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

The Maddux Matter
2006-12-02 09:04
by Jon Weisman

Some tough decisions provide nice fringe benefits, like the tax break you get when you sell stock at a loss. The mistake you can make is to put the fringe benefit ahead of the primary decision. You don't want to sell a stock headed for a big rise just to get a small check from the IRS. Nor do you figure to want to keep a stock that is falling, only so that you can avoid the capital-gains tax.

Somehow, this relates to the debate over whether the Dodgers should have offered arbitration to free-agent pitcher Greg Maddux. The nice fringe benefit would have been that if Maddux declined arbitration in search of a two-year contract, the Dodgers would receive draft pick compensation.

However, the risk would have been that if Maddux accepted, the Dodgers would have him in their rotation in 2007, at least for half the season - my understanding is that he would not be eligible to be traded until June. And the question you have to ask yourself is whether Maddux deserves to be in that rotation. Brad Penny, Derek Lowe, Randy Wolf, Hong-Chih Kuo and Chad Billingsley might be better pitchers to have in your starting five. By offering Maddux arbitration and forcing one of them to the sidelines - unless you trade one of those five - you might be weakening your team. Draft-pick compensation might not necessarily make up for that.

At the same time, if the Dodgers are still interested in Maddux, as this report by Steve Henson of the Times indicates, then I can't understand why the team wouldn't offer arbitration. At that point, it does seem like a no-lose situation - either he rejects the team's offer, as Julio Lugo is expected to do with his, or he accepts it, and you have a livable one-year deal with a pitcher over 40 that sets you up to trade someone like Penny for more offense or provides depth in the rotation to protect against injury.

It's a little perplexing.

* * *

We learned this week that J.D. Drew's contract with the Dodgers did not allow the team to offer him arbitration and gain draft-pick compensation if he opted out of his contract after two years, as he has. While this is another disappointing development, the one thing that I keep trying to remind people is that the Dodgers did not hand Drew and agent Scott Boras this option like an after-dinner mint. It was part of the overall negotation, and what it's worth, it no doubt saved the team money over the course of the contract.

Whether you think the Dodgers should have signed J.D. Drew or not is one thing, but the idea that the team was too stupid to realize what it was doing, in the context of the overall negotiation, doesn't track. You give something to get something, and the Dodgers gave up security with Drew to get a valuable player for two years.

* * *

A Santo Domingo reporter for Dominican Today published this interesting tidbbit from Grady Little:

"I know how to handle Manny Ramirez. I respect him as a player and he was a marvelous ballplayer in Boston. There aren't many like him and the Dodgers need a player of his stature," said the Dodgers manager.

"Manny would be a great Christmas present. Who wouldn't want a gift like that?" added Little, who was attending trials for young players at Santo Domingo's Olympic Stadium along with the general manager Ned Colletti and other executives from the Dodgers.

Comments (791)
Show/Hide Comments 1-50
2006-12-02 10:28:53
1.   Andrew Shimmin
Poking around the internets for my Baez fix, I learned that he also had a no-arbitration clause (probably; you know how the internets can be). So, he was never worth two draft picks. Which is true in every possible way.
2006-12-02 10:39:35
2.   Vishal
but one thing that needs to be considered is the odds of maddux accepting arb, especially when he wants a two year deal, knows he'd get more money on the open market, and knows we have 5 other MLB-quality pitchers and are looking to sign schmidt as well.
2006-12-02 10:40:55
3.   Daniel Zappala
Which is true in every possible way.

That got a larf from me.

It is entirely possible that part of the negotiation on Drew's contract was to knock of a million per year for this non-arbitration clause. Even if it wasn't such an exorbitant a tit-for-tat, it was certainly part of the overall negotation of the contract, so I'm in agreement with you on this Jon.

I likewise agree on Maddux. If the Dodgers replace Penny with Maddux, that could be an upgrade if Penny remains as bad as he was in the second half. But if Penny regains his form, I think he is clearly better, so it's an expensive risk. On top of which, Schmidt is on the radar and is an even better choice. I think the Dodgers made the right decision not to offer arbitration -- too great a risk he will accept and then you are stuck.

Also, the Dodgers have too much going for them to be boxed in by the current free agent market. If it turns out they need another pitcher next season, they can always trade some of their players and/or prospects for a good pitcher. That's the advantage of a strong farm system.

2006-12-02 10:43:24
4.   Steve
Not in the sense that we would have given someone two draft picks to take him off our hands.
2006-12-02 10:44:02
5.   D4P
This from Henson:

Maddux is seeking a two-year deal for $22 million to $25 million. The Dodgers are willing to offer two years but will try to get the price more in line with the one-year, $10.5-million deal Tom Glavine signed with the Mets on Friday

First, the Dodgers are willing to offer two years...? Yikes.

Second, does getting "the price more in line with the one-year, $10.5-million deal" mean:

1. a one year deal for $10.5-million,
2. a two year deal for $10.5-million, or
3. a two year deal for 2*$10.5-million, i.e. $21-million?

2006-12-02 10:47:30
6.   blue22
5 - There better be a steep discount on that 2-year deal. I'm not sure how Maddux would justify getting more than $10.5M in arbitration, so something ain't right here.

I think (hope) it's either:

1. 2 year deal for closer to $8M per, or
2. Bye bye Greg.

I'll go with option #2, and signing Jason Schmidt instead.

2006-12-02 10:48:03
7.   Vishal
[[5] if that is true, then there is NO reason not to have offered arbitration.
2006-12-02 10:50:47
8.   blue22
7 - Exactly. Hasn't that "$10.5M" number for Maddux been set by the Glavine contract? The only risk I see is that LA is worried he'd take that figure, which implies to me they don't want him back at all.
2006-12-02 10:54:19
9.   D4P
I doubt I'll ever forgive Ned for failing to offer arbitration to Elmer Dessens. If arbitration had been offered, either:

1. Elmer would have declined, in which case Ned would have received draft pick compensation, or
2. Elmer would have accepted, and the Dodgers would have gotten a $1.7 million Brett Tomko in the guise of Elmer Dessens instead of needing to sign a $3.5 million Elmer Dessens in the guise of Brett Tomko.

I seemed to have been the only one around here who was really troubled by the whole thing. I remember thinking, "Not only is this not a good thing in the context of Elmer Dessens, but it does not bode well for the future..."

2006-12-02 10:54:33
10.   Steve
I'm not sure how Maddux would justify getting more than $10.5M in arbitration, so something ain't right here.

I'm not sure that I agree with this. Take:

1) Maddux's hall of fame career
2) His significant positive impact on the Dodgers last year
3) The win-or-lose nature of the proceedings
4) The natural tendency of arbitration to increase salaries by way of analogy to the inefficient market going on around the process.

The Dodgers would have bid somewhere around $10.5/11; Boras 13-14. It would have been a close call.

2006-12-02 11:00:47
11.   LAT
Jon, you took the previous thread down way too fast. You are too modest. You should have bathed in your well deserved accolades longer.
2006-12-02 11:03:03
12.   dsfan
Doesn't appear the Padres will get Manny; from Diego Tribune:

On the Manny Ramirez front, Towers said he's "open-minded" about further exploring a potential trade for the Red Sox slugger, but he said pitcher Jake Peavy, contrary to TV and radio reports, won't be part of any package for Ramirez. "This guy's our staff ace and somebody we plan on holding on to," Towers said.

Whether Ramirez would accept a trade to the Padres is in doubt. A player agent who is close to the Ramirez camp said he knows "for a fact" that Ramirez would be inclined to veto a transfer to San Diego, saying that Petco Park is unappealing to Ramirez both as a slugger and as a left fielder.

2006-12-02 11:03:19
13.   blue22
10 - Glavine went 15-7 and a 3.82 era, and got a raise from $9.6M to $10.5M (not via arbi, but is it still relevant?).

Maddux went 15-14 and a 4.20 era, and is seeking a raise from $9M last year. $13M seems a bit high, given the context.

I guess Ned wasn't interested in a stare-down with Boras across the arbitration table. I think he had a pretty good case. Now if this all ends up in a 2/$22M deal with LA, I will be totally confused.

2006-12-02 11:05:18
14.   D4P
Maddux went 15-14 and a 4.20 era, and is seeking a raise from $9M last year. $13M seems a bit high, given the context.

But 15-14 and a 4.20 ERA look irresistible on glossy paper...

2006-12-02 11:06:22
15.   Greg Brock
I'm going to buy D4P some glossy paper for Xmas. Maybe even some for Christmas too.
2006-12-02 11:07:59
16.   Icaros
Dear Mr. Colletti,

Please do not trade Kuo or Billingsley.

Thank you.

2006-12-02 11:09:46
17.   Andrew Shimmin
I am in agreeance with LAT. I didn't get to plaudit you atoll. And now my opportunness is post.

This comment is submitted in compliance with the Zappala Full Employment Act of 1997.

2006-12-02 11:10:48
18.   Robert Daeley
"By not offering [Luis] Gonzalez arbitration, it could make it a little easier for him to sign with another team. Because Gonzalez is a Type A free agent, his next team would have had to forfeit its own first-round pick to the Diamondbacks if Gonzalez had been offered arbitration.

"Gonzalez on Friday received his first contract offers, which came from Baltimore and the Los Angeles Dodgers, his agent Terry Bross said. Bross also anticipates offers from two or three more clubs."

2006-12-02 11:13:03
19.   natepurcell

whos picture is that above "Bargaining Chips"?


2006-12-02 11:13:06
20.   Icaros
Dear Mr. Colletti,

Please do not sign Luis Gonzalez, or his triplets.

Thank you.

2006-12-02 11:17:52
21.   Steve
$13M seems a bit high, given the context.

I agree with you, and I agree that there was a case for a Glavine-type contract, etc. But Boras doesn't have to justify a $14 million dollar contract in the course of an arbitration. Assume, hypothetically, that the Dodgers bid $11 million, or the same as the Glavine contract. All Boras has to do is show that Maddux is worth $12,500,001 instead of $12,499,999. If he does that, Maddux wins the full 14. And if the Dodgers bid lower than $11 million, that just makes Boras' job easier, because the threshold number just shrinks.

2006-12-02 11:19:04
22.   Jon Weisman
Speaking of humbling ... does anyone post at - The Big Blue Wrecking Crew?

If so, tell Grabarkewitz that I never got the e-mail from him he's describing. I can't log in to tell him.

And just to be clear, I did not conclude that J.D. Drew was as good as Manny Ramirez.

2006-12-02 11:19:30
23.   D4P
They have seven major league starting pitchers: Derek Lowe, Brad Penny, Hong-Chih Kuo, Randy Wolf, Brett Tomko, Chad Billingsley and Mark Hendrickson

I only count 4.5...

2006-12-02 11:20:59
24.   Andrew Shimmin
"To get Ramirez, or another productive corner bat, they're going to have to trade at least one of their best kids. . . What the Dodgers decide to do will have a lot to do with the action at the meetings."

Dear Mr. Colletti,

Please don't get drunk before, or during the meetings. If Andrew Friedman or Gerry Hunsicker tries to sit next to you, shout, "That's my purse!" and kick him/them in the testicles.

Thank you.

2006-12-02 11:21:31
25.   DodgerHobbit
What does Luis Gonzales have left in the tank that Ethier or Loney cannot already provide? It is not like Gonzo is going to hit more home runs going from whatever-the-name-of-the-park-is-in-arizona-this-year to dodger stadium.

Luis Gonzales on the Dodgers would make me a sad panda.

2006-12-02 11:35:18
26.   D4P
"That's my purse!" and kick him/them in the testicles

And "I don't know you!"

2006-12-02 11:38:50
27.   Andrew Shimmin
My favorite line from the Kurkjian piece that Nate pointed to: "Several teams covet [Ervin] Santana, but he likely isn't going anywhere unless he can bring someone such as Miguel Tejada, or perhaps Crede."
2006-12-02 11:38:52
28.   Greg Brock
2006-12-02 11:40:53
29.   Daniel Zappala
17 Coincidentally, 1997 is the year I first gained full employment.
2006-12-02 11:44:12
30.   saltcreek
25. With an outfield of Pierre and Gonzo all we would have to do is resign Lofton to have the worst three outfield arms in baseball
2006-12-02 11:46:27
31.   dsfan
All this talk about the Dodgers needing a power bat or two makes sense, but does it get overstated?

Staying within the West, how many power bats do the Giants have? The Padres? The Diamondbacks? The Rockies have Atkins and Holliday, but they're still the Rockies.

Sure, if the Dodgers want to go to the World Series in 2007, they probably need to power up, but even without an addition of Manny or a Burrell, I think they can contend for another first-place finish in the West. I know that they should aspire for more, but if they were in the hunt next September and were playing the likes of Kemp/Loney/Laroche/Ethier, wouldn't they still be interesting and wouldn't they be better positioned for 2008 and beyond?

Guess I'm saying that the Dodgers might have more leverage than McCourt/Ned realize if they just took a harder look at things in their division and more of a long-range view.

I'm also not entirely convinced that Kent/Nomar/Betemit/Martin could supply adequate power within the context of the NL West if Furcal and Pierre are getting on base 35-36 percent of the time. Plus, it's not crazy to think that Kemp could be a pretty good contributor in the second half.

2006-12-02 12:02:19
32.   regfairfield
I might have missed this, but did guys like Toby Hall need to be offered arbitration yesterday as well?

Are Hall and Hendrickson offically off the team?

2006-12-02 12:04:11
33.   DodgerfaninNY
Ned, please lose Pedro Feliz's phone number.

From the New York Times
-The Giants are also close to announcing a two-year deal with infielder Rich Aurilia that will be worth just over $7 million. Aurilia was taking a physical Saturday and the deal was expected to be announced Monday.

2006-12-02 12:07:12
34.   goblue1
Id love to see Grady get a chance to manage Manny again, just not in LA.

Dont trade the prospects we have been sooooo long with out. The Winning Dodger tradition has always been centered around a solid farm system. Its been about 10 years sisnce we had great young talent, lets show some patients with them now that they have arrived. Please!

2006-12-02 12:08:34
35.   LAT
What is the status of Hall? Sounds like the Dodgers are planning acquire Leberthal.

We only need to worry about Ned signing Feliz if it turns out Feliz can play shortstop. SS to Ned is like Coldstone to LAT.

2006-12-02 12:10:56
36.   saltcreek
33. Pedro Feliz is resigning with the giants for 1 year 6 million
2006-12-02 12:15:03
37.   LAT
Someone needs to explain the concept of "rebuilding" to Sabean. It does not mean re-sign your old crappy players and Dave Roberts. Also someone should tell him "going younger" does not mean signing 35 years old. I would be so angry if I were a Giants fan.
2006-12-02 12:18:12
38.   regfairfield
Around August I remember Hacksaw reporting that the Giants had no intention to rebuild. I never heard any follow up to that, but judging by this offseason, it's probably true.
2006-12-02 12:22:30
39.   saltcreek
37. well they dont really have the prospects we do to rebuild their team....but yes I would be pissed if I were a giants fan
2006-12-02 12:24:04
40.   Curtis Lowe


2006-12-02 12:24:16
41.   Icaros

But you're not a Giants fan, so revel in their upcoming misery and stop trying to teach them better.

2006-12-02 12:28:23
42.   D4P
Awesome. Nice to see people around here watch good TV shows...
2006-12-02 12:30:09
43.   Icaros

Speaking of which, I started watching Arrested Development last week and now know who Lucille II is.

2006-12-02 12:31:24
44.   D4P
Do you like it?
2006-12-02 12:34:59
45.   Icaros

Yes. I watched the pilot when it first aired and thought it was okay, then I moved and didn't have TV for a couple years, so I never saw it again until recently.

I think the DT crew should hire that one-armed guy to teach Ned a lesson:

"And that's why you never trade with Tampa Bay."

2006-12-02 12:37:28
46.   Robert Daeley
38 "...Hacksaw reporting... probably true."

That's gotta be a first.

2006-12-02 12:37:54
47.   NBowlin
I have been following your web site and articles for some time now and although I dont always agree, I sure do appreciate your efforts.

I read yesterday on, that the Reds might be shopping Adam Dunn. I know he strikes out a lot, but he still young and has a bargain contact compared to other power bats. If the Reds are looking for pitching and we are ideally looking at shopping one of our older starters as opposed to the younger prospects I think that this deal might make sense for us. Plus, Dunn has really crushed the ball in Dodger Stadium and Petco when I have seen him play. Any thoughts?

Also, I loved watching Greg Maddux on the mound in a Dodgers uniform, however he is only good for maybe 5 at best 6 innings each outing, and someone making more than 10 mil a season should be able to go longer than that. I think the Dodgers need to stick to their guns and only offer Maddux a one year contract.

I have liked what Ned has done with this team, and I really like the addition of Lofton Jr. (Pierre) but what in the world are we thinking offering a contract or even talking to Luis Gonzales?

2006-12-02 12:41:27
48.   bigcpa
2007 ZIPS - Luis Gonzalez
.259/.353/.435 15 HR

Adjusting for sea level (my guess)
.250/.345/.395 11 HR

2006-12-02 12:50:38
49.   D4P
At this point, I'm considering it a forgone conclusion that Ned signs Luis Gonzalez to a 2-year contract (at least)
2006-12-02 12:56:57
50.   Greg Brock
45 I believe you are referring to J. Walter Weatherman.

And that's why...You always! Leave! A note!

Show/Hide Comments 51-100
2006-12-02 13:01:01
51.   D4P
I watched an episode of M*A*S*H at
2006-12-02 13:01:54
52.   bigcpa
And for 47

2007 ZIPS - Adam Dunn
.259/.382/.536 40 HR

I should adjust this one to sea level too, but I refuse on the grounds that it may incriminate him.

2006-12-02 13:01:59
53.   D4P
51 cont.

my grandmother's house the other day and George Bluth was on there. I think he had more hair back then, though he was wearing a hat, so it was hard to tell for sure...

2006-12-02 13:12:29
54.   50 years a Dodger Fan
Re Colletti: What do you expect from the Giants organization? Only a fool (McCourt) would hire anybody from that screwed-up organization.
2006-12-02 13:20:11
55.   D4P
Going from an As front office hire to a Giants is about as bad as it gets
2006-12-02 13:30:11
56.   trainwreck
Maddux for two years at over 10 million and Luis Gonzalez...

Someone break all of Ned's phones and his computer.

2006-12-02 13:30:22
57.   Bumsrap
Ned, it is time to catch up with your mentor. Sabean has signed Dave Roberts, and is now ready to resign Bonds now that he is close to announcing a two-year deal with infielder Rich Aurilia that will be worth just over $7 million and Pedro Feliz is resigning with the giants for 1 year 6 million.

Ned, come on, lets get Gonzo before Sabean gets him as well.

2006-12-02 14:17:25
58.   thinkblue0
What does Luis Gonzales have left in the tank that Ethier or Loney cannot already provide?

That's how I felt about Pierre.

I'd love to nab Manny, but if it means giving up Kemp/elbert etc then I'm staying the heck away.

I'm starting to wonder if we shouldn't have just sat this offseason out with the possible exception of Schmidt...go with OF of Eithier/Kemp/Loney....very young, but also tons of upside and we could have just gone after Vernon Wells or Andruw Jones next season.

As long as I don't see Gonzalez patrolling our OF next year I'll be happy....

2006-12-02 14:30:25
59.   Eric Enders
Bad omen: There's currently a big picture of Matt Kemp on's baseball front page.
2006-12-02 14:45:33
60.   Claire Malone-Evans
A sad day if the Toby Hall era is over. It will be long time before we see a Dodger catcher have .368 batting average.
2006-12-02 15:03:33
61.   dzzrtRatt
Jon, I wasn't online last night and thus could not comment on the most ridiculous thing ever, but I totally agree with LA Magazine on your selection.

You, my friend, have created something that Dodger fans never had before. Particularly the type of Dodger fan that tends to come around here -- the ones who think it's worth a few brain cells to look at the team's situation deeply and with an attempt to be objective.

Sports is about fans, and your site has, in effect, created a new venue for a new kind of fan. I am a different kind of fan than I was before. I know I have someplace to go not just for news, but for discussion, new perspectives, humor, context, history, etc.

