan White would have been making a big mistake if he had taken Bryan Morris at #7 overall, if Kershaw were off the board, just because nobody took Morris between #8 and #25. Scouting directors don't have a hive mentality, and a consensus of opinion may be wrong. Russell Martin and Matt Kemp were not among Baseball America's Top 200 Draft Prospects in the years they were drafted. In 229, sanchez101 mentions that James Loney was not generally considered first round material when Logan White drafted him #19 overall, and most scouting directors thought more of him as a pitcher. Sanchez101 might also have mentioned that the following year Chad Billingsley was considered a second round talent by Baseball America before the draft, and White raised eyebrows by taking him #24 overall. As for Morris having TJ surgery, injuries are an occupational risk of pitching, and any pitcher can blow out his elbow at any time. The odds of full recovery from TJ surgery are very good, so likely Morris's timetable has just been set back a year.
    2006-12-01 16:58:49
    263.   trainwreck
    The Giants are going after Bengie Molina and I am guessing they will probably sign him.

    When will the Giants learn they have to rebuild?

    2006-12-01 17:04:01
    264.   Andrew Shimmin
    263- They're not going to trade Lincecum and whoever else for him. So, it's progress, after a fashion.
    2006-12-01 17:05:29
    265.   StolenMonkey86
    263 - I'd give them a year away from Bonds first.
    2006-12-01 17:08:44
    266.   ToyCannon
    If Logan had taken Morris at 7 and left Linecrum on the table I'd been upset and that is not hindsite talking. I don't understand why anyone takes what a GM or SD says as gospel. The goal is PR mumbo jumbo or misinformation, just because Jim Callis says Logan White would have taken Morris does not mean squat. Everyone has an agenda and truthfullness is not part of it. I feel I'm beating a dead horse but even if the info was correct and Logan would have taken Morris it doesn't make the decision to not sign Hochevar the correct one. Hochevar could just as easily not wowed the Royals and fallen past the 7th pick and we'd still be stuck with only Morris and no Kershaw. Logan was extremely lucky it ended playing out that Kershaw fell to the Dodgers. Pure luck, not some plan.
    2006-12-01 17:10:35
    267.   D4P
    This from Ned:

    "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...?

    2006-12-01 17:12:54
    268.   ToyCannon
    The rotation of Cain/Linecrum/Lowry is still very solid and could be spectacular. I love Linecrum, it is going to pain me for years to have him pitching for the Giants.
    2006-12-01 17:15:20
    269.   natepurcell

    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.

    2006-12-01 17:18:23
    270.   Eric Enders
    257 I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that we had to give Kemp a larger-than-normal signing bonus to lure him away from playing college basketball.
    2006-12-01 17:18:37
    271.   ToyCannon
    As an old professor once taught me it takes 3 things to make a closer. Stuff, Guile, and opportunity. Many pitchers with stuff never the get the opportunity. Some get the opportunity and have the stuff but not the guile.
    2006-12-01 17:19:37
    272.   Eric Enders
    256, not 257

    Is there somewhere I can get professional help for my chronic linking incompetence?

    2006-12-01 17:19:48
    273.   robohobo
    267. Less chances to get runs back that are surrendered, I would guess.
    2006-12-01 17:20:43
    274.   ToyCannon
    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.
    2006-12-01 17:20:50
    275.   StolenMonkey86
    267 - $AVE$
    2006-12-01 17:20:52
    276.   Jon Weisman
    267 - Building on your point, since 2001, the Dodger closer has been someone from within the organization or a minimum-salary free agent. Except for Danys Baez.
    2006-12-01 17:22:21
    277.   Eric Enders
    266 I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the notion that it was luck. But the fact remains, luck or not, the Dodgers did benefit greatly by not signing Hochevar.
    2006-12-01 17:24:09
    278.   bhsportsguy
    276 And he was not necessarily signed on to be the closer.
    2006-12-01 17:28:19
    279.   robohobo
    276. How many free agent closer signings can be thought of as successful?
    2006-12-01 17:32:12
    280.   trainwreck
    I have heard Lincecum will probably end up being more of a closer, but who knows. He sounds like Rich Harden to me.
    2006-12-01 17:32:21
    281.   Eric Enders
    279 Billy Wagner comes to mind. I believe the Yankees had to re-sign Mariano as a free agent, didn't they? B.J. Ryan has a really long deal, but it looks good so far. Rollie Fingers was a good FA signing for the Padres, then won a Cy under that contract when they traded him to the Brewers. Jay Howell was good with the Dodgers to a certain degree.
    2006-12-01 19:12:46
    282.   CanuckDodger
    270 -- Matt Kemp did not have the high school grades to qualify for a basketball scholarship for a Division 1 school, so it did not take an above-slot bonus to lure him to pro baseball.
    2006-12-01 19:27:49
    283.   Sam DC
    This looks kinda neat. Poor man's T-Shirt option, Jon.