It is also a pioneering site from the perspective of the internet -- best example of a true community. A lot of political sites get as many comments, but there is an incredible pressure for conformity on those sites. You either agree with the blogger, or you're a "troll." With tech sites that get a lot of comments, you have to have some fairly advanced knowledge to participate. DT takes all comers, and only flames the ones who come here to wreck it. It's a little utopia on the net.

So just deal with it, okay? You're important.

2006-12-02 15:03:45
62.   trainwreck
UCLA vs UCSB in soccer final.
2006-12-02 15:04:02
63.   StolenMonkey86
55- Next time, let's get someone from the Marlins' front office.
2006-12-02 15:14:34
64.   dsfan
I tend to believe this one has some legs to it, that Luis Gonzalez is going to be a Dodger very soon. Straining for positives, I'll hope that Gonzalez's arrival makes it less likely they will trade Kemp/Lone/Ethier. I am assuming that it's a one-year deal for Gonzo, that Ethier will still start in RF, that Loney can still get sufficient ABs spotting Nomar and the two corner OFs and that Kemp can get some needed seasoning in Vegas. Come summer, Gonzalez will be feelin his age and Kemp, one can hope, will be ready to start in RF with Ethier going to LF and Gonzo going to the bench, where he actually could be a nice fit, if over-priced.

Again, I'm trying to be positive.

2006-12-02 15:18:30
65.   Louis in SF
Jon good stuff as always, but my take on the Maddux matter is simple. With Stan Conte in the Dodgers fold along with his relationship with Ned, I do believe that he wants as clear a path to Schmidt as possible. If one also looks at the present Dodger bullpen, the Dodgers can not afford to have the majority of the rotation going only 5 innings-Schmidt like Lowe has always been able to go deep into games..The flaw in this argument, there is no quantifiable number to measure the value of the Colleti ans Conte relationship to Schmidt!
2006-12-02 15:19:03
66.   trainwreck
I hope we just stay away from Maddux.
2006-12-02 15:21:02
67.   dsfan
Isn't Schmidt one of those guys whose fastball speed mysteriously dropped 2-4 mph shortly before or after steroid testing was implemented?
2006-12-02 15:34:55
68.   Andrew Shimmin
Never fear! Hall and Hendrickson are safe; yesterday was the last day to offer potential FAs arbitration. The last day to tender a contract to nonFA eligible players is 12/12.
2006-12-02 15:47:45
69.   50 years a Dodger Fan
64 I like your reasoning. It is doubtful if Gonzo would hit more HRs than either Ethier (Catch that?) or Loney, but if it'll keep the moron from trading them off, I say go ahead and sign Gonzo.
2006-12-02 15:48:27
70.   LAT
Is it just me, or is anyone else jealous of how good a writer dzzrtRatt is?
2006-12-02 15:51:07
71.   trainwreck
I am in envy of almost everyone at DT when it comes to writing.
2006-12-02 15:51:15
72.   Fallout
the one thing that I keep trying to remind people is that the Dodgers did not hand Drew and agent Scott Boras this option like an after-dinner mint.

Who suggested such a thing? If you are referring to my comments that there was no balance written in the opt-out clause, that is true. Then the question is why. I say that DePo came up short by not limiting that clause or eliminating it altogether by another offer. Say for example they agree in principle on this contract. Then you discuss other possibilities like a large signing bonus to get ride of it or to modify the clause. In my opinion this issue was to big to ignore and could have been negotiated out.

Offering the same $ every year was asking for the opt-out to happen if Drew played well and proved to be an asset to the team. Why would you let that happen so easily without there being some catch? I do not buy the idea that it had to be that way.

2006-12-02 15:55:49
73.   Steve
Never fear! Hall and Hendrickson are safe

[don't shoot the messenger]
[don't shoot the messenger]
[don't shoot the messenger]

2006-12-02 16:04:37
74.   Sam DC
I am a different kind of fan than I was before. I've said this before many times; true for me too.

And I bet five bucks that Jon choked up just a little by the time he got to the end of 61.

Me, I didn't choke up today until I read that Jose Guillen was likely to the Mariners on a one year, $5 million contract.

First Alfonso Soriano. Now this!

Actually my son has been determined to hold on to Jose Guillen as his favorite National -- Jose signed him a ball last year and hit a home run at the first game he attended; he really will be distressed at this.

Go ahead and laugh.

2006-12-02 16:04:38
75.   Jon Weisman
72 - I don't keep track of who has wondered why DePodesta "handed" Drew the opt-out clause, I just know that many have. That's all.

I'm also not convinced that DePodesta wanted Drew for all five years. Keep in mind who usually asks for a long-term contract in general. It's the players, not management.

But no matter. My only beef is with those who look at the opt-out clause in isolation.

2006-12-02 17:01:11
76.   Vaudeville Villain

Don't worry, in the article Tim Kurkjian states that the Dodgers have the pieces to make a move. He also says that the Dodgers are "reluctant" to move Kemp.

It's not much of an article, anyway.

2006-12-02 17:25:55
77.   Greg Brock
UCLA defeated Southern Cal.

Just thought you should know.

{Dances naked in the streeets}

2006-12-02 17:27:41
78.   caseybarker
Pete Carroll sure looked disgusted as he walked off the field.
2006-12-02 17:29:02
79.   Uncle Miltie
Pete Carroll sure looked disgusted as he walked off the field.
It was a beautiful site
2006-12-02 17:29:15
80.   Uncle Miltie
2006-12-02 17:40:11
81.   Linkmeister
While I agree with almost everything dzzrtRat says in 61, I'd have to say that there are a few of those communities around; they're just hard to find.

If you're a writer or a wannabe, MakingLight has one of the most amazing communities around. The topics range everywhere, but the comment sections are nearly invariably erudite and funny at the same time.

2006-12-02 18:10:53
82.   trainwreck
Analysis of DePo's reign

2006-12-02 18:43:18
83.   xaphor
77. Haha... I was at a furniture store in Culver City today that had a promotion in which if UCLA beat USC your purchase was free. I'm guessing not enough faithful to cause the place any real damage though.
2006-12-02 18:44:27
84.   thinkblue0

A guy did that for the Bears this year if they shut out the happened, and he lost like 250,000...but I believe he took out an insurance policy.

2006-12-02 18:48:22
85.   Jon Weisman
83 - We talked about going there today. We really ... talked about it.
2006-12-02 18:50:19
86.   Bob Timmermann
You had to buy at least $2000 worth of furniture to get it comped.
2006-12-02 18:51:22
87.   Jon Weisman
61/81 - It actually concerns me that people who come in here with more old school philosphies get treated pretty roughly from time to time. Now, sometimes they give as good as they get or more so, but we really need to make sure that other points of view aren't dismissed out of hand.
2006-12-02 19:02:54
88.   xaphor
I didn't read the fine print, in fact I wasn't even aware of it until I got there and saw a numerous people decked out in their Bruin garb. I even saw a guy in a USC jersey having a spirited conversation with some other chaps. He's probably on spirits of another colour now.

If the little lady gets on at me for missing out on the promo I'm going to blame your guys lack of faith. The DT boys had never steered me wrong before, honey.

2006-12-02 19:20:06
89.   das411
Meanwhile there is nothing else in the world like some playoff women's volleyball, am I right people?


87 - Not if we're stealthy about it! ;)

2006-12-02 19:37:50
90.   dzzrtRatt
87 I think your site has served the purpose of socializing some of the new-schoolers who are coming off a bit less pedantic than previously.

(Imagines scene in which sabermetricians attend the etiquette school Borat goes to.)

I know I've adopted a few old-school viewpoints in the past and while it's clear I'm not persuading other commenters, I haven't felt disrespected, for sure not by the regulars.

81 thanks, Linkmeister, I will check that out. I am a hard-core wannabe.

2006-12-02 19:42:51
91.   Wayne Wei-siang Hsieh
Re: 90

I think I'm also more sympathetic to old-schoolers than many around here, but I agree that I've never felt any real unpleasantness here from the more sabermetrically orientated.

Oh, and Jon, much deserved congratulations for receiving some of the recognition you so richly deserve. Really, if the LA Times has half a brain, they'll sign you on as a real full-time columnist. This is one way they can adapt to the new media environment. You're too modest to even think it, but in five years time, I really could see that sort of thing happening.


2006-12-02 19:53:45
92.   dzzrtRatt
91 Five years? If I was the new Times editor, I'd offer to pay him whatever he wants to move his blog onto their site. Both his blogs, in fact.
2006-12-02 19:58:44
93.   Sam DC
A few folks have commented here and in recent threads on the fine quality of dzzrtRatt's writing and thought. It occurs to me that newer readers may not know that he has a blog:

Good stuff there.

2006-12-02 19:58:57
94.   natepurcell
Next week, may the power of the scouts guide the mustache man through the darkness.

Like holiday carolers spreading a message of devotion, Dodgers scouting and player development officials will gather this week at baseball's winter meetings to remind General Manager Ned Colletti to keep the faith and resist the temptation to trade potential stars for pricey veterans.

Picture a semicircle of blue-clad executives in the lobby of the Walt Disney Swan and Dolphin Resort, softly singing the praises of Matt Kemp, James Loney, Andy LaRoche and Scott Elbert to Colletti every time a rival general manager approaches.

Leading the chorus would be Logan White, newly crowned Dodgers vice president and as close to Colletti's ear as anyone. He drafted most of the players opposing teams

2006-12-02 20:00:09
95.   natepurcell
oops, i messed up that last sentence...

He drafted most of the players opposing teams covet and cringes when he hears of potential deals that would ship them out.

2006-12-02 20:02:23
96.   trainwreck
Save us Logan!!
2006-12-02 20:04:38
97.   dzzrtRatt
93 Thank you, Sam, LAT, and everyone else for the nice comments.

When I start approaching agents, do they listen to testimonials?

2006-12-02 20:05:00
98.   Wayne Wei-siang Hsieh
Re: 92

So would I, but with the likes of Plaschke at the Times, it will take a while for justice to be done. Or the Times, like many other newspapers, may simply shrivel up and die for its unwilligness to adapt to the new media environment.


2006-12-02 20:06:36
99.   Wayne Wei-siang Hsieh
Was White part of the reason behind Ned's willigness to trade Guzman away? I wonder if there have been subtle disagreements between Logan's amateur scouting shop based in the States, and the international staff in the Dominican.


2006-12-02 20:06:49
100.   berkowit28
87 90 91

As a recent lurker, I have to say that I was delighted to find this blog recently, and especially the generally prevalent civil tone fostered by Jon. So I was rather taken aback by the somewhat crude virulence of posts 65 and 71 in the previous post. Although directed at Ned Coletti himself rather than at supporters of his here on the blog, I found the tone reminiscent of the more typical "Fan Forum" blogs I'm escaping - mindless opinionated insults - although the shoe is on the other foot here, so to speak. I also understand that they represented an immediate shocked reaction to the (non-)arbiration offers and are not typical of the poster, from what I've seen over the last coupe of weeks. Even so, it seemed an unfortunate descent into rough mud-slinging.

I almost wrote in about those posts then, but thought it wasn't really my place, my being new and unknown here. I was rather pleased to see that everyone else took them in their stride rather than responding in kind. No blow-ups. But I imagine that there were others who, like myself, found the tone offensive and out of place, and chose to retreat rather than comment. I'm impressed even more that Jon not only noticed it himself and chose to mention it here. Thank you, Jon - a gentleman.

OK, now I've got that out of the way - it has gradually dawned on me over the past week or so, that a fair proportion of regulars here seem to have actually liked DePodesta and were upset when he was fired? How novel. ;-) Is this more because of a sympathy for like-minded statistical analysis (OK, sabremetrics), or because you really thought he made the right moves?

Show/Hide Comments 101-150
2006-12-02 20:11:35
101.   natepurcell
Is this more because of a sympathy for like-minded statistical analysis (OK, sabremetrics), or because you really thought he made the right moves?

I cant speak for other people but for me, it was a little bit of both and his vision of keeping the majority of prospects intact.

2006-12-02 20:15:05
102.   dzzrtRatt
100 I was furious when DePodesta was fired. With time, I've come with great reluctance to the conclusion that McCourt was right. It wasn't about Depo's ideas so much as his management style. I think he's a great behind-the-scenes guy. I don't think he's a #1 guy, at least not at this point in his career.

It helps that Colletti kept DePodesta's baseball brains trust together, and that he has been cautious in spending tomorrow's prospects for today's quick fixes (and I know a few here who would dispute that.) When DePo was let go and a guy like Colletti was hired, I expected bad things to happen that have yet to happen. It's encouraging that Logan White & co. feel so empowered that they can hem Colletti in publically.

2006-12-02 20:16:46
103.   Bob Timmermann
DePodesta did appeal to the smart, quiet guy who was always considered a nerd, although that was just DePodesa's image and not who he really was.

I think a lot of defensiveness about him started because he was greated with such vitriol from the local media. But DePodesta was not willing to go and work to change his image. He thought his results would speak for themselves.

But they obviously didn't after the horrible 2005 season.

2006-12-02 20:18:43
104.   Sam DC
I don't really think he was greated by the media.

Maybe grated, though.

2006-12-02 20:19:33
105.   Bob Timmermann
Seesons greatings!
2006-12-02 20:22:29
106.   Sam DC
So, can they go for two if they want to?
2006-12-02 20:23:14
107.   Robert Daeley
94 "The Dodgers have no interest in Zito but plan to court less expensive veteran starting pitchers Greg Maddux, Jason Schmidt and Vicente Padilla. Gil Meche is another possibility."

Padilla? Meche? Hadn't seen those names mentioned yet.

2006-12-02 20:24:05
108.   Wayne Wei-siang Hsieh
I still would prefer DePo at the helm, but I've liked some of Ned's moves. I thought the Furcal signing was quite creative, the Maddux trade was quite nice, and I think Little's a very good manager for bringing up prospects and acclimating them to the big leagues. I'm okay with the Pierre signing, and the Wolf signing has much promise in my view. The Tampa Bay trades haven't looked so great, but I'm the first to admit that DePo was by no means perfect.

So, in a sense, I actually like both GMs. I still would prefer DePo, so that probably puts me more in the stathead camp at the end of the day, though.


2006-12-02 20:26:41
109.   Honoluludodger
Aloha. I am a longtime lurker and have benefited greatly from reading the analysis of the Dodgers on this Board. I agree with every laurel directed at Jon Weisman for creating it. I now feel obligated to contribute to the community. So here goes. Juan Pierre will steal a number of bases this year. I hope that this comment further elevated the discourse on this Board. Mahalo.
2006-12-02 20:35:43
110.   Sam DC
Welcome, exlurkers, by the way.
2006-12-02 20:36:22
111.   Bob Timmermann
I predict that anytime Juan Pierre gets on base in a close game from the 8th inning on, Vin Scully will say "There's a rabbit loose!"
2006-12-02 20:42:31
112.   Honoluludodger
I agree that Mr. Scully may use that type of colorful rabbit metaphor. I predict Mr. Scully will also point out some adorable children in the stands that are watching the game and tell us that that is what baseball is all about. Once again, I hope that this is a positive contribution to the Board. Mahalo.
2006-12-02 20:42:46
113.   dsfan
Would welcome thoughts on who bats first and second for the 2007 Dodgers. If you think Pierre should bat eighth, well and good, too. Reluctantly I have decided that Pierre should bat first, but there are a lot of angles to this one. What I usually get back to is Pierre does less harm as a No. 1 hitter than he does as a No. 2 hitter. I suspect Furcal will bat second most of the time.
2006-12-02 20:45:12
114.   dzzrtRatt
111 Meanwhile over on the radio side, Rick Monday will say of Pierre, "There's an old baseball saying: You can't steal first base."
2006-12-02 20:47:42
115.   dsfan
Also would love some sort of statistic on how many times Pierre has grounded out to second base and shorstop the last two years. I looked at one of his charts recently and it appeared he plays pepper with the middle infielders.
2006-12-02 20:48:51
116.   dzzrtRatt
Actually, from looking at Google's current collection of Dodger stories I have a real prediction. Or maybe it's just an epiphany:

Colletti wants to sign Gonzalez so he doesn't have to give up any prospects, but if he fails, he will trade a couple to Boston for Manny.

Alternately, the buzz about Gonzalez might be about trying to get Boston to lower its asking price from three prospects to two.

2006-12-02 20:52:52
117.   natepurcell
Colletti wants to sign Gonzalez so he doesn't have to give up any prospects, but if he fails, he will trade a couple to Boston for Manny.

I would like to see Colletti look towards the brewers first for Geoff Jenkins. Due to his crappy year last year, you might be able to swing a deal for him on the cheap (hendrickson or something) and hopes he can regain some of that awesome 2005 year. his contract is 7mil for 2007 and team option for 2008 at 9 mil or a .5m buyout.

2006-12-02 20:57:24
118.   dzzrtRatt
This is an interesting perspective:

"In a soaring free-agent market, Barry Bonds's bad-boy reputation may turn him into baseball's unlikeliest bargain.

"Even at 42, he is the best player on the market. Nate Silver, an analyst for Baseball Prospectus, said Bonds would probably hit around .270 next season, with about 25 home runs, 135 walks and surprisingly average fielding thanks to his keen defensive instincts.

"Using the well-known relationships between statistics like doubles and strikeouts, runs and won-lost records, it is possible to transform numbers into the only statistic that truly matters to a general manager: wins.

"If Bonds meets the predictions of Silver, he will improve any team without a starting-caliber left fielder by about five wins (or four and a half if he is squandered as a full-time designated hitter).

"By contrast, none of this year's top free-agent corner outfielders (Alfonso Soriano, Carlos Lee and J. D. Drew) are likely to exceed a four-win contribution next year.

"And since Bonds will be gone after one or two seasons, teams won't have to worry about signing him to a long-term contract and paying him top dollar while his skills decline."

and it goes on from there.

2006-12-02 21:04:58
119.   regfairfield
115 Even if he does, his double play percentage is still quite low at around 10%. We'll see how he does once that speed goes, but for now, Pierre is nowhere near the double play sinkhole that Lofton was (12th in baseball at 21%). Because of this, I say bat him second just so he gets less at bats.

Just to note, Furcal was at 10.5%.

2006-12-02 21:09:27
120.   Vishal
[119] is that 10% of all at-bats, or 10% of at-bats with a runner on, or with a runner on first and <2 outs, or what?
2006-12-02 21:09:29
121.   regfairfield
I wonder what formula Silver was using, because these were the WARP numbers for the players he mentioned:

Bonds: 6.0
Drew: 7.3
Soriano: 8.6
Lee: 4.7 (Killed by defense)

I do agree that Bonds can will be a bargain, his 1.000 OPS went largely unnoticed, but I have to wonder how productive he can be if he needs to be babied like he was in 2006.

2006-12-02 21:11:21
122.   regfairfield
120 Percentages of double plays in double play opportunities, defined as less than two outs with runner(s) on first, first and second, or first second and third.
2006-12-02 21:16:33
123.   regfairfield
More fun with double play percentage. DP Percentage for J.D. Drew: 5.6%. Not bad for a guy who is supposedly the master of the week ground out to second.

More amazingly, Marcus Thames didn't ground into a double play all year.

2006-12-02 21:19:36
124.   D4P
Barry Bonds's bad-boy reputation may turn him into baseball's unlikeliest bargain

Paging Billy Beane...

2006-12-02 21:43:54
125.   Robert Daeley
Tony Massarotti at the Boston Herald sure likes a potential Dodger deal of Broxton and Toby Hall, plus ?

"There is, too, the presence of Los Angeles manager Grady Little, with whom Ramirez shares a good relationship. Dodgers bench coach Dave Jauss, another former member of the Red Sox organization, is a fan of Ramirez and strongly urged former Sox general manager Dan Duquette to pursue Ramirez during the offseason prior to the 2001 season. And that does not even begin to address how perfect a fit Ramirez would be in a Los Angeles market where he can queitly exist in the shadow of Hollywood stars while simultaneously living in a place with a strong Hispanic influence.

"When you get right down to it, there is probably no better place on the planet for Manuel Aristides Ramirez."

2006-12-02 21:45:04
126.   Andrew Shimmin
I'm still holding out hope that Bonds will be in federal prison by opening day. But the odds against that are looking longer. C'mon IRS; when are you ever going to get a chance to be heroes again?
2006-12-02 21:48:18
127.   D4P
federal prison

More precisely, a federal PMITA prison

2006-12-02 21:49:14
128.   natepurcell
from that same article in 125

the Sox asked the Dodgers for reliever Jonathan Broxton. LA officials promptly laughed in the Sox' face, an understandable reaction given that Wells was a one-month rental.

2006-12-02 21:54:58
129.   Jon Weisman
Matt Welch had an interesting Angel-Dodger post.

2006-12-02 21:56:48
130.   Just Blue
Another lurker here...

117 - That's exactly what I was thinking! The Brewers have a crowded outfield, and would probably like to rid themselves of Jenkins' salary, especially since he fell out of favor last season. They can certainly use more pitching, and Hendrickson or Tomko could at least eat some innings for them.

2006-12-02 21:59:50
131.   Bob Timmermann
But the whole point of the Dodgers-Angels trade of 1973 was to move out the players who didn't vote in favor of going out on strike in 1972. O'Malley didn't want them on the team anymore because he felt they would be a divisive influence.
2006-12-02 22:00:49
132.   Andrew Shimmin
127- It's funny, but every time you make reference to Office Space, it reminds me that you don't watch The Office. And that makes me angry. It makes me feel like doing things. Bad things. Things like:

Second season of The Office, on sale for $31.65 at Walmart, right now!

2006-12-02 22:05:18
133.   D4P
Given that it immediately precedes Scrubs, It looks like I'll be catching the last minute or so of The Office this season. This last week, I saw a guy who was on an episode of Cheap Seats playing a banjo and singing (IIRC) The Rainbow Connection. It felt kind of like a rip-off of GOB and Franklin. Plus, I didn't like how the young guy from the show looked at the camera and smiled, as if it was so funny that the guy was singing and, of course, we the audience must be cracking up at it...
2006-12-02 22:06:48
134.   Andrew Shimmin
That's like the time that I read Portnoy's Complaint, except just the last three words of each sentence. People think that book's funny, but I know better.
2006-12-02 22:13:15
135.   D4P
I also saw a bit of a The Office episode on a plane a few weeks ago. The main guy was carrying a Christmas tree into The Office's office. And I think one of the guys was wearing elf ears.


2006-12-02 22:30:44
136.   Louis in SF

While I think trying to get Jenkins makes sense and would come close to equaling Drew's production. I don't see why Milwaukee would settle for Hendrickson. DO they need a catcher? Saying that even if we got Jenkins his value-I don't think he is the type of hitter that puts you over the top. Manny on the other hand is a bat that could put you over the top. The questions is what would it take. Say we sign Schmidt, we then offer Penny a low level prospect and what else. Don't think Delwyn Young is enough. At the end of the day I still wonder why Boston would trade Manny anyway?

2006-12-02 22:33:42
137.   Just Blue
125 - I don't think Ned will give up Broxton in this deal. I really think (and hope) that he'll resist trading our main prospects. The only way I see Manny coming to the Dodgers is if Penny is the centerpiece of our contribution, and I don't see that happening unless Ned signs Schmidt or Maddux first.
2006-12-02 22:35:23
138.   StolenMonkey86
132 - Not bad; it's $33.99 at Amazon.
2006-12-02 22:57:55
139.   regfairfield
136 They just got Johnny Estrada, so no. For a team that finished with 70 some odd wins last year, the Brewers have surprisingly little holes.
2006-12-02 23:02:25
140.   StolenMonkey86
82 - Interesting, but seems a little incomplete focusing only on trades. What makes Depo really look good is some of the free agents he's signed. Derek Lowe has been quite good, and Jeff Kent also has proved a critical part of the lineup. JD Drew was good as well.
2006-12-02 23:06:56
141.   caseybarker
127 yeah, fark him.
2006-12-02 23:23:48
142.   StolenMonkey86
139 - With Ben Sheets hurt, their rotation isn't so deep. The depth chart lists Capuano, Bush, Sheets, Vargas. Turnbow taking a turn for the worse hurt them too.

If you notice, though, they had the 25th ranked team ERA at 4.82 (LAD: 4.23), and they ranked 24th in team OPS at .747 (LAD: .781), so that'll cost you a bit.

Interesting tidbit are the bottom 5 Team ERAs:
30 - KC
29 - Baltimore
28 - Washington
27 - Tampa Bay
26 - Boston

2006-12-02 23:30:47
143.   Greg Brock
109 That was awesome.

Seriously. That was hilarious. Well done.

By the by, UCLA defeated the Trojans of Southern California.

2006-12-03 00:55:19
144.   Honoluludodger
143. Aloha, Mr. Brock. I am flattered that you thought my comment 109 was "awesome" and "hilarious". I have always admired you as a powerful man whose potential as a ball player was never realized in the majors due to the insenstivity of the baseball establishment. Contrary to popular belief, it had nothing to do with your inability to hit major league pitching. I am honored by your words of tribute. Mahalo.
2006-12-03 04:57:44
145.   Sam DC
Very cool.

Stan, if you're around, this made me think of you for obvious reasons.

2006-12-03 04:59:16
146.   Sam DC
Barry Bonds's bad-boy reputation may turn him into baseball's unlikeliest bargain.

Didn't someone recently write an article about stretching the Moneyball idea of seeking out market inefficiencies to ballplayer character issues?

It's on the tip of my tongue.

2006-12-03 06:53:57
147.   Bumsrap
The talk of giving up A+ prospects for Manny drives me crazy mainly because Manny will be gone in two years and can't play defense.

I would give up Loney if the Dodgers could somehow get Lee from the Cubs. The Cubs are hurting up the middle so Hall could be another piece of that trade and hopefully Penny as well.

If these were all the players that made that trade happen the initial take would be that the Dodgers got a great deal. But that might not be true if Loney and Penny have great years and Lee can't shake off his wrist injury.

But because nobody knows Loney's true value the Cubs would want more. If more is Betemit and Tomko, fine. If Kemp or A+ pitching prospects is still needed then Lee Becomes too expensive for me.

On second thought if the Dodgers are willing to play Manny in left field why not sign Piazza and let him play left and keep the prospects?

2006-12-03 07:17:46
148.   mountainmover
It is assumed that Pierre and Furcal will bat 1,2 or 2,1 - that's a given. I prefer Pierre at #1, but that's just me (I like the guy with more power hitting #2). Nomar seems the likely choice as the #3 hitter and at the current juncture, Jeff Kent would be #4. My choice would be to have a LH cleanup hitter which would move Kent to the #5 spot.

Manny is great, but with his age, contract, extension possibility, fielding, the effect of changing leagues, baserunning, loss of prospects and the "Manny Factor" I would rather we went another direction. Which direction? A LH direction. With Manny in the lineup, our #3, #4 and #5 hitters would all be RH.

Gonzo: While not a prototypical LH cleanup hitter, his experience should play out well and he could start against RH pitching. A 1-year deal at $7 - 8 mil per year would seen about right considering his age. I would not get into a bidding war for him. It's "take it or leave it." I think he wants to play for the Dodgers.

Jenkins: Another lefty who has underperformed for the last 3 or 4 years. You just don't know what you'll get with him. He could be healthy and hit 40 HR or he could hit 4 HR. At $7 or 8 mil a year, he's a huge risk. He strikes out way too often for me. He would be my last choice. I'd trade Tomko for him! Period!

Aubrey Huff: He's actually my choice (yeah, I know about his glove) if we could get him for $30 mil/3 years or some similar deal (which I doubt). He would have to play RF (IMHO).

Conclusion: Gonzo is the best choice:

1. He requires no compensation (except money);

2. He'd probably take a 1-year deal;

3. He's a vet who would help our youngsters; and

4. We lose no prospects!

2006-12-03 08:47:34
149.   rockmrete
I agree with you and think Jenkins for either Tomko, or Hendi and perhaps a lower level talent is possible...Although Dunn could be had for a litlle more as well. I would stay away from Manny as it would cost too much in young talent. I want Schimdt, and to keep Penny.
2006-12-03 09:37:46
150.   Bob Timmermann
I think that Luis Gonzalez is going to want to start fulltime for any team he signs with it. When the DBacks sat him down one day when Quentin was called up, Gonzalez pouted the whole game.
Show/Hide Comments 151-200
2006-12-03 09:53:48
151.   rockmrete
I remember that. My hope is that it was a pride thing, and now that it happened he is more prepaired to acknowlege his new status in the pecking order. We seem to have a little excess in the outfield now (espeacially if we sign Gonzo) to look to moving one of them for Dunn.
2006-12-03 09:55:26
152.   Bob Timmermann
Gonzalez has said also that he wants to go a team that can win right away. And it's the Orioles who seem to have the edge in signing him.

Good luck, Gonzo.

2006-12-03 10:00:13
153.   rockmrete
The Orioles? Win Now? Really, boy these guys just can't get enough of that glorious Dollar. Me too, but at this stage of his carrer come stop with the player speak and say your going for the money. For me, I'm glad because i would rather not have him.
2006-12-03 10:01:01
154.   D4P
Good luck, Gonzo

More importantly, good luck Orioles. (Or bad luck, as the case may be...)

2006-12-03 10:02:01
155.   rockmrete
career, come on stop...
2006-12-03 10:04:16
156.   Just Blue
I just don't see a lot of upside with Gonzo in the decline phase of his career. He's not the force he used to be. I'd be very wary.

Go get him O's!

2006-12-03 10:25:05
157.   Honoluludodger
Aloha. Many people have noted that we tend to overvalue our own prospects. Maybe so. But we also tend to undervalue our proven major league talent. I recently read on another board enthusiasm for trading Ethier/Penny/Betemit for Manny. Now, you have to give to get, but Ethier hit .308 and 20hrs in his rookie season and Colletti thinks Betemit could hit 30 HR's(and play 2b). So we are going to trade all of that with the all star game starter and get Man Ram? How exactly does that improve the team. The defense is weakened and we have the same number of home runs. I think we undervalue our proven major league talent. Mahalo.
2006-12-03 10:33:46
158.   willhite
157 -

Aloha Honolulu.

With Manny you know exactly what you're getting. Constant way-above-average production, and more-or-less contstant headaches.

Ethier has hit well for 1/2 season.
Penny has health issues and had a horrible last half in 05
Betemit has never played a full season so predictions about what he can give us are just that, predictions.

Now Ned and friends have to weigh the above considerations and see which way they want to go. My guess is if they could give up those 3 for Manny and wouldn't need to add anything else, they would do it in a split second, but you never know, it could come back to bite them a couple of years down the road.

2006-12-03 10:35:05
159.   willhite
Penny - horrible last half in 06. The years just fly by.
2006-12-03 10:50:51
160.   LAT
I am betting Barry goes back to SF. If I were the GM of a contending team I would pass on him. Besides the steroid issues and his general behavior, lets face it, Barry is playing for the HR record. Thus, there will be more of a media circus than ususal around his every move. As he approaches the record the always present steroid issue will become even hotter. And I have to believe when and how he plays will be dictated by his pursuit of the record rather than the best interest of his team.
2006-12-03 10:58:18
161.   willhite
160 -

Assuming that the Giants don't get Ramirez and might actually have a need for Bonds, they'll be holding all the cards.

If the A's sign Piazza (or even if they don't), there may be no place for Bonds to go except back to SF.

I wonder at what point he says, "I don't care about the record. I won't play for that kind of money", or would the record be so important to him, he'd take whatever offer the Giants made.

2006-12-03 11:00:37
162.   Honoluludodger
157, 158. Aloha willhite, those were excellent points and I agree with them all.

Don't get me wrong. I want Manny on the Dodgers. I just want him on the Dodgers with our existing offense in tact. If we have to reduce our offense to add Manny, have we really improved the team? And I recognize that we will have to give the Red Sox some fine players. I just don't want us to trade a package of proven big league players simply so that in 2009 we may have a great team (if they all reach their potential) until our prospects reach free agency a few years later.

The prudent course is to package solid big league talent (Penny, Hall) with a blue chip prospect, and call it a day. If the Bosox won't take that, let them keep Manny and also try to sign Drew and their newly imported pitcher. We have the leverage.


2006-12-03 11:03:54
163.   JROBB
Wouldn't it be something if the Giants do not resign Bonds and no on else does. I would just love that. If he doesn't have enough dignity to quit on his own, let eveyone else make it for him.
2006-12-03 11:10:12
164.   willhite
162 -

I'm not exactly sure what the situation with Hall is. I think in order to keep him we'd have to offer him arbitration and that might be risky. My guess is that Ned plans to non-tender him, but I could be completely wrong about the legalities involved here.

My hope is that the Dodger front office decides exactly what they are willing to offer for Manny and then doesn't budge from that. They need to be willing to put together a package which is to our advantage and then be willing to walk away from the deal if Theo won't agree.

Yes, I know. Everyone has a different idea of what is "to our advantage."

2006-12-03 11:12:50
165.   Andrew Shimmin
I don't think it's undignified for him to refuse to quit, just because people don't like him. He's still better than most players. Even with the part time play, even with the gimpy knees, he's still very good at what he does. It may be undignified for players who aren't good, any more, to flog their name recognition into contract extensions, but that's not Barry's situation.

The only reasons I don't want to see him in a Dodger uniform are personal.

2006-12-03 11:18:12
166.   willhite
I wonder how desperate the Angels have to get before they decide to make Barry an offer?

After all, Arte promised to do something BIG.

Bonds is probably so angry with Magowan by now that he'd play for the Angels for nothing.

2006-12-03 11:21:14
167.   Honoluludodger
163. Aloha JROBB.

I agree wholeheartedly. Bonds isn't the only one that used performance enhancing drugs, but he has become the poster child. It will be a permanent stain on the history of the game if he passes Aaron for the Home Run title. And, unfortunately, the stain of Bonds and his ilk, may already be permanent. However, by not signing Bonds, the owners can at least minimize, if not clean, that stain.

If I owned a team, I would not sign Bonds, not even for rookie scale. Don't get me wrong. I like money and I like to watch my team win. And there is no doubt that Bonds could help the Dodgers win. However, and I may be coining a phrase here, there are things that are more important than money or winning.


2006-12-03 11:22:34
168.   Icaros
In a battle of two players I could never quite stand, I'd take Bonds in LA over Gonzo in a heartbeat.
2006-12-03 11:28:49
169.   Honoluludodger
168. Aloha Icaros.

That is an excellent point. I don't want Bonds or Gonzo, either. If I HAD to take one, I think I would take Bonds "in a heartbeat". Talk about a dilemma.

2006-12-03 11:29:08
170.   willhite
168 -

Talent aside, what do you have against Gonzo?

2006-12-03 11:30:58
171.   Robert Daeley
168 I would miss the Dodgers if that were to happen.
2006-12-03 11:38:42
172.   Icaros

He used to take shots at LA in the media when his team was good, saying things like, "We don't worry about the Dodgers. Never have."

2006-12-03 11:43:38
173.   Bob Timmermann
Icaros hates people who father triplets.

Did you know Luis Gonzalez is the father of triplets? I don't know if I could put up with a year of Vin Scully telling me about Gonzo's triplets.

2006-12-03 11:46:28
174.   Icaros
Bob's right. It wasn't the snide remarks that made me despise Luis Gonzalez.

It was the triplets.

2006-12-03 11:48:36
175.   willhite
Triplets - do you think he was using performance enhancing drugs?
2006-12-03 11:54:56
176.   Icaros
If he fathered the triplets the same year he hit 57 home runs (31 his highest total in any other season), then I'd be even more suspicious than I already am.
2006-12-03 11:57:31
177.   Daniel Zappala
Triplets is nothing. Try having 12 kids.
2006-12-03 11:57:43
178.   Honoluludodger
172. Aloha Mr. Timmerman

By way of full disclosure I should let you know that I have no children, although I have immense respect for men who can "father" triplets. My reasons for not wanting Gonzo are not personal to Gonzo. I just think Ethier will be far superior next year and we should allow him to fully develop. If the decision is made to move Ethier, I want a better every day left fielder than Gonzo (at this point in his impressive career).

If Gonzo will happily accept bench duty for 2-3 million, I would be all for him (irregardless of the liklihood of Mr. Scully's triplet stories, which at least would be minimized by the fact that Gonzo was not a starter).

My reason for not wanting Bonds, on the other hand, is entirely personal. I think that even at 43, he will outplay Ethier. Nevertheless, I do not want Bonds on the Dodgers because I think he is a vial human being. It would disgust me to see him in Dodger Blue.

I could probably be friends with Gonzo. I wouldn't trust Bonds for anything.


2006-12-03 11:59:13
179.   Robert Daeley
178 Whether you meant to use "vial human being" or not -- well played! :)
2006-12-03 11:59:32
180.   Sam DC
Just don't get Icaros started on Melvin Mora.

Though Mora and Luis will have plenty to talk about.

2006-12-03 12:02:46
181.   Bob Timmermann
Keep in mind, I judge players on superficial reasons.

Luis Gonzalez - I don't want hear about his triplets.
Juan Pierre - Has a small head.
Barry Bonds - Wears his pants too long.

2006-12-03 12:05:13
182.   Daniel Zappala
The small head is the key to Juan Pierre's speed. Less air resistance!
2006-12-03 12:05:37
183.   Honoluludodger
179. Aloha Mr. Daeley.

The use of the word "vial" was intentional. I chose it because it was less accurate, but more descriptive than using the phrase "a creamy human being".


2006-12-03 12:07:50
184.   Icaros
Oh're so creamy.
2006-12-03 12:12:59
185.   Honoluludodger
181. Aloha Mr. Timmerman,

I respect your use of superficial reasons for judging players. I am a very superficial person myself, which I'm told, is usually reserved to my criteria for the selection of women. I was recently asked by a woman my age why I "only go for young uns". I responded to the woman, let's call her Ellie Mae, that I like to take them to the "Cement pond" to see what happens.

What does this all mean? I think it means that there is a correlation between the size of a mans head and his ability to hit for singles.


2006-12-03 12:13:17
186.   willhite
The small head is the key to Juan Pierre's speed. Less air resistance!

No wonder Bonds has lost so much speed the last few years.

2006-12-03 12:26:22
187.   thinkingblue
I wonder, does any GM actually buy Gagne talking about how he "feels better than he has in years," which is what he's been saying for years?
2006-12-03 12:34:23
188.   willhite
187 -

I guarantee you he's feeling better than he did last year, but that's not saying much.

Some GM (and it only takes one) will roll the dice on Gagne and throw a lot of money at him. It won't be Ned.

2006-12-03 12:55:38
189.   D4P
Triplets is nothing. Try having 12 kids

I thought you had 16...

2006-12-03 13:06:49
190.   Honoluludodger
188. Aloha willhite.

The Gagne matter illustrates why "loyalty" to a player or a team may be not always be in the interests of the player or the team.

I want Mr. Gagne want to be guaranteed more than 1-2 million dollars at this point in his career, than I honestly hope that he is very successful for an American League team. I don't want the Dodgers to gamble a large amount of money on him.

The Dodgers paid Mr. Gagne well for his service to the team. Unless he is willing to sign a heavily incentive laden contract (like Nomar did last year), it is time for both sides to move on.


2006-12-03 13:09:42
191.   Honoluludodger
188. Aloha, I apologize for the typo in my last post. I intended the second paragraph to state as follows:

"If Mr. Gagne wants to be guaranteed more than 1-2 million dollars at this point in his career, than I honestly hope that he is very successful for an American League team. I don't want the Dodgers to gamble a large amount of money on him."


2006-12-03 13:20:15
192.   StolenMonkey86
181 - What if you just took a nice average of Pierre's and Bonds' head size?
2006-12-03 13:23:26
193.   StolenMonkey86
Sarah Morris has a new article on Here's a paragraph from toward the end:

Since Drew's unexpected departure, the Dodgers' attitude has changed. Instead of trying to get the best possible players available, they are settling for second best. This year's free agent class doesn't have many great players. Because the demand for these top-tier free agents is high, the prices have been ridiculous. I don't blame Colletti for not wanting to sign a player to a long-term, $100 million-plus contract, especially considering the Dodgers' experience with these kinds of contracts. What concerns me is the Dodgers are paying too much for mediocre players. Will they get good players later? Re-signing Ramon Martinez and Garciaparra is good. At first glance, the acquisition of Juan Pierre looks good, but with closer examination, this acquisition isn't great. As many Dodger fans have been pointing out, Pierre's stolen-base success rate is the same as Furcal's in 2005. Pierre's .330 on-base percentage isn't good. The Dodgers paid a lot for him, and what did they get?