    2006-12-01 19:29:02
    284.   trainwreck
    Well at least he tries harder at baseball then he did at school.
    2006-12-01 19:34:20
    285.   Bob Timmermann
    Has anyone ever received a new car as a gift with a red bow on it like the commercials depict?
    2006-12-01 19:38:21
    286.   D4P
    None of the new cars I've received as gifts had red bows on them.
    2006-12-01 19:45:43
    287.   Eric Enders
    I got a used 1980 Buick Regal as a gift. It didn't come with a red bow, but it came with a sweet vinyl top and an 8-track player.
    2006-12-01 19:48:30
    288.   Steve
    In fact, he wasn't signed at all. To our everlasting dismay.
    2006-12-01 20:21:51
    289.   Jon Weisman
    The T-Shirt is like a giant version of the sidebar. It shouldn't be so hard for me to take care of, but man, is it ever.
    2006-12-01 20:41:25
    290.   Hallux Valgus
    "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."

    GAH!!! This is EXACTLY what I was talking about in my long winded diatribe for the Manny post. killing me slowly....

    2006-12-01 21:00:20
    291.   LAT
    Never had a car with a red bow. Once on my birthday I had a girlfriend with a red bow but that's another story.
    2006-12-01 21:04:10
    292.   Sam DC
    If you happen to be watching Enemy of the State with Will Smith (a little blunt with the message but generally clever and surprisingly enjoyable), when they show a sweeping curved building at the end, with big umbrella looking things outside and the caption says its the FBI, it's not. It's actually the HUD building.
    2006-12-01 21:05:18
    293.   D4P
    but that's another story

    And a much more interesting one...

    2006-12-01 21:05:49
    294.   Sam DC
    This one.

    (The picture refers to 292, not 291, if anyone was potentially confused.)

    2006-12-01 21:15:35
    295.   LAT
    As I think Bob will confirm, they regularly turn the Downtown Public Library into a police station, museum and other public buildings; however, I don't recall having seeing it on screen as a library.
    2006-12-01 21:19:03
    296.   Bob Timmermann
    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.

    2006-12-01 21:20:07
    297.   Bob Timmermann
    The Central Library played itself once in an episode of "The Rockford Files"
    2006-12-01 21:35:13
    298.   Sam DC
    So, no arbitration for Gagne?

    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.

    2006-12-01 21:38:44
    299.   D4P
    So, no arbitration for Gagne?

    Nope, just for Lugo.

    2006-12-01 21:40:48
    300.   LAT
    Not Maddux?
    Show/Hide Comments 301-350
    2006-12-01 21:42:39
    301.   D4P
    Not Maddux.

    2006-12-01 21:43:45
    302.   Sam DC
    So, this is recycled from a side note I sent to Bob, but I just think it's too funny to let rest.

    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)

    2006-12-01 21:48:55
    303.   Bob Timmermann
    I remember last year, I posted lists of players who were offered arbitration and all that as it happened.

    I was more enthusiastic last year.

    It also mattered more last year.

    2006-12-01 21:50:39
    304.   Andrew Shimmin
    There's a (minor, by wikipedia standards) scrum, in the history section, over what his nickname should be. I like the one up there now.
    2006-12-01 21:57:14
    305.   trainwreck
    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.

    2006-12-01 21:59:18
    306.   D4P
    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.

    2006-12-01 22:11:42
    307.   trainwreck
    I had heard Ned was getting frustrated with Maddux because he wanted two years at around 10 million. When Ned wanted a one year deal.
    2006-12-01 22:12:14
    308.   trainwreck
    Of course, Gurnick or whoever it was could have been full of it.
    2006-12-01 22:29:07
    309.   CanuckDodger
    309 -- I am not surprised we didn't offer Maddux arbitration. I think Wolf took the rotation slot, and salary commitment, that the Dodgers were hoping Maddux would take. Since we are still after Schmidt, we now can't afford to even risk Maddux accepting arbitration, the way Maddux did unexpectedly a few years ago with the Braves, causing the Braves to scramble to dump Kevin Millwood's salary. So Maddux is history, and we aren't getting any compensation for him.
    2006-12-01 22:37:00
    310.   uclasway
    Maddux was allegedly seeking a 2 yr 22.5 million dollar contract and the dodgers only wanted 1 yr. Hopefully this doesn't mean Colleti isn't dealing w/ Boras on principle, because in the long run Boras controls a large percentage of elite players in the league. Maybe Colletti will sign schmidt and keep penny instead of signing maddux. We just need 2 of those 3 to have a formidable staff of Lowe, Schmidt, Penny/Maddux, Wolf, Bilz/Kuo