2006-12-03 13:32:16
194.   D4P
Wow, maybe Sarah's writing is getting better after all...
2006-12-03 14:40:26
195.   Icaros
The Dodgers paid a lot for him, and what did they get?

We should have a contest for best answer to this question.

2006-12-03 14:42:41
196.   thinkingblue

Not very much, and a guy who's VORP is terrible.

And I just read the article, and it was very good for Sarah.

2006-12-03 15:05:12
197.   Lee Lacy
Hi All! New Poster!

Juan Pierre fits right in with "successful" Dodger lead off hitters of the past:

Lifetime Avg OBP SLg SB/CS

Pierre .303 .350 .377 325/116

Reese .269 .366 .377 107/45

Wills .281 .330 .331 586/208

Lopes .263 .349 .388 557/114

Sax .281 .335 .358 444/178

All these players "set the table" during the Dodgers most successful years. Only Davey Lopes was a much better base stealer than Pierre.

Like most Dodger fans I was disappointed with this signing but this approach has worked throughout Dodger history.

Maybe we are giving just too much importance to OBP.

2006-12-03 15:08:48
198.   D4P
Maybe we are giving just too much importance to OBP

True. Regardless of how low his OBP is, he nevertheless gets on base an awful lot...

2006-12-03 15:41:56
199.   Steve
Maybe we are giving just too much importance to OBP.

Or not enough to Sandy Koufax.

2006-12-03 15:52:51
200.   bigcpa
197 Welcome Mr. Lacy. The problem is we already had a table setter in Furcal. Furcal put up .300/.369/.445 last year and ranked 6th in OBP among 25 qualifiers. Pierre was 22nd and 19th of 22 in 2005. Pierre has had little recent success in setting the table, we didn't need one per se, and we gave him a 57% raise over 5 years.
Show/Hide Comments 201-250
2006-12-03 15:54:44
201.   Sons of Steve Garvey
Actually, OBP probably sells Pierre short b/c it doesn't count the frequency with which he reaches base on errors in comparison to the average player.

This article is an interesting read:

2006-12-03 15:57:11
202.   regfairfield
197 Most of those guys played in a time when you could score less than four runs a game and not finish dead last in offense. The Dodgers didn't do so well with similarly scraptacular players like Eric Young, Brett Butler, Dave Roberts and Delino DeShields leading the way.
2006-12-03 15:58:23
203.   sanchez101
197. They're are many problems this view:

1) You can't gloss over the fact that Lopes, Wills and Sax played a completely different era than exists now. I hate to break it to you, but it aint the 60's or 70's anymore. Thank God.

2) Uh ... I thought we already had a leadoff hitter, and I was under the impression that he was pretty good. Remember Rafael Furcal, you know, the Dodgers best current player.

3) I doubt Reese, Lopes, Sax and Wills made $10 million in their career, combined. Ok, maybe Sax made some money, but you get my point.

4) Did it occur to you that every player you mentioned was a middle infielder? Pierre is supposedly a CF, albiet not a terribly good one. The offensive expectations at 2B or SS are pretty different from the outfield. If Pierre played 2B or SS, I would like this signing much more, but we don't need either and we don't need Juan Pierre.

2006-12-03 16:02:14
204.   sanchez101
When did having too many starting pitchers become a problem worth avoiding? By the way pitchers are being paid, you think you could never have enough.

BTW, what makes anyone think Kuo can go out there and pitch 200 innings? He barely pitched half that number last year. Expecting a full starters' load from Kuo is asking for an injury eventually. A more realistic target for him would be ~150 innings, which would require Kuo to spend some time coming out of the pen.

2006-12-03 16:05:26
205.   regfairfield
I apologize to Brett Butler for lumping him in with the scrappy guys, he actually put up very good on base numbers.
2006-12-03 16:06:51
206.   D4P
Pierre has had little recent success in setting the table

He's better suited for waiting the table

2006-12-03 16:10:59
207.   rockmrete
Hence the name Pierre
2006-12-03 16:13:36
208.   regfairfield
201 I can't get that article to load, but this fairly extensive research by Tom Ruane shows that Pierre is just slightly above average at reaching on error.

2006-12-03 16:25:42
209.   dzzrtRatt
The Dodgers of the 60s had a horrible offense. Wills was a charismatic and innovative player, but I would argue not an elite player. In the Lopes era, the pennant-winning teams had so many other pieces that his contributions were more than enough. Same with Reese, though he was before my time. Sax? I don't recall ever being enthralled by Steve Sax. Whatever success LA had during his era was attributable to Guerrero, Valenzuela, Hershiser, Gibson, Reuss, Marshall and a few others, not Sax. All this proves is Pierre isn't the worst of a mediocre lineage. At best you can say he won't, by himself, prevent the team from being successful.

Interesting you left out the guy with these career stats:

.290/.377/.376 -- 556/257

Wasn't he a lead-off hitter for LA for at least four years, including the phantom 1994 pennant? (In each of his prime LA years, he bested these AVG/OBP numbers. He wasn't quite as good when he returned, but wasn't he recovering from cancer?)

2006-12-03 16:28:03
210.   dzzrtRatt
209 Apologize for seemingly repeating what others said. It took me so long to write it in between plays in the NY/Dallas game, I should've figured I'd be beaten to the punch.
2006-12-03 17:11:18
211.   Fallout
207 rockmrete
2006-12-03 17:25:01
212.   Vishal
the food talk over at the griddle (btw, irony board, what's your ruling on that?) has me thinking that we need a definitive dodger thoughts guide to essential LA eateries.
2006-12-03 17:39:02
213.   oswald
i would like to take this opportunity to try and find the silver lining in the pierre signing. let me start by saying that i don't think it was a good signing, but this only the logic behind it:

the dodgers have solid to great prospects at catcher, first, third, left and right (i don't care what anybody says, matt kemp is not a centerfielder). the holes are at short, second and center. furcal fills the hole at short and either betemit/kent/garciaparra fill the hole at second for the next two or three years. pierre now plugs the hole in center for at least the next year.

because the kids are going to be cheap, the dodgers have some margin for error when it comes to how much money they spend.

if jones, wells or hunter become available, the dodgers could make an offer, then trade pierre for a middle reliever. even if they pay half pierre's salary for another team to take him, it will still be worth it. if the dodgers cannot land one of those players, pierre is still there is hold down center until a better option comes along.

but all things considered, i don't think it's the disaster most here think it is. i continue to think that thinking should be to try and compete between 2006 and 2008 with an eye towards dominating in 2009-2012. i think we'll see whether colletti agrees with me by what he does with manny ramirez.

2006-12-03 17:53:38
214.   Vishal
[213]that sounds reasonable in theory, but the worry is that ned didn't grab pierre just to get rid of him at the earliest opportunity; rather, it seems likely that ned likes pierre's game and wants him to stay a dodger most, if not all of the 5 years he signed him for.
2006-12-03 17:55:31
215.   D4P
i don't think it's the disaster most here think it is

The degree of disaster depends in part upon where PJ bats in the lineup. If 1-6, Big Disaster. If 7-9, Slightly Less Big Disaster.

Given that it's a virtual certainty he'll be 1-2, it seems reasonable to conclude Big Disaster.

Remember: in Ned's world, PJ "gets on base an awful lot"

2006-12-03 18:04:44
216.   Vishal
hah, good! no michigan-ohio state rematch. this is so much better. think about it; if it had happened, and ohio state had won again, then it would have seemed stupid and pointless to re-affirm what already happened a few weeks ago. and if michigan had won it, well then that doesn't really clear up anything, because then they're even, but michigan still gets the championship because they won the 2nd game instead of the 1st. it would have just been dumb either way. this way you get a nice pac-10/big 10 rose bowl, and a decent enough championship game. i'm actually pretty happy with the way the bowls shaped up.
2006-12-03 18:26:12
217.   oswald
215 do you expect colletti to say, "this guy's not that great, but everybody else was too expensive beacuse this whole market is crazy."

214 we should wait and see before rushing to judgment. i don't think colletti gets enough credit here.

2006-12-03 18:29:22
218.   Bob Timmermann
I would give Colletti more credit, but he used my Visa card once to buy a bunch of stuff from Sharper Image and that took forever to straighten out.
2006-12-03 18:30:04
219.   oswald
bob, you are a cheeky monkey ;)
2006-12-03 18:36:12
220.   trainwreck
Was at the Raider game. We gave up -5 passing yards and still lost.
2006-12-03 18:36:14
221.   D4P
do you expect colletti to say

I don't expect Colletti to say Pierre gets on base an awful lot when, in fact, he doesn't. If he wants to say "He plays every game", that's fine. But don't make up stuff that's demonstrably untrue.

bob, you are a cheeky monkey

A bumlooker, indeed...

2006-12-03 18:41:28
222.   Steve
I think the bigger issue, D4P, is that when the debate is about how often Juan Pierre gets on base, the debate is already won.
2006-12-03 19:00:41
223.   oswald
i don't mean to debate whether pierre gets on base an awful lot. my point is that colletti's thinking about each player cannot be gleaned from public comments about them.
2006-12-03 19:01:26
224.   Anthony Ohm
Hi guys. I like the signing of Juan Pierre. In support of Colletti's preference for speed; speed is exciting. As a fan, its fun to watch two speedsters wreck psychological torment on the opposing pitcher. And in critic of the sabremetrics guys, maybe Billy Bean and Depodesta are correct in their theories. I loved Micheal Lewis' book. But Moneyball is so boring to watch as a fan. It completely slows down the game.
2006-12-03 19:02:16
225.   trainwreck
I just want to win.
2006-12-03 19:04:03
226.   Icaros
Life is just one crushing defeat after another until you just wish Flanders was dead.
2006-12-03 19:05:07
227.   caseybarker
225 Are you saying "Just win, baby."
2006-12-03 19:06:40
228.   dzzrtRatt
The hope underneath all this ragging on Pierre is that halfway thru next season, or by 2008 the latest, the LA outfield will be something like Loney-Kemp-Ethier or LaRoche-Kemp-Ethier (or Mamram-Kemp-Loney), and Pierre will become trade bait. If in the next five years, the best the Dodgers can do in CF is play Pierre, then something will have gone very haywire.
2006-12-03 19:07:27
229.   oswald
226 why specifically do you want him dead? i don't want to start an argument; i genuinely don't understand the anomosity here towards colletti. he's done a lot right (nomar, furcal, saito, ethier, maddux, anderson, beimel come to mind). the team did improve 17 games based mainly on his moves. i really would like to understand your position.
2006-12-03 19:07:41
230.   trainwreck
Exactly. Except actually, ya know, doing that.
2006-12-03 19:11:15
231.   Icaros

Re-read my post, but this time imagine quotation marks around the sentence and "--Homer Simpson" at the end.

2006-12-03 19:14:25
232.   D4P
Oswald is more fun when she's instigating baseball-related double entendres than when she's promoting Juan Pierre and Ned Colletti...
2006-12-03 19:14:35
233.   Wayne Wei-siang Hsieh
I don't expect Colletti to say Pierre gets on base an awful lot when, in fact, he doesn't. If he wants to say "He plays every game", that's fine. But don't make up stuff that's demonstrably untrue.

GMs lie through their teeth all the time. DePo probably did the same when he made it sound like he was doing Dave Roberts a favor by trading him to Boston, because he was arbitration eligible and deserved more playing time. Although Roberts happened to get that famous SB, he certainly didn't get much playing time.

I'm by no means a big fan of the Pierre signing, but in this market, I don't think its hideously bad either. I know there are questions about Pierre's CF defense, but Kemp has not shown at all the ability to play CF, never mind the fact he needs more seasoning. And CF is still pre-eminently a defensive position--CFs with pop don't grown on trees, either.


2006-12-03 19:17:22
234.   Vishal
[229] based partly on his moves, but also largely on not being as inexplicably and phenomenally injured as we were in 2005. and no jim tracy.

[224] speed is exciting, but wasted outs are excruciating. if pierre got on base a ton, i wouldn't mind him getting caught stealing a quarter of the time. besides, i definitely can enjoy a tense chess match between batter and pitcher, where a batter can draw an 8-pitch walk or what have you.

2006-12-03 19:18:22
235.   Wayne Wei-siang Hsieh
BTW, for the record, one of the reasons I liked DePo was that I always thought of him as an utterly ruthless operator. The LoDuca trade proved that much in my view, and all the saccharine nonsense he spouted about how much he loved Paulie struck me as both false and further proof of his cold-blooded rationality.


2006-12-03 19:20:10
236.   D4P
GMs lie through their teeth all the time

I don't really consider "Pierre gets on base an awful lot" to be a lie as much as an error on Ned's part. Ned pointed to Pierre's 200 hits as evidence that he gets on base a lot, and I have no doubt Ned actually believes that Pierre gets on base a lot because of his 200 hits.

The problem is that hits are clearly an inferior means of measuring the frequency at which a player gets on base, when there exists a statistic that measures that very thing. According to said statistic, Pierre really doesn't get on base an awful lot, despite his 200 hits.

2006-12-03 19:23:48
237.   Vishal
[233] i read just the other day on baseball analysts that kemp's 2006 minor league defensive numbers in center field were "slightly below average". considering his age and athleticism, i don't know why that banishes him from center at this point. if he's close yo average, his bat would make him a very valuable center fielder. and besides, it's definitely within reason to believe he could improve with some coaching and experience.
2006-12-03 19:31:39
238.   oswald
232 i typed a long scathing message in response, but i don't have the heart to post it here. let me just say that that comment is incredibly demeaning and offensive. go ask your wife why.
2006-12-03 19:32:12
239.   Robert Daeley
235 I think it's statements like yours that illustrate better than anything the inherent difference among baseball fans. To someone more along the lines of, say, Ned Colletti, you could repeat that post verbatim, adding only the prefix "dis-" to "liked".
2006-12-03 19:35:52
240.   trainwreck
Everybody needs to calm down and have a drink. I have had a couple already.
2006-12-03 19:37:44
241.   D4P
I apologize. That was meant to be a joke.

It's not that I think you (as a woman) are more valuable for, well, "other stuff" than for your baseball knowledge; it's just that I don't think Pierre and Colletti are good for the Dodgers.

I certainly don't want to discourage you from talking about baseball, nor do I think I know more than you about the game.

2006-12-03 19:38:44
242.   D4P
That was meant to be a joke

Call it a "botched joke." Guess I won't be running for office in '08...

2006-12-03 19:39:06
243.   StolenMonkey86
but can we all agree that we're better off with Pierre than Matthews?
2006-12-03 19:44:37
244.   overkill94
241 I'm with ya! My philosophy is that in order to avoid a hangover, it's best to continue to drink less and less over ensuing days to - in essence - ween myself off alcohol.
2006-12-03 19:44:58
245.   trainwreck
If we got Matthews for 2 or 3 years I would like it more.
2006-12-03 19:53:26
246.   dzzrtRatt
I don't have a clue as to what the unreliable defensive measurements show, but if Kemp = slighly below average CF and Pierre = below average arm for a CF, then I'd be more likely to give Kemp a chance because he will improve defensively, and Pierre won't. The only barrier to Kemp is whether he's ready to hit consistently at the major-league level. As soon as he crosses that threshhold, the Pierre signing becomes a disaster -- unless Colletti has plans to trade either Kemp, Loney or Ethier, which is another kind of disaster, but at least makes the Pierre signing rational.
2006-12-03 20:10:19
247.   Icaros
Nate Purcell appears in the latest Steve Henson Q&A:

2006-12-03 20:15:31
248.   D4P
Poor Nate. He finally makes the big-time, and it's with a question he already knew the answer to before it was answered.
2006-12-03 20:16:48
249.   mountainmover
Some of you need to realize that numbers can't always measure human accomplishment, a woman's beauty or a baseball players value!
2006-12-03 20:17:34
250.   Icaros

I know. He might as well have asked, "Do the Dodgers have any promising prospects in the minors?"

Show/Hide Comments 251-300
2006-12-03 20:20:48
251.   D4P
Some of you need to realize that numbers can't always measure human accomplishment, a woman's beauty or a baseball players value

All right. What can measure those things...?

2006-12-03 20:21:03
252.   StolenMonkey86
247 - now i'm all confused again. The article says the Dodgers didn't offer Weaver arbitration, but we did get draft picks from the Angels for him. Did those come as a result of offering him a contract, or am I missing something?
2006-12-03 20:25:36
253.   natepurcell

I wished he used my more recent question if people in the org call Colletti, Flanders.

2006-12-03 20:26:36
254.   s choir
252 The article's wrong. The Dodgers did offer arbitration to Weaver, he just turned it down, which was a big mistake on his part, in retrospect, since he only got a one-year deal anyway.
2006-12-03 20:34:48
255.   Wayne Wei-siang Hsieh
Re: 237

Well, that give me some hope. Kemp looked pretty lost out there, and when I checked Rate2 in-season, the stats only confirmed that anecdotal observation. But if he can play CF, that's certainly great news.

Right now, though, he needs more seasoning. That's why I don't mind the Pierre signing so much. Like a lot of people, I think his age and perceived value (yes, his OPS+ numbers do frighten me) will allow us to move that contract in the future, if Kemp really ends up being able to man CF, and we get another corner OF slot filled.


2006-12-03 20:37:51
256.   Wayne Wei-siang Hsieh
The Dodgers would part with prospects if the Red Sox eat some of Ramirez's salary, or they would pay the full salary if only one premium prospect is included in a package. But for now, they don't do both.

From the same Q&A as Nate's moment of glory...


2006-12-03 20:40:01
257.   caseybarker
249 The right numbers can with the possible exception of a woman's beauty. This is fact. One cannot realize something that is not real.
2006-12-03 20:44:51
258.   dsfan
As for Kemp in CF, the consensus among scouts and his coaches and managers seems to be that he's far more suited to RF. I'll take the Dodgers scouting estimation of a prospect's defense over the still developing attempts to quantify a prospect's defense via statistics. One such metric recently suggested that Hu is awful defensively, which would stun the many scouts who regard him as close to Gold Glove caliber at present.

Frankly Kemp appeared lost in CF to me. Further he is a large person, likely to get larger and the extra running in CF would take its toll across 140 games. There's also the idea that Kemp has enough to learn trying to adjust to major-league pitching so why add to his stress, not to mention that of Dodgers pitchers, by putting him in a defensive spot where he's below average? Part of developing a young player is creating an optimal environment for him to succeed. Seems to me the best thing for Kemp is to stay in RF and stay in the minors, then give him another crack at it in the majors as a RF if he has made some of the necessary adjustments as a hitter.

The Pierre signing makes me skeptical for many reasons, but the belief that Pierre will block Kemp isn't one of them.

2006-12-03 20:46:25
259.   natepurcell
I dont understand how Loney hasnt proven himself yet. He mashed AAA and his numbers in his second callup stint in the majors are awesome. He deserves 400+PAs next year in the majors.
2006-12-03 20:52:09
260.   Claire Malone-Evans
Could the Atlanta Braves sign Bonds to a 1 year contract for lets say 17 million and not allow him to leave the bench for the entire season? Thus perserving Hank's home run record. I think the Braves could easily raise the money if they had a telethon for the cause.I'd contribute!
2006-12-03 20:52:11
261.   Scanman33
Is this Colletti to the right of Borat?

2006-12-03 21:01:37
262.   dsfan

Don't fret. Nomar will get hurt. Assuming Loney is competent as a corner OF, I see him getting 225-275 PAs at 1B, another 50-100 in the outfield and maybe 10-20 as a PH. Say 350 overall, a respectable amount for a guy will be 22 at season's start. Of course, I suspect the Red Sox would find even more PAs for him. Perish the thought.

2006-12-03 21:02:30
263.   dsfan

Post of the night!

2006-12-03 21:04:50
264.   s choir
257 I disagree.

A woman's beauty is very easily quantified.

Check out:

2006-12-03 21:06:16
265.   Bob Timmermann
Bonds would be able to file a grievance over such a matter and likely prevail and either be let out of the contract or get a hefty cash settlement.
2006-12-03 21:14:35
266.   Xeifrank
Yuck! The smoke is just awful here from the nearby fire in Moorpark. 40 to 70 mph winds and 8 percent humidity, that's not good news.
vr, Xei
2006-12-03 21:20:10
267.   Andrew Shimmin
When D4P irritates me, I like to post links to Walmart merchandise. Like so:

2006-12-03 21:21:21
268.   Eric Enders
265 But would the Braves be in the clear if they sign Bonds with every intention of playing him -- and then three days later they hire, say, Dr. Nick Riviera as team trainer?
2006-12-03 21:28:30
269.   CanuckDodger
256 -- So the prospects can go just as long as we get a tiny bit of salary relief?

If Colletti were to, I don't know, meet with some unfortunate accident, what are the chances Logan White would just slide right into the GM chair?

2006-12-03 21:30:08
270.   Vishal
[258] come on, the kid is 22 years old and extremely athletic. i fail to see how the marginal difference in running between centerfield and a corner OF spot is going to take any kind of "toll" over any number of games. and besides, 2 of the best centerfielders in baseball over the past decade, jim edmonds and andruw jones, aren't exactly small guys either.
2006-12-03 21:32:45
271.   Steve
It's hard to put a value on the quality service, great selection, and low, low prices that one receives at many of the fine Mom-and-Pop Wal-mart shops across the Good Old U S of A.
2006-12-03 21:34:36
272.   D4P

Forgive them Lord, they know not what they do

2006-12-03 21:34:49
273.   Steve
By the way, I believe in the business world this is called "rationalizing your assets":

The Cubs' lineup has only one left-handed regular, Jacque Jones, who would likely move to center field to make room for Soriano.

2006-12-03 21:38:17
274.   Xeifrank
273. What's the Cubs lineup?
vr, Xei
2006-12-03 21:40:27
275.   D4P

I guess that puts K-Lo in RF...

A source told the Chicago Tribune that the Cubs are working to sign free agent Kenny Lofton. - Rotoworld

2006-12-03 21:42:24
276.   Vishal
"bonds' agent rips into San Fran brass":

i'm not sure barry's in a position to be burning bridges at this point.

2006-12-03 21:43:19
277.   Steve
274 -- I don't know, but it's better with Jones playing center than it is with him playing right.

And while we're contemplating Walmart's low, low prices, a holiday stocking-stuffer for the little D4P in your family.

2006-12-03 21:46:12
278.   Vishal
[275] let's see if we can piece one together

1. soriano
2. murton?
3. a-ram
4. lee
5. jones
6. derosa
7. barrett
8. izturis
9. pitcher

2006-12-03 21:52:35
279.   Xeifrank
277. I was curious because counting switch hitters I see 4 possible if not probable left handed bats in their lineup. But I don't follow that team too closely and was wondering what 8 you saw as starters, with only one left handed bat. vr, Xei
2006-12-03 21:52:55
280.   D4P
I heard a rumor that Torii Hunter shops at Walmart
2006-12-03 21:54:35
281.   Steve
You can even find the Measure of a Man at Walmart! And you guessed a low low price!

2006-12-03 21:56:12
282.   CanuckDodger
270 -- Edmonds and Jones aren't as heavy set as Kemp, and they especially don't have as thick a lower half -- a half that tends to thicken with age. Edmonds and Jones also compensate for not having the swiftest pair of legs in CF with tremendous instincts and technical proficiency, neither of which Kemp displays. Many of their CF highlight plays are much like Derek Jeter's highlight plays at SS: certain catches look spectacular because they make plays look difficult that players with better range could have made with relative ease. There is also the issue of the spacious outfields in four out of five of the NL West's park's. If Kemp just had to patrol a center field area as small as Dodger Stadium's, he might be in business as a center fielder, but that is not the case.
2006-12-03 21:57:22
283.   Vishal
[279] jones bats lefty, and izturis makes outs from both sides of the plate. that's it. it's a very righty-heavy lineup.
2006-12-03 21:59:10
284.   D4P
Hmmm...strangely enough, I was not able to find the following movie at Walmart...

2006-12-03 22:03:59
285.   Vishal
[282] why are we worrying about age with kemp NOW? we have like 5-10 years before he starts to show signs of aging, and your projected "lower-half thickening" takes place. he might well have left through free agency by that point. and to say jones isn't heavyset is to not have seen him in the last 2-3 years. he's listed at 6'1" and 210 but he's at least 240. besides, you say they make up for their lack of speed with superior technique, but kemp does have speed, and his technique can improve. i'm not committed to him being a centerfielder, but he should be given every chance to stick there.
2006-12-03 22:06:45
286.   D4P
The biggest problem with Kemp's age is that the odds are that by the time he reaches his prime, he'll no longer be playing for the Dodgers. Same goes for most of our prospects.
2006-12-03 22:07:19
287.   Andrew Shimmin
284- They also don't stock any of your, Women-belong-barefoot-and-pregnant books, either, Sexist.
2006-12-03 22:09:33
288.   natepurcell
The biggest problem with Kemp's age is that the odds are that by the time he reaches his prime, he'll no longer be playing for the Dodgers. Same goes for most of our prospects.

so we should just trade them now right?

2006-12-03 22:10:31
289.   Vishal
[286] this isn't oakland. if they're franchise players and dependable, worthwhile investment risks, we should be able to keep them.
2006-12-03 22:12:19
290.   D4P
so we should just trade them now right?

No. Keep them while they're cheap, then decide what to do with them when they're expensive.

if they're franchise players and dependable, worthwhile investment risks, we should be able to keep them

In theory, yes, but that just doesn't seem to be the way baseball works these days. Does it...?

2006-12-03 22:12:52
291.   Steve
I'll catch that one after I get through my BetaMax version of "The Tyranny of Montgomery Ward" and the pulp paperback "100 Things You Can Do to Save the World From The Sears Mail-Order Catalog"
2006-12-03 22:15:14
292.   D4P
your Women-belong-barefoot-and-pregnant books

I believe you have me confused with our LDS friends around here and their gaggles of offspring. Heck: if I had 16 kids, I'd probably have no choice but to shop at Walmart too...

It's a big conspiracy, Andrew. Walmart promotes "family values," people buy into it and have a bunch of kids, then have to sell-out by shopping at Walmart because they can't afford anything else. It's the Mark of the Beast.

2006-12-03 22:19:15
293.   Bob Timmermann
I dug up scrolls of papyrus that were salvaged from the library of Alexandria about why people should never "Buy Phoenician".
2006-12-03 22:19:36
294.   Vishal
i dunno. pujols is still a card. d-lee and a-ram were locked up by the cubs. santana was locked up by the twins. andruw jones has been a brave for over 10 years. chipper's been a brave his whole career too. i think wright and reyes are going to be mets for a while. i'm sure the phillies will lock up utley and ryan howard. the astros kept roy oswalt. i'm sure the nationals will try their best to keep zimmerman for as long as possible. i may be wrong about this but, heck, didn't the pirates extend jason bay?
2006-12-03 22:20:19
295.   natepurcell
In theory, yes, but that just doesn't seem to be the way baseball works these days. Does it...?

there agent isnt Boras so its very possible they stay. If Billingsley, Kemp and Broxton have good years next year, I can see Colletti buying out their arb years to go along with some option years similar to the contracts oakland gave their kids. Billingsley and kemps agent is dave stewart; same agent as eric chavez's.

2006-12-03 22:21:22
296.   natepurcell

i knew i messed up something.

2006-12-03 22:28:23
297.   dzzrtRatt
253 Just think of all the other people you've enlightened!
2006-12-03 22:36:56
298.   Uncle Miltie
294- you are right. Teams in general, even mid market ones, usually keep their star players, so long as their agent doesn't their client to test FA (Scott Boras).

Kansas City couldn't keep Beltran, Seattle couldn't keep A-rod, the Dodgers didn't want to pony up the money for Adrian Beltre or Chan Ho Park (don't think they wanted Park back anyways). All of these players are represented by Scott Boras. I don't expect Mark Teixeira to stay in Texas when he hits FA. Montreal offered Vladimir Guerrero enough money to stay (more than he was offered by the Angels), but the team wasn't very stable at the time with an impending move in the near future. For the most part, great players tend to stay with their original teams past 6 years as long as the team isn't cheap. Scott Boras is one of the few agents around who doesn't want his clients signing longterm deals that cut go past their arbitration years and delay free agency. I believe both Matt Kemp and Chad Billingsley are represented by Dave Stewart. Stewart allowed Eric Chavez to re-sign with the A's a year before he hit FA.

2006-12-03 22:38:27
299.   Uncle Miltie
295- a much more condensed version of my post. I didn't see your post because I'm typing up one of my right now too.
2006-12-03 22:46:04
300.   Ruben F Pineda
So, that is the claim, huh, that there was an actual negotiation between Boras and Depodesta for Drew? I assume the negotiation went a little like this...

DPo: So, we think Drew would be a valuable member of the Dodgers, bu...

Boras: Look, lets cut to the chase, nerd. We both know one of your extremeties gets struck with rigor mortis when you look a JD's OBP. This is what we want, and if you want my client to deal with being the "laptop boys" pet, you better pay up.

DPo: Scott, lets be professional, Drew is a great player, but we cartainly aren't going to overpa...

Boras: You know, Paul, I certainly have Boston on speed dial. Maybe I should check with them first?

DPo: But an out clause in his 4th year? No arbitration? Scott, whats in it for me?

Boras: That rigor mortis feeling every time he comes to bat...

DPo: Touche, salesman... Sounds like a deal

Lol, and I'm a DePo fan

Show/Hide Comments 301-350
2006-12-03 22:49:14
301.   D4P
You forgot:

B: "Look, lets cut to the chase, nerd. Look at this book I've put together..."

D: (Drooling) "Sooooo....glosssyyyy...."

2006-12-03 22:52:03
302.   natepurcell

crap. Please bring logan to the meeting ned.

2006-12-03 23:01:07
303.   Vishal
[302] from the story:

"The Padres surprised rival clubs by offering salary arbitration to six free agents, including right-hander Chan Ho Park and outfielder Ryan Klesko.

The offers, however, were made with the condition that the players would not accept, according to a source with knowledge of the team's thinking."

see?!!? why couldn't we have done that with our guys??

2006-12-03 23:01:08
304.   Uncle Miltie
302- so Penny would be part of the package, but then we wouldn't have enough money for Schmidt? Assuming that Penny is included, Manny would add about $10 million to the payroll. Are the McCourts so cheap that they can't afford the extra $5 million or so it would take to get Schmidt rather Maddux to replace Penny?

Broxton, Billingsley, and Kemp better be off limits. Loney shouldn't be dangled either. I love LaRoche, but unfortunately I don't think the Ned feels the same way. I'd definitely prefer to trade Betemit.

Nate, would you do a Penny, LaRoche, lesser prospect (Hu/Abreu) for Manny deal if the Red Sox didn't include any amount of money. I really don't see a deal getting done unless we include Broxton or Kemp. Therefore, I'd pass on Manny and sign some bum like Luis Gonzalez as a one year stopgap (since Ned doesn't trust the kids).

2006-12-03 23:03:59
305.   Steve
303 -- There's no way they can do that. Can they really do that? I'm more surprised than when I ran into D4P buying a car seat at Wal-Mart.
2006-12-03 23:06:10
306.   natepurcell

Logan White needs to sneak into Colleti's and Theo's bedrooms and erase each of their numbers from their cell phones.

herefore, I'd pass on Manny and sign some bum like Luis Gonzalez as a one year stopgap (since Ned doesn't trust the kids)

Id rather sign Cliff Floyd because:
1-when healthy, hes a legit power hitter
2-he likely wont be healthy which means more playing time for kemp and loney

2006-12-03 23:07:10
307.   natepurcell

Boras is still Park's agent right? No way he agrees to that. If he did, no way he sticks to his agreement.

2006-12-03 23:12:24
308.   Uncle Miltie
2-he likely wont be healthy which means more playing time for kemp and loney
Good thinking. I actually like Floyd. If he can give us a 100 games of solid production, then he would be a worthwhile signing. Meanwhile, Gonzalez (who's on my ____ list) should be good for at least 135+ of average production/slightly below average. Like Juan Pierre, his ability to stay healthy isn't necessarily a good thing.
2006-12-03 23:15:02
309.   Vishal
speaking of chan ho, might it not be a good idea to invite chan ho as an NRI in spring training or maybe sign him on the cheap?
2006-12-03 23:27:33
310.   trainwreck
Just say no to Manny and Luis.
2006-12-03 23:33:02
311.   CanuckDodger
God, I'm getting depressed. I have a bad feeling we're going to get Ramirez and wave goodbye to young players we have no business parting with. Did anybody see Christina Kahrl's chat at Baseball Prospectus on Friday? She was asked how a team -- any team -- could best improve itself for 2007. Her answer: sign Barry Bonds and/or trade for Dodger prospects. She didn't say anything about trading for Manny Ramirez.
2006-12-03 23:33:45
312.   Kilgore Trout
Don't want to mix in politics here, but is this Stephen Hadley guy really Jim Tracy in disguise?

You tell me:

"We have not failed in Iraq,"
Stephen Hadley said as he made the talk show rounds. "We will fail in Iraq if we pull out our troops before we're in a position to help the Iraqis succeed."

2006-12-03 23:35:40
313.   trainwreck
UCSB students took the goal posts (and nets) from Harder Stadium today and threw them into the ocean to celebrate the soccer championship.
2006-12-03 23:48:25
314.   Vishal
[312] that would be uproariously hilarious if the whole situation wasn't so sad.
2006-12-04 01:06:32
315.   dzzrtRatt
The Padres offering arbitration with the understanding it would be rejected has got to be against the rules.

Why would it be in, say, Dave Roberts' interest to do that? Did the Giants know he was essentially conniving with his old team to raise his price for his new team, while weakening the new team's future? If I were the Giants, and if this is true, I would find a way to file a grievance and demand that the surrendured draft pick be retained.

2006-12-04 04:43:21
316.   Wayne Wei-siang Hsieh
Re: 312

Don't want to mix in politics here,

If you don't want to do that, well, then don't.


2006-12-04 06:39:16
317.   DodgerHobbit
Just picture Manny being Manny at the meeting. I try to imagine it kinda going like this...

Manny listens to iPod while his agent and doger officials talk.
Every once in a while, Manny focuses his attention to the conversation suddenly and asks, "What am I doing with you guys in Los Angeles again?"

Hopefully that does the trick.

2006-12-04 06:39:49
318.   Bumsrap
Good morning night owls and early risers. I am glad to see the Rose Bowl back to being the Rose Bowl. As far as I am concerned, college football is over after New Years day so I like to see teams in the Rose Bowl that represent the Pac 10 and Big 10.

For those that want a playoff system for establishing the National Champion I ask who was the National Champion for each of the last 6 years? If you can't name them was it that important to begin with?

Back to the Dodgers. I don't want to see Manny in LA. This is how I would get more power on the Dodgers.

Boston wants a shortstop, a backup catcher, and a closer. Tomko wants to be a closer, Hall wants to be traded, and a replacement leadoff hitter has been forced upon us with the acquisition of Pierre greatly softening the loss of Furcal as regards to leading off.

The Dodgers somehow get Manny for Furcal, Tomko, and Hall and flip him to the Yanks for AROD and toss in Betemit. AROD plays shortstop for the Dodgers and as long as I am on this stuff, Nomar would play third.

As far as to what the Yanks would do with Ramirez, well, that question might have to be answered by someone who cared.

2006-12-04 07:38:23
319.   Bob Timmermann

All UCSB students and alums are on notice with me now.

2006-12-04 07:42:27
320.   Bob Timmermann
Re: the NCAA soccer championship

2006-12-04 07:45:36
321.   Vishal
[316] well, his point wasn't political, it was more about jim tracy than anything else. my comment was somewhat more political than his was, but i'm not itching for a discussion either.
2006-12-04 08:17:19
322.   Bumsrap
From out-of-nowhere--Play Nomar at third, keep Loney and play him at first.

If the Dodgers are so worried about Nomar getting hurt then he never should have been signed.

Nomar had a major groin pull but so did Piazza and he healed and continued to catch as opposed to playing first to protect against further injury.

Bill Russell played shortstop many years for the Dodgers and he never dived (dove) for ground balls because he said he tended to injure himself when he did. Nomar could do likewise at third.

If Nomar can swing a bat he can throw a ball from third.

And, I would rather have Piazza play left field than Manny. If Piazza can chase down and catch a high pop up behind the plate with reverse spin on it, he can catch a fly ball in left.

I think it would be interesting to see what Piazza could do offensively if he rested in left instead of squating at catcher and played only 120 games at that.

Do I think he would be better than Ethier? That may not be the question. Would he be better than Manny minus what was given up to get Manny? Yes.

2006-12-04 08:19:38
323.   Bumsrap
Q. When does playing Piazza in left become even remotely a consideration?

A. When the alternative is playing Manny in left and giving up even one top porspect.

2006-12-04 08:25:05
324.   Bumsrap
If a team had 6 top prospects and assuming only one will become a very good MLB player, would trading one of them be like playing Russian Roulette?
2006-12-04 08:25:16
325.   Bumsrap
If a team had 6 top prospects and assuming only one will become a very good MLB player, would trading one of them be like playing Russian Roulette?
2006-12-04 08:27:05
326.   Bumsrap
If one hits the submit button and nothing seems to happen, does hitting it a second time create a double post?
2006-12-04 08:29:33
327.   alex 7
from what we've seen in Billingsley, Martin, Kemp, Broxton, Kuo, and Loney, it's safe to guess more than one of them will become a very good MLB player.
2006-12-04 08:41:27
328.   Eric Stephen
If Piazza can chase down and catch a high pop up behind the plate with reverse spin on it, he can catch a fly ball in left

322 Jake Peavy and a lot of Padres fans would question this assessment after the NLDS.

2006-12-04 08:44:19
329.   bhsportsguy
322 You are probably too young to remember Greg Luzinski but Piazza might make him look like Andruw Jones (the fielder).
2006-12-04 08:50:32
330.   bhsportsguy
Remaining Type A free agents:

LAD: Julio Lugo (A).
Mil: Tony Graffanino (A).
Oak: Barry Zito (A).
StL: Jeff Suppan (A).
SD: Todd Walker (A)
SF: Jason Schmidt (A).

Game of the week, how many of them deny arbitration? I say 4.

2006-12-04 08:57:16
331.   Eric Stephen
330 I think at least 5 will decline arbitration, with Todd Walker the only one to possibly accept.
2006-12-04 09:13:24
332.   berkowit28
319 That's OK then. (I'm just UCSB faculty.) The article doesn't mention that UCSB soccer didn't come completely from nowhere. We were also in the finals two years ago, runners up on goal kicks after extra time, that time.
2006-12-04 09:17:57
333.   D4P
All UCSB students and alums are on notice with me now

What about UNC students and alums?

2006-12-04 09:30:04
334.   D4P
Women's Semi-Finals:


(And yes, Andrew, Oswald, et al., I do care about women's sports...)

2006-12-04 09:31:37
335.   Bob Timmermann
I am more forgiving of semifinal losses.

Besides, North Carolina was supposed to win. UCSB hadn't beaten the UCLA men in soccer since I was a senior in high school.

And I'm old.

2006-12-04 09:35:33
336.   D4P
Oops, forgot the old "L before C, except after U" rule...
2006-12-04 09:40:34
337.   Marty
When Bob says he's old, I really feel old.
2006-12-04 09:41:00
338.   Robert Daeley
Grady gives JD props, Manny "hints" --

2006-12-04 09:44:50
339.   Bob Timmermann
I have a birthday coming up and other events in life have made me aware of a shadowy figure wearing a dark cloak astride a pale horse.
2006-12-04 09:46:29
340.   D4P
Was said shadowy figure, by any chance, carrying a crescent-shaped metal blade attached to a long wooden stick...?
2006-12-04 09:57:38
341.   Bob Timmermann
And he's got an hourglass too. I'm not sure how he's able to hold on to the reins.
2006-12-04 09:58:06
342.   bhsportsguy
Bob, Greg and other Bruins:

Are you still in shock over Saturday? All the local media (except Simers) are spending the day explaining how the Trojans loss, apparently former USC QB Sean Salsbury(sp.) said earlier today that Notre Dame not UCLA is their true rival which explains how USC "letdown" on Saturday.