    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)

    2006-12-01 22:37:00
    311.   uclasway
    Maddux was allegedly seeking a 2 yr 22.5 million dollar contract and the dodgers only wanted 1 yr. Hopefully this doesn't mean Colleti isn't dealing w/ Boras on principle, because in the long run Boras controls a large percentage of elite players in the league. Maybe Colletti will sign schmidt and keep penny instead of signing maddux. We just need 2 of those 3 to have a formidable staff of Lowe, Schmidt, Penny/Maddux, Wolf, Bilz/Kuo

    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)

    2006-12-01 22:46:22
    312.   CanuckDodger
    310 -- Why are you asking questions that many people have answered in many, many comments on this board? We do not want Ramirez at the price Boston wants for him. We have no idea what the price for Burrell would be, but it can't be good if we are showing no interest in paying that either. And we don't NEED 35 plus HR's from anybody. The Dodgers were a playoff team in 2006 with sketchy pitching in both the starting rotation and the bullpen and we did not have a single hitter who came within 14 HR's of being a 35 HR man.
    2006-12-01 22:51:22
    313.   Robert Daeley
    So the Giants offered arbitration to Schmidt, which would mean two compensation picks --

    2006-12-01 22:56:20
    314.   CanuckDodger
    Hong-Chih Kuo led Taiwan to victory over Korea in Taiwan's first game in the Asian Games. 5.0 IP, 6 H's, 1 ER, 1BB, 6 K's. Chin-Lung Hu went 2 for 5. I really want Kuo in our rotation in 2007.
    2006-12-01 23:03:42
    315.   Louis in SF
    In case it hasn't been answered already, my understanding was the Dodgers could not have offered Drew arbitration. Once he opted out of the contract he was out.
    2006-12-01 23:16:08
    316.   ToyCannon
    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.
    2006-12-01 23:19:39
    317.   ToyCannon
    After re-joining BP and perusing the chats and articles it would seem they are very high on our kids. Much higher then I would have expected.

    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.

    2006-12-01 23:56:45
    318.   Steve
    It could be that he's never been here before. Which is probably true from the unfamiliarity of his screen name. But more likely he was just trying to upset you.
    2006-12-02 00:05:04
    319.   JROBB
    So after signing Pierre, the Cubs will get our 1st round pick, we will only have the 1st round pick from the new team from Lugo and the sandwich pick, is that correct??
    2006-12-02 00:11:50
    320.   CanuckDodger
    319 -- Yes, Steve, he was trying to provoke my wrath, and I decided to give it to him. Seriously, I don't believe for a second this guy hasn't been reading the comments on the blog, hasn't read all the discussion about Manny Ramirez and why the Dodgers getting him might not be a matter of Colletti snapping his fingers. If he thinks the bottom line is that Ramirez should be a Dodger, and what we have to give up is irrelevent, just give Boston whatever it takes, he could have tried making a cogent argument for that, but no, he chose to make his position clear in a way that was calculatedly throwing down the gauntlet to anybody who doesn't want the Dodgers gutting our future for a trade.
    2006-12-02 00:13:58
    321.   CanuckDodger
    320 -- That should have been post "318" I was answering.

    319 -- Pierre was a Type B free agent, not Type A, so we don't lose any draft picks to the Cubs.

    2006-12-02 01:42:12
    322.   GoBears
    258 a system that enables you to act in your own self interest such that the result is something that advances the common good

    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.

    2006-12-02 08:16:37
    323.   Andrew Shimmin
    Hi uclasway. Always nice to see new screennames. If anybody was cranky with you, it's safe to assume it was almost entirely a function of the temperature's being in the single digits, and the sun's only being up for thirty seconds, every other day, in some parts of the world (morally superior, though they may be).

    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.

    2006-12-02 21:44:09
    324.   Brent is a Dodger Fan
    Not that anyone is still reading this thread, but I asked Kevin Goldstein of BP if any of the prospects Ned traded during 2006 would have made his top 10 guys under 25 list, and he said:

    "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.