2006-12-04 10:07:22
343.   Vishal
[341] i bet the horse is scared to death of throwing him off.
2006-12-04 10:17:38
344.   Marty
342 I don't know about those guys, but I'm a 42-year Trojan fan and I can say UCLA dominated USC all game. I don't know about a letdown, but it was obvious USC couldn't handle UCLA's defensive ends. SC has no excuses.
2006-12-04 10:21:31
345.   stopthebeachballs

I'm still in shock, and I've watch the 4th quarter a couple of times on TiVo. Salsbury can rationalize it any way he likes. The benefit of having two "rivals" is that he can go on the air when USC loses to Notre Dame and say that UCLA is the true rival, which is why they had a hard time getting up for ND.

For the Trojans looking for other ways to deal with the pain, I also recommend, "We're still going to the Rose Bowl," and "We've won the last seven."

But who are you kidding? It sucks losing the cross-town game. We know. I was a UCLA student for four of these 7 losses. That's what makes it so sweet.

* By the way, did anyone else see USC lose to Cal in the men's water polo national title game on a goal with one second left? Bad weekend for the Trojans.

2006-12-04 10:24:09
346.   bhsportsguy
344 I think the tackle who matched up with Hickman did a pretty good job but Bruce Davis was consistenly putting pressure on from the right side.
2006-12-04 10:35:42
347.   Bob Timmermann
There is video of the end of the water polo match here:

There should be a link on Cal's homepage.

2006-12-04 10:39:28
348.   natepurcell
great news from winter meetings, steven henson reports!

Dodgers General Manager Ned Colletti met with his Red Sox counterpart, Theo Epstein, late Sunday night after arriving in Orlando to discuss Ramirez, but the teams are not close to a deal.

The Red Sox want three of the top six Dodgers prospects, including outfielder Matt Kemp and potential closer Jonathan Broxton. The names of James Loney, Andy LaRoche, Chad Billingsley and Scott Elbert also came up.

Colletti plans to meet with several other teams and the agents for several free agents today while putting the Ramirez talks on the back burner.

2006-12-04 10:39:42
349.   Andrew Shimmin
The only surprising thing about this is that Greg Brock doesn't seem to have been the protagonist.

(And yes, Andrew, Oswald, et al., I do care about women's sports...)


2006-12-04 10:43:24
350.   D4P

Leave Ms. Spacek out of this...

Show/Hide Comments 351-400
2006-12-04 10:44:14
351.   still bevens
Looks like Henson added some detail regarding the Manny meeting last night in his Q&A article. Sox be greedy.

I also didnt notice that they published Nate's email about Drew's contract.

2006-12-04 10:47:16
352.   natepurcell
I wish Steve didnt use my email, makes me look like a dork. When i asked the question a week and a half ago, no one knew! no, its just water under the bridge news.
2006-12-04 10:47:45
353.   Vishal
[347] that's pretty spectacular.
2006-12-04 10:49:09
354.   dzzrtRatt
348 From that link a few posts up, it's pretty evident that the real target for the Sox is Broxton. They don't have a closer, they can't seem to find one anywhere else, and we've got Broxton ready to go (assuming we also keep Saito). This is leverage.

Okay so here's Ned's final offer: Manny for Broxton and Toby Hall. Ow! Okay if you're going to twist his arm: Broxton, Toby Hall and Brett Tomko. But don't tell anybody what a wuss he was.

2006-12-04 10:53:55
355.   jdm025
That offer is just as absurd as the offer Boston came to Ned with. Asking for three prospects is about 2 more than they could even get from anyone else other than maybe the Angels. If Theo waits a couple of weeks, he could have Hall as a FA after the Dodgers non-tender him and sign Lieberthal. Broxton is good, but...
2006-12-04 10:55:58
356.   dzzrtRatt
341 On Donald Fagen's CD, "Morph the Cat," there's a song, "Bright Nightgown," after W.C. Fields' depiction of death as "the fellow in the bright nightgown."

So just think of it this way, Bob: After this world, the big pajama party!

2006-12-04 10:56:41
357.   jdm025
This just shows me that Ned really is high on our prospects. When Sabean made the Liriano/Nathan/Bonser deal for Pierzynski, Ned was probably drafting the paperwork. The longer he is here, the more I tend to trust him (the Pierre deal aside).
2006-12-04 11:01:02
358.   dzzrtRatt
355 Right, but I've seen trades go down with less equity than that. Manny goes into the marketplace with some dings on him. His personality, for one. His allegedly lousy defense. His $20 million/year payday, plus whatever cash the Dodgers would have to come up with to get him to waive his no-trade. The Sox will not get equal player value for Manny--not even close. Three top prospects is a ridiculous dream. Even two strikes me as greedy. However, if they focus on Broxton as an excellent way to fill their most critical need, they might see it as a reasonable way out of their Manny problem.

I'm not saying, bet the ranch on the Sox going along with the deal. I'm just saying Ned needs to make the Sox think Broxton plus some scrap is worth pulling the trigger.

2006-12-04 11:01:03
359.   jdm025
Anyone wonder what Tomko could have gotten if he were a FA this year? 3/$20 mil is probably not out of the question. Maybe those Pierre/Matthews deals won't look too bad in 2-3 years when Podsednik signs at 5/$75 mil with the Orioles.
2006-12-04 11:05:03
360.   Sam DC
For anyone who's real bored and looking for some baseball content, the Nats blogosphere is feverishly processing the team's total hot stove inactivity and Stan Kasten's recent warning that he doesn't plan to invest in even second tier FAs this year on the rationale that there's no point spending a bunch of money to make a 65 win team into a 75 win team. Some writers feel like the team doesn't set its long term plans back any by spending a bit to put a team with at least a shot out there each night, instead of running out a bunch of AAAA guys and quick-promotees from A ball. Another view is, heck, if the future is really way off, why not trade Nick Johnson, Austin Kearns, etc., and really bring in some quality prospects. Me, I'm just irked they didn't offer arb to Ramon Ortiz. Anyhow, it's an interesting look at what fans of a team in a very different situation than the Dodgers are going through.

Key posts, with some thoughtful comments appended, at:

2006-12-04 11:06:22
361.   blue22
The "word" from Olney is that Manny might not require his option picked up to make a deal happen. I think this improves the deal from LA's standpoint, but not to the point that it's worth giving up Kemp AND Broxton.

Plus, should Boston not pick up any salary, a Manny deal takes us out of the Schmidt derby.

2006-12-04 11:10:05
362.   dkminnick
355, 358 - Right. Hold out, Ned! We are holding the cards on this deal. By all accounts there are very few teams to which Manny would agree to be traded. I assume that Theo has determined that Manny would approve the Dodgers.

So they've got an expensive, aging, unhappy, hard-to-trade, Hall-of-famer (that I would like to see on the Dodgers, by the way). We are one of very few teams available to the Red Sox.

Let's see how badly they want to trade him. I would love to have Manny but not for three top prospects(!). We don't NEED Manny, but let's get him IF the price is right, i.e. low. Hall, Hendrickson, Tomko-low.

2006-12-04 11:10:24
363.   jdm025
I wonder what the Red Sox really would take for Manny with their backs against the wall. They are about to sign Drew, they want Lugo, but are not in on any of the Type A (Schmidt, Zito, even Lily with his history in the Bronx) pitchers other than Matsuzaka. The rest of their rotation is held together with tape (Schilling) and Prozac (Clement).

I think that they are putting a heavy emphasis on Lester and Papelbon in the rotation next year. They would do well to trade for Broxton and Penny and maybe a throw in B-type guy like Meloan or Stults. This providing that we get Schmidt or Maddux.

2006-12-04 11:17:35
364.   jdm025
I am glad that I am a Dodger fan. How would it feel to be a Pirates Nats fan with NOTHING to look forward to? Even the D-rays, Marlins, and D-Backs have a ton of young talent to bring fans to the park.

To me, the Dodgers not winning the Series is not nearly as bad as becoming irrelevant (Orioles). We almost got there, but for a man named Dav Evans. Say what you want about his tenure, but he got the youth movement started and had Vlad Guerrero signed before the deal fell through with the impending purchase of the team.

2006-12-04 11:17:35
365.   50 years a Dodger Fan
348 I see what's going down here. They ask for three, Ned says 'NO' and is very proud of himself for resisting. Now when they come back and say they'll settle for Broxton and Loney, he'll think it's a great bargain. Don't give up Broxton (Loney either for that matter), Saito hasn't signed, and I think there is little or no chance he can do what he did last year if he does sign, that was a fluke. No Gagne, no Saito , or an inconsistent one, we absolutely have to have Broxton. Screw Boston, screw Manny, and Gonzo too, let's play with what we have; it's enough to win the West and after that it's a crap shoot anyway.
2006-12-04 11:18:15
366.   50 years a Dodger Fan
348 I see what's going down here. They ask for three, Ned says 'NO' and is very proud of himself for resisting. Now when they come back and say they'll settle for Broxton and Loney, he'll think it's a great bargain. Don't give up Broxton (Loney either for that matter), Saito hasn't signed, and I think there is little or no chance he can do what he did last year if he does sign, that was a fluke. No Gagne, no Saito , or an inconsistent one, we absolutely have to have Broxton. Screw Boston, screw Manny, and Gonzo too, let's play with what we have; it's enough to win the West and after that it's a crap shoot anyway.
2006-12-04 11:25:10
367.   bhsportsguy
Off topic -
During a 9am (PST) meeting with Bob Bowlsby that lasted half an hour, Stanford Football head coach Walt Harris was fired today. The Cardinal coach on Saturday completed his second year at Stanford with its losingest season in season in school history and a 1-11 record. Harris totaled a 6-17 record in his two years. He delivered some improvement for the program in his first season, with a 5-6 record and three narrow losses in the final
2006-12-04 11:43:15
368.   still bevens
366 I would like to think that Coletti learned his lesson with Duaner last season. We traded a significant contributer to the bullpen that we really needed and spent half a season trying to fix the problem. I hope he doesnt make the same mistake twice, especially since we have dont have Saito locked down (yet).
2006-12-04 11:47:40
369.   LAT
Sox cannot agree to pay Manny's contract. They need that money for Matsuzaka and frankly that is a good thing. Let's face it to have Boston pay a meaningful portion of Manny's contract would require the Dodgers give up more prospect talent. If Frank has to pay the contract we give up less talent. Its that simple. If it takes us out of the Schmidt derby I'm ok with that. We have lots of starting pitching. Granted its not as good as Schmidt but then we don't have a hitter thats even close to Manny. If I'm Ned, I agree to pay the contract without the option years and give up Broxton and LaRoche and Hall. No Loney and definitly no Kemp.

BTW, if you are Theo and you are so desperate for a closer, why not take an incentive laiden flier on Gagne?

2006-12-04 11:49:42
370.   D4P
I thought Papelbon was the Red Sox' closer...Is he moving into the starting rotation?
2006-12-04 11:51:29
371.   Terry A
370 - Yes.

And in a move possibly orchestrated by Old Friend Paul DePodesta, other Old Friend Jose Cruz Jr. is expected to sign with the Padres.

2006-12-04 11:54:25
372.   D4P
Dumping Cruz Jr. was one of Ned's most unforgivable moves. As has been pointed out, he's better than Juan Pierre (not to mention significantly cheaper), and he woulda/shoulda been a great platoon partner last season with Kenny Lofton.
2006-12-04 11:56:38
373.   regfairfield
371 Better him in center than Juan Pierre.

368 But Duaner is a very fungible player, we picked the man up on waivers. Baez could have been just as good, he just...wasn't.

Now, Broxton is a different story. He's much better than Duaner, and if we lose him, there's a very real chance that Tomko becomes the closer if Saito doesn't resign, or he dissapears after one season like the majority of Japanese pitchers did after one season.

2006-12-04 12:03:49
374.   bigcpa
369 why not take an incentive laiden flier on Gagne?

If Gagne is willing to take this kind of deal I'd think he prefer to stay here. But I do think the Red Sox would look at Gagne and have inquired about Turnbow as well. That's what makes me think Broxton isn't the centerpiece. And I don't see how Penny fits into their rotation with Wakefield, Clement and Lester already in the mix for the 5th starter slot (assuming they sign Matsusaka). My money is still on Loney+Broxton for Manny+Lowell.

2006-12-04 12:06:22
375.   s choir
372 Seriously? Cruz was a disaster last year. He hit lefties very well, but couldn't hit righties at all. We already had Olmedo to use against lefties, and he could hit righties OK as well. Marlon Anderson was basically Cruz's replacement. You really think that's unforgivable?
2006-12-04 12:08:35
376.   StolenMonkey86
To me, the Dodgers not winning the Series is not nearly as bad as becoming irrelevant (Orioles)

In all fairness, I think Baltimore's rotation has some promise, particularly given the late season improvement in command for Bedard, Loewen, and Cabrera.

2006-12-04 12:16:25
377.   Steve
Jose Cruz could jump out of an airplane without a parachute for all I care, but if he's a disaster, what does that make Juan Pierre?
2006-12-04 12:17:03
378.   D4P
Cruz was a disaster last year


vs LH: .214/.275/.274/.549 (84 ABs)
vs RH: .319/.379/.431/.810 (385 ABs)
Total: .301/.360/.403/.763
3 HRs in 469 ABs


vs LH: .313/.420/.522/.942 (67 ABs)
vs RH: .199/.324/.321/.645 (156 ABs)
Total: .233/.353/.381/.734
5 HRs in 223 ABs

So, Cruz was better vs. LH than Lofton was vs. RH, and Cruz was better vs. RH than Lofton was vs. LH. Lofton comes out ahead on the Total because he had the majority of his ABs vs. the opposite-hander, whereas Cruz had the majority of his ABs vs. the same-hander.


Lofton in CF: 93
Cruz in LF: 101
Cruz in CF: 122
Cruz in RF: 115

How then was Cruz more of a disaster than Lofton...?

2006-12-04 12:17:18
379.   StolenMonkey86
If Ned wants a character guy in a power hitter, though, Marcus Thames should be at the top of his list.
2006-12-04 12:20:31
380.   blue22
375 - Cruz should've had Repko's roster slot, not Marlon's.
2006-12-04 12:22:39
381.   Robert Daeley

In 2006:

Lofton as LHB: 301/360/403
Cruz as LHB: 199/324/321
Pierre as LHB: 292/330/388

2006-12-04 12:23:23
382.   D4P
Give Cruz more than 4 times as many ABs vs. the opposite hander (like Lofton got) and Jr. looks like a star.

Given Lofton more than 4 times as many ABs vs. the opposite hander (like he did get) and he still looks mediocre.

2006-12-04 12:23:25
383.   lakerican

How then was Cruz more of a disaster than Lofton...?

Easy one, and BTW you post it...

RH: .319/.379/.431/.810 (385 ABs)

2006-12-04 12:25:53
384.   Steve
Why do splits matter in this context?
2006-12-04 12:27:14
385.   D4P
Why do splits matter in this context?

For one thing, I suggested in 272 (and during the season) that Cruz should have at least platooned with Lofton.

2006-12-04 12:28:41
386.   Steve
ok. I don't really care about any of them, since they are all eminently comparable and ultimately forgettable.
2006-12-04 12:29:56
387.   s choir
Lofton comes out ahead on the Total because he had the majority of his ABs vs. the opposite-hander, whereas Cruz had the majority of his ABs vs. the same-hander.

That's just the reality of the league--there are more right handed pitchers than left handed pitchers. Because of that split, Cruz really could only be an occasional starter or a pinch-hitter. And Olmedo already filled that role.

I never tried to compare Cruz favorably with Lofton. I'm just trying to understand why dumping Cruz was "unforgivable" considering his weakness against 3/4 of the league's pitching.

2006-12-04 12:30:23
388.   D4P
BTW: I was forgetting that Cruz was nominally a "switch-hitter."

But Depo knows what he's doing, and I'm glad to see he's still interested in Cruz.

2006-12-04 12:32:01
389.   GoBears
All just scuttlebutt, but Keith Law (the one guy at ESPN other than Neyer who has a clue about player evaluation) really thinks that Colletti wants to trade prospects for current major league talent (ESPNews). Law thinks that this is a terrible idea when (1) the prospects are close to being ready, or there now; and (2) the prospects have really high ceilings. His comment was in the context of a trade for Manny, who is at least top-line MLB talent. But we could obviously add (3) when the MLB "talent" is second-rate.

Basically, Law doesn't think much of Colletti's approach to team-building.

2006-12-04 12:32:07
390.   LAT
Give Cruz more than 4 times as many ABs vs. the opposite hander (like Lofton got) and Jr. looks like a star.

Didn't he have that opportunity in AZ and Boston before he was DFA?

2006-12-04 12:33:03
391.   D4P
I guess you're right. I won't concede that Lofton is better than Cruz, but given that there are so many more RH pitchers than LH, Lofton's value inflated (through no credit of his own).
2006-12-04 12:35:10
392.   GoBears
That's just the reality of the league--there are more right handed pitchers than left handed pitchers. Because of that split, Cruz really could only be an occasional starter or a pinch-hitter. And Olmedo already filled that role.

That's exactly D4Ps suggestion -that Cruz should have been retained to platoon with Lofton. Saenz would still be the main RH pinch-hitter, but Cruz could have mashed LHP in spot starts, allowing Lofton more time off in the bargain. The 25 man roster doesn't allow a team to take advantage of platoons for more than a few positions, but this was an obvious one. And it's not like Lofton's defense was an argument to play him every day.

2006-12-04 12:37:43
393.   s choir
385 Cruz did platoon last year. Sort of. With Drew, whose performance against lefties was pretty bad (.244/.338/.378)
2006-12-04 12:56:21
394.   bigcpa
Per Rosenthal's latest, Manny to L.A. has been downgraded to "longshot" status.

2006-12-04 12:56:27
395.   GoBears
393. Wow, that IS pretty bad. Actually, that's awful.
2006-12-04 12:58:44
396.   GoBears
394. Before Nate rejoices, he should consider the possibility that Colletti's think is something like "why waste 3 top prospects on one hitter, when I can use them in 3 different deals and get 3 "professional hitters" or "proven major league pitchers?"

Sleep with one eye open, is all I'm sayin'.

2006-12-04 13:01:17
397.   D4P
If the Dodgers do not acquire Ramirez, they figure to make strong bids for free-agent right-hander Jason Schmidt and outfielder Luis Gonzalez

It's not very fun to have to root for the option that includes signing Luis Gonzalez...

Ned should be in no hurry to trade for Ramirez. The asking price will only go down over time.

2006-12-04 13:08:11
398.   Peanuts in My Shoes
From the Boston Globe blog:

December 04, 2006
Dodgers: 'Longest of long shots'
By Gordon Edes, Globe Staff
Understand this about the winter meetings: Things can turn around in a hurry. But according to someone who was there, Dodgers GM Ned Colletti told his people this morning that a deal with the Red Sox for Manny Ramirez was "the longest of long shots.''

One Dodger official rated the chances of a deal "at 5 percent ... at best.'' The Dodgers don't want to give up the kind of prospects the Sox are seeking, especially Jonathan Broxton, the 22-year-old who they project to close for them one day.

2006-12-04 13:09:35
399.   Marty
I'm not looking forward to rooting for a team with someone named "Gonzo" on it. It's bad enough having "Psycho" in the broadcast booth.
2006-12-04 13:10:04
400.   Paul B
395 Yeah, that is bad. How bad? Juan Pierre bad! Of course JD went 244/338/378 over 119 ABs (and got well against righties), while the always-healthy Pierre was able to go .292/.330/.388 over 699 ABs! Just a glimpse of what we have to look forward to...
Show/Hide Comments 401-450
2006-12-04 13:10:26
401.   twerp
From Phil Rogers, Chicago Tribune===

"Dodger Stadium is not quite the pitchers' haven it has been in years past, in part because of reduced foul territory. Bill James' ranking had it as the sixth most favorable NL park to score in last year and tied with Philadelphia's Citizens Bank Park as the third best to hit home runs in."


"Scouts believe Greg Maddux will wind up with a two-year deal, most likely in San Diego or with the Dodgers."

2006-12-04 13:16:32
402.   blue22
401 - Since when do "scouts" get caught up in contract rumor mongering? Did he mean "sources"?
2006-12-04 13:23:42
403.   lakerican
402 Well, they can follow 40 years old pitchers progress...
2006-12-04 13:23:50
404.   jdm025
Someone answer for me why we are so intent on signing Maddux. With 7 SPs already (Penny, Lowe, Wolf, Bills, Kuo, Hendrickson, Tomko) why go for Maddux at 2/$20 mil? I have read that Elbert will be ready for the club sometime in the middle of the summer in case of injury to one of our starters.

We were the only team in the NL with two 16-game winners, and the Achilles heel of the group was the back end of the rotation, which seems to be fixed with the addition of Wolf and Kuo in place of Sele/Hendrickson/Tomko. Given 160 innings, I would think that a combination of Stults/Meloan/Tomko/Hendrickson can serve as a backup in case of disaster.

Spend the money on the bullpen with a run on Gagne and Saito.

2006-12-04 13:26:19
405.   Wayne Wei-siang Hsieh
Re: 396

Sure, that's possible, but what evidence do you have for that being Ned's thought process? Many of the press accounts indicate that there's a debate within the organization over the wisdom of the trade, with Logan White et al coming out against giving up prospects. If Rosenthal's to be believed, a big if, then it would seem that White has Ned's ear and won the organizational debate. Seeing this as just Ned looking for further trades based on the Tampa Bay trades last year ignores the possibility that the prospects remaining on the farm are for Ned essentially untouchable. Rosenthal at least said nothing about further Dodger trades--the alternative he gave to signing Manny was a run at Schmidt and Gonzo.

I for one would actually want a deal for Manny to go down. I think a Loney/Broxton/Hall deal for Manny would be worth it, but that's just me.


2006-12-04 13:26:34
406.   Daniel Zappala
367 Nothing related to Stanford is ever off-topic. Thanks for passing along the news.
2006-12-04 13:27:33
407.   Uncle Miltie
People are getting killed over playstation 3's

WILMINGTON, N.C. - A teenager accused of robbing a student of two new Playstation 3s on the day the popular game consoles were introduced was shot to death by police sent to arrest him.

Strickland's dog, a German shepherd, also was shot to death.
Why the dog? Did it assist in the robbery?

2006-12-04 13:32:07
408.   blue22
405 - Agreed. Ned seems to be saying all the right things in regards to keeping a certain group of the kids together - and all of the anecdotal evidence from other sources seems to back that up. Ned seemingly won't budge on Kemp, Broxton, Martin and Billingsley.

That said, I think Loney and/or LaRoche could be had in a deal.

2006-12-04 13:32:52
409.   s choir
I don't understand why the Ramirez negotiations are hung up on Broxton. He's a reliever. I can understand being hung up on Billingsley or Elbert, but to give up the chance to obtain a power hitter like Ramirez because you don't want to give up your future closer doesn't make any sense to me, considering that the role can usually be filled by whichever journeyman you invite to spring training impresses you the most.

My hope is that Ned is just bluffing about not wanting to give up Broxton.

2006-12-04 13:33:27
410.   Wayne Wei-siang Hsieh
Re: 405

Actually, thinking about Rosenthal again, I think the stickler is not Loney or LaRoche or even Kemp, but Broxton. And if Broxton's off the table, then I can't see why the Sox would be interested in making this deal--their greatest needs is in the pen, after all.

I guess I'm sorta conflicted about this possible deal. I'm very high on Manny, but Brox looks like the real deal. That being said, part of me thinks that Greg Miller or another live young arm could step up and take his place in the pen. I also think that Saito will in fact be back.

I guess only time will tell...


2006-12-04 13:34:00
411.   Daniel Zappala
Signing Gonzalez wouldn't be a terrible thing, provided he doesn't start 150 games. He's a decent short-term option while Kemp takes 1/2 season in AAA to get ready and provides some insurance in case Ethier or Loney can't make it this year. If the main goal is to keep and play the prospects long-term, then I root for any signing that is short-term and doesn't make us give up prospects. Gonzalez could be a useful fourth outfielder if the kids play as well as we hope.

Put another way, Gonzalez is a low-threat signing to the prospect vision. If some combination of Ethier, Loney, and Kemp can't beat out Gonzalez by the end of the season, then our long-term prospect plans may not come to pass.

2006-12-04 13:36:29
412.   s choir
407 Apparently, when the cops showed up, the kid was in the middle of a game of Ridge Racer 7, and he brought the pilfered PS3's controller with him when he answered the door. The trigger-happy cops thought it looked like a gun.
2006-12-04 13:38:33
413.   jdm025
Other than Saito, what journeyman adequately filled a closer role last year? I can understand what you are saying with regards to internal prospects like Papelbon, but I would say that generally, good closers are hard to come by and when they are found, they are locked up and coveted (Rivera, Hoffman, Gagne, Nathan). Guys like Saito seem to be more the exception than the rule.
2006-12-04 13:38:50
414.   trainwreck
Ned do not deal the prospects!!
2006-12-04 13:39:18
415.   King of the Hobos
Has it been mentioned here that Kuo is pitching for Taiwan in the baseball part of the Asian Games in Qatar? In his first game against Korea, he pitched 5 innings, allowing 6 hits, 1 run, 1 walk, and struck out 6. Hopefully the added work doesn't cause any injury.
2006-12-04 13:39:41
416.   Bumsrap
It would be nice if Little would keep his mouth shut about Manny. Hopefully McCourt understands that Little may think he will not be managing long term and therefore wants to trade the future for Manny.

I am still promoting AROD to Dodgers and play shortstop.

Furcal, Tomko, Hall to Boston;
Ramirez and Betemit to Yankees.
AROD and $$ to Dodgers.

++ for Yanks: Yankees get Manny out of Boston lineup.
++ for BoSox: Boston puts Manny into Yankees lineup and gets AROD out of their lineup.
++ for Dodgers: They get a big bat.

Who would you rather have defensively in left field?

2006-12-04 13:40:07
417.   Wayne Wei-siang Hsieh
Re: 408

I agree that the four you name are the untouchables.

Re: 409

Broxton has a K/9 of 11.44 I want to see the walk rate come down, but for a 22 year old, those are pretty impressive numbers. And it makes him more than just your run-of-the-mill reliever. Part of me is still willing to give up Manny for the short term--indeed, I think I'd be willing to make this deal in the end--but it certainly gives me pause.


2006-12-04 13:40:54
418.   Andrew Shimmin
I think it was funnier the first time. But it's still good, the second time around.

2006-12-04 13:42:00
419.   Icaros
I will officially change my stance on the possible signing of Gonzo if it prevents trading prospects.

"Sign old players, to save the young ones."

2006-12-04 13:44:50
420.   trainwreck
We have to sign Luiz Gonzalez to save our GM from making bad deals...

Oh the irony.

2006-12-04 13:45:18
421.   Bumsrap
I would imagine if Gagne really wanted to be a Dodger he could get a new agent and sign a $2M contract.

He doesn't owe Boras anything. There should not be any new pages to add to the 100 page four color glossy workup that Boras did for Gagne that got him the big contract a few years back unless he wants to show Gagne wearing a cast.

2006-12-04 13:47:20
422.   trainwreck
It is sad we have to hope for bad deals in order to prevent terrible deals.
2006-12-04 13:49:43
423.   ToyCannon
2006-12-04 13:53:08
424.   Uncle Miltie
I'd rather have Schmidt, Broxton, Loney, LaRoche, Kemp, and (gulp) Gonzalez than Manny.
2006-12-04 13:53:59
425.   natepurcell
Someone answer for me why we are so intent on signing Maddux. With 7 SPs already (Penny, Lowe, Wolf, Bills, Kuo, Hendrickson, Tomko) why go for Maddux at 2/$20 mil?

well, colletti has said to the media over and over that his current Plan B is to acquire a surplus of starting pitching so he will have enough to trade for a hitter.

i support that thought process more then the lets trade the prospects one.

2006-12-04 13:55:29
426.   natepurcell
why not cliff floyd? why gonzalez? floyd can still actually be good when healthy.
2006-12-04 13:58:48
427.   trainwreck
The problem with signing Maddux is that of the starters we have (unless people want BJ and Tomko) I would want Maddux traded the most.
2006-12-04 13:59:38
428.   Snowdog
421 - Gagne was healthy enough to build sand castles over the weekend (in Santa Monica). I thought about asking him, "why Boras"?, but couldn't do it. Instead, settled for a hand shake with his sandy bear-paw of a hand.

However, the idea that he is doing "goodwill" stuff in the LA market shows me he like this place. Guess that would add page 101 to the Glossy: Builds Sand Castles in Local Market for special causes.

2006-12-04 14:03:09
429.   Steve
Borowski, Todd Jones, whoever Milwaukee has closing for them at any one time, whoever Cincinnati has closing for them at any one time, etc.
2006-12-04 14:04:18
430.   Andrew Shimmin
423- Very funny.

There's also Borowski, and Dempster; Turnbow was good (an All Star) for half a season, before reverting to form. A lot depends on the definition of journeyman, though.

2006-12-04 14:05:41
431.   50 years a Dodger Fan
421 What makes you think Boras' contracts with 'his players' is any less tricky or self-serving than their contracts with the ball clubs?
2006-12-04 14:05:42
432.   Uncle Miltie
426- unfortunately, I haven't seen anything about the Dodgers being interested in Floyd.

Colletti likes his players like his wine, old and fermented.

2006-12-04 14:07:11
433.   ToyCannon
Sign Schmidt
Sign Floyd
Sign Lieberthal
Sign Saito
Release Hall

Get ready for spring.

2006-12-04 14:07:16
434.   blue22
427 - Are we so sure there isn't any market for Hendrickson? In the offseason of $10M contracts for Ted Lilly and Vincente Padilla, a guy like Hendrickson at <$3M may be appealing to a smaller-market team.

He could revert to being the 7th best so-and-so in the American League.

2006-12-04 14:07:34
435.   Eric Stephen
I'd give up Penny & LaRoche for Manny, but I'd be very hesitant to give up Broxton (or Loney, Kemp or Billingsley for that matter).

From a 2007 payroll standpoint, adding Manny wouldn't be too much of a burden...he makes $18m next season, but $4m is deferred...There is a $1m bonus if he is traded, but I'm not sure if that is an annual bonus or a one-time bonus.

Anyway, adding Manny and subtracting Penny adds $6.5m to the payroll, putting it at roughly $101-102m. I don't know what the budget is, but I'd like to see Jason Schmidt added to the fold as well.

I agree with Nate in that in lieu of Manny I would rather see Cliff Floyd than Luis Gonzalez.

2006-12-04 14:07:44
436.   robohobo
USS Mariner Blog says Schmidt is almost a sure thing to sign with Seattle.
"Schmidt wants to pitch in Seattle, and despite his agent trying to drum up interest in him from other teams, everyone in baseball knows it."
If that is true, Maddux maybe makes a bit more sense.
2006-12-04 14:13:00
437.   natepurcell
ive seen alot of people willing to include laroche in a manny deal, is that because he isnt "proven" at the big league level yet or is it because we also have betemit?

To me, Laroche is the most sure thing to be a solid major league player in our system outside of Martin. His combination of power and patience to go along with good k-rates while playing a premium position basically signifies to me that he shouldnt be included in a trade. Maybe people are just worried about his shoulder.

2006-12-04 14:16:05
438.   dzzrtRatt
419, say hello to my little friend...Juan Pierre!

I didn't like the Pierre signing, but I did like what it seemed to be saying about Ned's regard for our system. Some interpreted it differently, but it seems to me he wants to fill as many holes as he can at the cost of no prospects, and then either keep the prospects or entertain offers when their market value is higher, perhaps later in the off-season.

2006-12-04 14:16:15
439.   gibsonhobbs88
All very interesting scenarios, I am very wary of giving up Broxton unless we had some assurances that Saito will stay in MLB with the Dodgers and not go back to Japan or that Gagne signs an affordable incentive type deal. You don't really want to be left with Tomko as the closer, do you?
If time does reduce the demand for Manny and if Saito or Gagne or both sign and Manny hasn't been traded yet, then trade Broxton, Betemit/Laroche and Hall for Manny.

I agree though that three top prospects for Manny is way too high of a price for a 2 year rental.

2006-12-04 14:18:04
440.   Eric Stephen
Nate, I think in a perfect world I would keep all of our prospects and let them lead the way. However, I have a feeling that some will be traded anyway so why not have their departure be for a premium player like Manny and not a stiff like Lugo?

My only concern with LaRoche is his shoulder.

2006-12-04 14:18:45
441.   Daniel Zappala
426 Nate, if we can get Floyd on a short-term deal, great. My point was that Gonzalez wouldn't be "terrible", because he is old enough that he can't possibly block the prospects long-term, plus if they are good enough they will supplant him. I agree there could be even better options.
2006-12-04 14:20:03
442.   natepurcell
My only concern with LaRoche is his shoulder.

that is a fair concern. But considering the numbers he put up last year with two bum shoulders, should it be fair to assume he could do even better with two healthy shoulders? Then again, it also isnt fair to assume that the shoulders will be fully healthy again.

2006-12-04 14:22:09
443.   gibsonhobbs88
439 - However, my feelings overall is I am against the deal for Manny if it means giving up too many of our A+ prospects that can produce for years to come. If Schmidt is going to be off the market by signing with Seattle, then Maddux does make a little more sense for insurance purposes, but it does seem steep for a pitcher that is toast after 75 pitches on a given start. We already have Penny that uses up way too many pitches by the 6th inning. That puts too much extra stress on the bullpen.
2006-12-04 14:24:16
444.   trainwreck
Labrum injuries are nowhere near as bad for hitters as they are for pitchers.
2006-12-04 14:24:56
445.   natepurcell
holy crao carpenter just got a big extension.

Carpenter had been signed through 2007 as part of an agreement that called for a $7 million salary next year. The Cardinals exercised his 2008 option at $9 million as part of the new agreement and added guaranteed years for 2009, 2010 and 2011 plus a club option for 2012. If the new option is exercised, the deal would be worth about $77 million.

2006-12-04 14:26:19
446.   trainwreck
Olney has a column under ESPN Insider on how Tony Gwynn deserves to be in the basketball hall of fame.

He has another insider article where he says Albert Pujols can hit.

2006-12-04 14:30:09
447.   overkill94
446 Basketball hall of fame? I know he was good at one time, but don't you actually have to play in the NBA to be eligible for the Hall?
2006-12-04 14:30:16
448.   50 years a Dodger Fan
If we have any interest at all in Maddux, then not offering him arbitration is a bigger bonehead play than signing Pierre.
2006-12-04 14:30:17
449.   blue22
446 - While a terrific point guard for SDSU, entry into the basketball hall of fame is probably a bit of a stretch for Tony Gwynn. :-)
2006-12-04 14:30:21
450.   trainwreck
*baseball hall of fame. I am watching UC Riverside vs UCLA.
Show/Hide Comments 451-500
2006-12-04 14:31:11
451.   blue22
450 - You can't make mistakes here. You should know that. :-)
2006-12-04 14:31:47
452.   overkill94
And now it looks like the Giants are about to lock up Bengie Molina to a three-year contract. This day just keeps getting better and better!
2006-12-04 14:33:06
453.   blue22
The old get older. Yahoo! Sports says that the Giants have signed both Pedro Feliz and Bengie Molina to contracts.

SF is already paying $4M to 37-year-old Mike Matheny next year.

2006-12-04 14:33:29
454.   trainwreck
The Giants are so terrible. Rich Aurilla is their first baseman.
2006-12-04 14:34:48
455.   Eric Enders
I've seen Tony Gwynn play basketball and he's no Jack Kennedy.

Do we really know that getting Manny puts us out of the Schmidt race? The McCourts are basically printing their own money now with the attendance they had this year. They can probably afford it. Whether they will is, of course, another matter.

Anyway, if it's true that we can only hope for one or the other, which group of players would you rather have?

Group A
Manny Ramirez
Greg Maddux or other middling FA pitcher
#22 pick in the 2007 draft

Group B
Jason Schmidt
James Loney
Jonathan Broxton

2006-12-04 14:36:05
456.   Eric Enders
447 I would wager that the majority of people in the Basketball Hall of Fame never played in the NBA. Either that, or a large minority of them.
2006-12-04 14:40:42
457.   overkill94
456 "Look, I work for the phone company, I've had a lot of experience with semantics, so don't try to lure me into some maze of circular logic."
2006-12-04 14:40:50
458.   natepurcell
apparently, the dodgers were named organization of the year by Baseball America...
2006-12-04 14:41:21
459.   Disabled List
The Reds have unveiled their new uniforms. They finally ditched the sleeveless abominations for a very nice classic look:

Without the piping, the Dodgers' uniforms have a real throwback look too. I approve of this trend.

2006-12-04 14:46:05
460.   natepurcell

maybe this will improve the chances of Colletti keeping the kids.

2006-12-04 14:46:08
461.   Eric Enders
According to the basketball Hall's website, there are 134 players and 146 non-players (coaches, refs, "contributors") in the HOF. In addition to which a large number of the "players" group never played in the NBA, like John Wooden and Ann Meyers-Drysdale.
2006-12-04 14:50:59
462.   Snowdog
448 - I'm a bit confused on this, and probably don't have the facts correct, but...

If Maddux has offers on the table right now for 2/$22 (if that's to be believed, and it's the best info I've seen), and Ned wants him back in LA (to stockpile pitching for future trades for bat), then NOT offering arb seemed to be the way to go, since when one is offered arb, they can no longer negotiate with that individual for some period of time. A period of time which the Ned Regime likely viewed as a critical period of negotiating time.

Now if Ned had no intention of bringing Maddux back, then offering arb would seem the right decision, since Maddux would decline, take his 2 years elsewhere, and leave the Dodgers with two picks.

So it leads me to think Ned is serious about Maddux pitching for LA the next 2 years, and therefore, wants to keep the negotiations going, something arb would prevent.

2006-12-04 14:51:35
463.   Sam DC
A Screen Jam / Dodger Thoughts crossover comment: Just read at the NY Times that Jon Stewart's company is producing a show for Comedy Central about or set around minor league baseball.
2006-12-04 14:51:48
464.   Eric Enders
459 But the Dodgers' piping WAS the throwback look.
2006-12-04 14:55:11
465.   trainwreck
Hopefully it is as good as Summer Catch.
2006-12-04 14:55:23
466.   jdm025
Very nice argument. I hope that our discussions can be this productive in the future.
2006-12-04 14:58:28
467.   Eric Enders
466 is all the more hilarious because I can't tell if it's a joke, or a colossal misreading of 423.

Just in case it's the latter...

2006-12-04 14:59:08
468.   Disabled List
464 Well, it just depends on how far you want to throw back:

2006-12-04 14:59:38
469.   natepurcell

Toycannon isnt calling you a putz. He is talking about JJ Putz, the closer last year for the mariners.

Hopefully that cleared up some confusion :)

2006-12-04 15:00:03
470.   jdm025
joke. Looked like an opportunity to flex my oft unused sense of humor.
2006-12-04 15:00:17
471.   Sam DC
466: Not sure if you're just carrying on the joke, but just in case, I don't think 423 was an argument, I think it was (an admittedly jokey) answer to your question.
2006-12-04 15:00:27
472.   Andrew Shimmin
466- It was a joke. J.J. Putz was perhaps a journeyman reliever. I don't know if he fits the definition. If he was, then so was Pittsburgh's Gonzalez.

2006-12-04 15:00:54
473.   natepurcell
Toycannon is to good of a poster to blatantly insult other posters like that.
2006-12-04 15:01:02
474.   Eric Enders
468 In that case, I'm holding out for the ultimate Dodger throwback uniform:

2006-12-04 15:01:28
475.   Sam DC
Oops. Wrong and late both.
2006-12-04 15:01:30
476.   jdm025
Sorry about the confusion. Just too good of a lead in to pass up. Not nearly as good as he had said Turnbow.
2006-12-04 15:01:56
477.   D4P
He was referring to J.J. Put...Oh, never mind.
2006-12-04 15:02:05
478.   Sam DC
But not the latest!
2006-12-04 15:02:33
479.   trainwreck
Someone explain who JJ Putz is one more time.
2006-12-04 15:02:53
480.   Disabled List
I LOL'd heartily at 423 and 466 once I read 467.
2006-12-04 15:02:56
481.   Andrew Shimmin
Why did I have to be last? I don't mind getting beaten out by Enders, or Nate, or Sam; but did I really have to come in behind absolutely everybody?
2006-12-04 15:05:27
482.   Sam DC
455 So, nobody actually answered Eric's baseball-related question. I vote for group two. 5 2 4 9 baby!
2006-12-04 15:05:42
483.   natepurcell

its okay. Greg Brock use to always beat me to Betemit's catchphrase everytime he launched one.

2006-12-04 15:06:17
484.   D4P
Why did I have to be last?

Because you shop at Walmart.

2006-12-04 15:07:12
485.   jdm025
I wish my wife thought I was as funny as 480.
2006-12-04 15:09:14
486.   Sam DC
"Scouting and player development are the lifeblood of an organization," said Colletti. "So many people contributed to this honor. Kim Ng and Logan White, who have both been here for more than five years, as well as everyone in our player development and scouting departments should be very proud of this accomplishment."

From the release Nate linked at 460. Nice statement by Colletti.

2006-12-04 15:09:17
487.   jdm025
Group B, by the way, would be my humble preference.
2006-12-04 15:10:14
488.   Disabled List
474 Is that cross-hatches, or plaid? Ye gods, that uniform looks like a tablecloth.

I actually like this one a little, but it reminds me of the 1970s White Sox, for some reason:

2006-12-04 15:11:03
489.   jdm025
I wonder if Coletti has this exact set of names and groups on a notepad in the Dodger War Room.
2006-12-04 15:17:19
490.   natepurcell
Heyman at SI is still beating the Manny to LA for a bounty drum.
2006-12-04 15:21:46
491.   trainwreck
ESPN Insider was tracking the GM meetings with updates throughout the day. They said the Dodgers were talking with Red Sox about Manny, but that does not mean much.
2006-12-04 15:22:18
492.   dsfan
Didn't the Braves offer Maddux arbitration and get scorched after Boras took them to the cleaners?

I look as much at process as a result, because I believe if the process is good, the results will be good, in time. My guess is the Dodgers' process on Maddux was about as good as possible. Why? Because Ned has a good relationship with Maddux. They go way back to Chicago. If Ned still had doubts about working out a dealin with Maddux, that tells you how powerful Boras is. I don't know what the high-end risk on Maddux would have been through arbitration, but given the capriciousness of arbiters and the dearth of pitching, it had to be a daunting number.

2006-12-04 15:26:29
493.   Robert Daeley
Given how much else the Red Sox are trying to accomplish at the meetings (JD Drew, Julio Lugo, Matsuzaka, Foulke, and who knows what else), I'm not surprised real Manny/Dodgers news is coming slowly or not at all.
2006-12-04 15:27:19
494.   robohobo
Best case scenario of our bullpen would have Saito back with Brazoban, Moose, and possibly a healthy Gagne. If they are all healthy together, I can't think of a better pen. Perhaps Ned wants to get part way into the season to see if Gagne and Brazoban can make a come back. It that happens, one or two of those guys could be traded for a power hitter during the season. Or, with our collection of 5 and out inning pitchers (assuming Maddux signs), he may think we need to keep all of them. It would be fun to see Maddux/Penny through 5, Brazoban pitch the 6th, Broxton 7th, Saito 8th, Gagne 9th.
2006-12-04 15:27:28
495.   trainwreck
I expect Gagne to be a Red Sox eventually.
2006-12-04 15:27:55
496.   blue22
490 - The Angels have been conspicuously quiet on the Manny front. I wouldn't put it past them to jump in and make a deal, sorta how they swooped in from nowhere and snared Vlad when his FA situation was dragging on.
2006-12-04 15:28:02
497.   dsfan
I am not sold on Ned but what I do like is that he appears to have access to significant intelligence in the industry.

Two examples:

On the Manny front, he has a very intimate understanding of the Boston front office -- a complicated beats -- through the counsel of Lajoie, who a year ago was Boston's point man. In addition, the likes of Little and Jauss are very clued into what makes Manny tick. I doubt there's another GM out there, save perhaps Towers, who is more clued-in when it comes to things Red Sox and Manny.

On the Schmidt front, Conte has to be an invalauble source for the Giants. He literally worked on Schmidt for several years, knew him back when his fastball was overpower and when he lost a foot or so on his fastball (about the time steroid testing was headed down the pike). Investing some $13 million a year in a pitcher is fraught with risk. At least Ned should have some good info on Schmidt.

None of this ensures Ned will make the right moves, but again, process tends to be the key over the long haul and I like that Ned should have solid information on both fronts.

2006-12-04 15:30:12
498.   trainwreck
Who gave him the information on Pierre?
2006-12-04 15:36:03
499.   jdm025
I, too, am unsure about Ned, but think he is surrounded by really good people. Ng, White, and Lajoie give me hope that, when Opening Day breaks, the Dodgers will be better with all or most of their best young players intact.

I think a slant that no one is really talking about is White's very timely promotion to VP. Would Ned do this and then empty the farm as soon as the guy got in his office? Hopefully not.

2006-12-04 15:40:34
500.   Andrew Shimmin
492- Given the choice between taking a chance on arbitrators giving Maddux twenty-two million bucks, and doing it myself, I'd roll the dice every single time.
Show/Hide Comments 501-550
2006-12-04 15:41:10
501.   LAT
OK I'll admit it. I entirely missed Canon's joke. I knew he couldn't be calling jdm025, its not his style, but I couldn't figure out why everyone thought it was so funny. Good news Andrew, I am later and further behind than you and may others.
2006-12-04 15:43:30
502.   dsfan
I know the Red Sox print money through their TV network and I suspect that somehow, someway they will extract goodies from the Seibu Lions to help offset the staggering $51.1 million outlay for the rights to Matsuzaka -- an outlay that actually is larger when one accounts for the present day value of money.

I also suspect that if the Red Sox absolutely had to do it, they could bear to pay Manny, Drew, the Japanese pitcher and Lugo.

Still, even when taking into account Boston's financial might and the fact that the rights fee to Seibu doesn't count against their luxury-tax payroll, it appears that the Red Sox have less leverage on the Manny front than their de facto PR men with ESPN, headed by Gammons, purport.

Assumning Boras gets $12 million per yer for Matsuzaka, it appears that Boston would presently projectabout $95 million against its 2007 budget for three entities: Matsuzaka, Manny and Drew. That's just an incredible sum without even adding the potential cost for Lugo -- who reportedly could get close to 4/40 million. I don't know what Schilling/Lowell/Varitek/Ortiz are making, but it's got to be a ton, and Clement's $9.25 million already is a sunk cost.

Factoring in that even Manny's pal Ortiz is now saying that Manny probably should go and the fact that Manny jumped ship on the team over the final five weeks -- the Dodgers have considerably more leverage than Boston. Further, the Dodgers on the field won't be competeting with any titans in their division, nothing like the Yankees.
It doesn't appear that the Padres, in truth, are a likely destination for Manny or that the Giants have much to offer.

So when you add it up, it's the Dodgers who have the cudgel here. Maybe it's time to gag Little and tell the Red Sox this deal won't hapen -- unless the Red Sox bleed a few quarts at the negotiating table.

2006-12-04 15:45:08
503.   trainwreck
At this point I do not really want to lose any our prospects for Manny.
2006-12-04 15:58:33
504.   trainwreck
Let's take an approach from Billy Beane and not have one player eating a giant chunk of our salary (I would assume Ramirez would want his 20 million option years picked up or have his deal re-worked).

Unless of course that player is Albert Pujols, who is on the right side of 30.

2006-12-04 15:59:38
505.   Marty
Heyman worked at the Torrance Daily Breeze when I was there.
2006-12-04 16:10:05
506.   twerp

In 416 and I think 318 and maybe other times you've advocated trades that would make A-Rod a Dodger.

Whatever the merits, Boras recently warned teams not to try to trade for him, said he doesn't want to go anywhere. Apparently if a team did, it'd soon be in a Drew situation, or worse.

Sidebar "A Rod deal can get sweeter," appears at left under picture of Public Enemy #1. Key excerpt===

"Boras, insisting Rodriguez does not want to leave the New York Yankees, wants to subtly remind clubs it's foolish for any to even consider trading for Rodriguez. Rodriguez can opt out after each of the next three years. He can be an unrestricted free agent after 2007. If he does not get a $5 million raise for the 2009 and 2010 seasons, he can leave any preceding year."I'm sure (Rangers owner) Tom Hicks would like to see that happen," Boras says, "but teams don't realize the cost involved trading for (Rodriguez). The reality is ... he doesn't want to go anywhere."

2006-12-04 16:10:38
507.   blue22
504 - Does Billy Beane still get credit for that "approach" when he's got $20M+ tied up in Kendall and Kotsay next year?
2006-12-04 16:10:39
508.   ToyCannon
That approach might win some divisions but can it win a playoff series:)
2006-12-04 16:13:03
509.   Greg S
I wonder if Brazoban is in the Manny equation. The last I heard (mid-September from somebody who knows him) his rehab was going along nicely. Perhaps he makes Broxton even more expendable. If you can get Manny, you certainly have to give up almost any two of our prospects, don't you?
2006-12-04 16:13:10
510.   Wayne Wei-siang Hsieh
Re: 496

My own interpration of the SI article and the Rosenthal piece on Colletti's unwillingness to deal Brox is that the Angels are right now a more likely partner.

I'm with dsfan, though; we should play hardball. If the Angels outbid us in terms of prospects, then so be it.


2006-12-04 16:14:29
511.   bigcpa
504 At 37 Big Unit made 17% of the 2001 AZ payroll when they won it all. Just sayin. I would be bummed if don't get Manny and win 90 games in '07 and '08 with Loney on the bench. I remember how it felt ridding ourselves of Sheffield but leaving a gaping hole on the '02 and '03 teams.
2006-12-04 16:18:33
512.   still bevens
509 Doesnt Yhency still only have 1 pitch?
2006-12-04 16:19:42
513.   ToyCannon
No one plays hardball better then Ned. He worked Pierre down from 50/5 to 44/5. Bloody brilliant.
2006-12-04 16:21:14
514.   LAT
506. I thought that was the case too but accrding to Ben Maller (Fox) today:

The Yankees have been awfully quiet this offseason, and it is interesting how in the last couple of days Alex Rodriguez has been whispered more and more. By most accounts, the White Sox would like to trade for Rodriguez with Joe Crede and one of two pitchers, Mark Buehrle or Freddy Garcia as bait. Publicly, Rodriguez' agent, Scott Boras, and Yankees GM Brian Cashman have said there will be no trade. Given the keg of gunpowder and pile of cash that always seems within reach of owner George Steinbrenner, the volume on Rodriguez swap-talk could start dialing up this week.

Posted December 04, by Ben Maller

I have a hard time believing this but if true and if A-Rod could be had for roughly the same price as Manny, I would much prefer A-Rod. I would even give up more for A-Rod.

2006-12-04 16:23:54
515.   trainwreck
I do not think we can afford to trade for Manny Ramirez.

Everyone think it is currently fine to trade Penny, but I think Schmidt is out of the picture at this point. If it is between Brad Penny or Greg Maddux, I will take Brad Penny. If we do not trade Brad Penny then it will cost us one of your pitchers, which is even worse than trading Penny.

In addition we would have to give up one or two hitting prospects as well. In a market where Gary Matthews gets 10 million a year, would it not be smart to keep our young hitters and have depth at multiple position?

2006-12-04 16:24:56
516.   trainwreck
*one of our young pitchers
2006-12-04 16:25:28
517.   trainwreck
Uggh that second paragraph is terrible.
2006-12-04 16:26:51
518.   trainwreck
I think it is critical to build your team from within and then add peices around your young players. Let's give the young players a chance before we start trying to add major peices. I think it is smarter to see what we have with them and then go from there.
2006-12-04 16:28:09
519.   jdm025
Just out of curiosity, why is Schmidt out of the picture? Has he signed somewhere already?
2006-12-04 16:28:27
520.   GoBears
Re: 396 Sure, that's possible, but what evidence do you have for that being Ned's thought process?

Sorry to take so long to respond - had to work and stuff.

I have no evidence of this at all, and was not claiming to. I was merely scaremongering - telling young Nate a scary story before bedtime (OK, before lunch).

2006-12-04 16:29:50
521.   Steve
Mark 10:31
2006-12-04 16:30:12
522.   trainwreck
I have heard a few reports that the reason that few teams are going after Schmidt is because they believe it is a given he will sign with the Mariners. In addition, I think the Cubs would outbid us. Also, if we had a good shot with Schmidt I have no idea why we would waste our time talking to Maddux about a two year deal.
2006-12-04 16:30:31
523.   blue22
515 - Other than the USS Mariner being the only one reporting what apparently "everyone in baseball knows" (that Schmidt is destined for Seattle), why is Schmidt out of the picture?
2006-12-04 16:32:16
524.   ToyCannon
I used to be a huge Manny fan but after his crap this summer I don't really want him on the team. I'd rather just sign Barry for one year at a huge deal.
1. No loss of draft picks
2. Can be signed for less then Manny
3. No kids lost
4. Can play LF at least as well as Manny even on two bad legs
5. Can still deliver the OB that we need
6. Even at his age his baserunning skills according to the BJ 2006 book was -8, Manny was a -11.
7. Can get plenty of time off to rest his body while Kemp/Loney get some playing time.
8. He couldn't possibly be a lousier clubhouse presence then Manny.
9. Just a great way to stick it to the Giants one last time. Can you imagine how pissed a Giant fan would be if Barry came here and won a world championship after failing to do so for the Giants.
2006-12-04 16:32:29
525.   trainwreck
My own personal thought process.
2006-12-04 16:34:21
526.   trainwreck
I remember reading a lot of rumors before free agency even started that Schmidt wanted to go back to Washington and play for Mariners. I know they are rumors, but other issues make me wonder.
2006-12-04 16:35:10
527.   CanuckDodger
509 -- No, we don't have two give up any two of our prospects for Manny. And your suggesting (if that is what the word "perhaps" signifies) that Brazoban -- who is still not back from TJ surgery, and had an ERA over 5.00 his last season -- makes Broxton "even more expendable," when, in fact, Broxton isn't expendable at all, shows that you are really barking up the wrong tree. Broxton is no more expendable than Martin, and Colletti knows that. Neither player is a prospect. They are proven major leaguers young in age and five years from free agency, and will make less than half a million dollars in salary in 2007 while contributing exponentially more to the Dodgers in 2007 than can be expected from the average MLB player making half a million dollars.
2006-12-04 16:36:34
528.   natepurcell

Im going to pretend you are just kidding about having Barry Bonds on the Dodgers.

2006-12-04 16:38:23
529.   trainwreck
ESPN Insider GM Meetings special, I have no idea what to call it, said expect Lilly to sign with the Cubs.
2006-12-04 16:38:42
530.   ssjames
527 Isn't at least Martin 6 years from free agency? He hasn't played a full major league season. I am not sure on Broxton, will have to check, but he may also be just short of one year making him six years to free agency as well.
2006-12-04 16:39:52
531.   DodgerHobbit
I'm tired of all these rumors too but...

Jeff Kent + Manny Ramirez > Jeff Kent + Barry Bonds

Reuniting Jeff Kent and Barry would be chemistry killing to the tune of airing an Ike and Tina Christmas special or something.

And I have no idea who would be Tina...

2006-12-04 16:40:02
532.   ToyCannon
dead serious. I don't have a problem with Barry Bonds other then the fact he's a Giant.
2006-12-04 16:41:59
533.   trainwreck
If we were an AL Team, signing Bonds would make sense to me.
2006-12-04 16:42:44
534.   Andrew Shimmin
I wonder what it would take to separate Philip Hughes from the Yankees. Or Pelfrey from the Mets. Neither is rebuilding, and they both need pitching right now. Penny may not be enough, but I wonder if Lowe would be.

521- Thanks. But I always sided with the grumbling vineyard workers.

2006-12-04 16:42:59
535.   ToyCannon
How can you talk about chemistry and ignore the fact that Manny quit on his team this summer which is why no one on the RedSox gives a hoot if he's dealt this winter?
2006-12-04 16:44:22
536.   ToyCannon
He's a better LF as a gimp then the sluggers like Burrell, Dunn, and Manny that everyone wants.
2006-12-04 16:45:47
537.   Wayne Wei-siang Hsieh
Re: 528

It won't happen, but I think that in baseball terms, whoever will sign Bonds will make the best move this offseason. And I think it'll be Beane.

But in LA, with Ned close to Kent, Kent's history, and the McCourts sensitivity to their image, signing Bonds is definitely out of the question.


2006-12-04 16:45:50
538.   Andrew Shimmin
534, continued: Shows what I know. That one was Matthew 20. It's been a long time since I knew these things.
2006-12-04 16:45:57
539.   trainwreck
I do not want those guys either and I do not know that Bonds is better than them, but I no longer want players that cannot play defense.
2006-12-04 16:46:14
540.   Wayne Wei-siang Hsieh
Re: 537

Ooops, "It won't happen" only refers to the Dodgers.


2006-12-04 16:47:02
541.   Greg S
527 I hope the words "I wonder" and "perhaps" made it clear that this was more of a question that a statement. I like Broxton and think he has a big upside but I don't think he is or should be untouchable.
In my opinion, the Dodgers with Manny Ramirez and without Broxton would be a powerhouse. As they stand today, they are not. Any player is "expendable" if they can be replaced. Certainily easier to find a set up pitcher than a guy who OPSes consistently above 1.000
Money is another issue. I belive the answer to that is that we will have enough young players on the roster to afford to replace one with a $20M contract.
2006-12-04 16:49:07
542.   CanuckDodger
530 -- Martin started more games this year than all but two other MLB catchers, even with missing the month of April, that is how over-worked his was. No way will 2006 be counted as a "partial" season that doesn't count against the 6 pre free agency years, or 3 pre-arbitration years. Broxton's inning workload was also normal for a full year's work by a set-up man.
2006-12-04 16:52:27
543.   Marty
542 So, that makes it sound like someone makes a call on whether Martin's season was partial or not, rather than a hard and fast rule?
2006-12-04 16:52:45
544.   DodgerHobbit
I'm not ignoring that Manny is a flake and would be a negative clubhouse presence...I believe as distracting and controversial as Manny is, he would still be far, far, far less distracting than Bonds could hope to be even if he doesn't mouth off at or try to beat down Jeff Kent. Putting Bonds and Kent on the same team would be like re-trading for Milton Bradley--cubed. Someone would get hurt lol.
Manny, he wouldn't care enough to yell back at Kent if he dogged it.
2006-12-04 16:53:34
545.   DodgerHobbit
535 even...
2006-12-04 16:55:25
546.   Andrew Shimmin
Martin started more games this year than all but two other MLB catchers

You sure? ESPN has:

Name, Team--------------GS
Jason Kendall, Oak 141
Kenji Johjima, Sea 131
Victor Martinez, Cle 127
A.J. Pierzynski, CWS 126
Ramon Hernandez, Bal 126
Brad Ausmus, Hou 124
Ivan Rodriguez, Det 121
Jorge Posada, NYY 121
Joe Mauer, Min 121
Yadier Molina, StL 118
Brian McCann, Atl 118
Ronny Paulino, Pit 117
Paul Lo Duca, NYM 117
Russell Martin, LA 114

2006-12-04 16:56:58
547.   Disabled List
I'd rather sign Saddam Hussein to play LF than Barry Bonds.

Normally, I don't care much about things like chemistry, clubhouse voodoo, and PR pariahs. But Bonds' baggage is absolutely poisonous, especially for the Dodgers. This is one instance where the pure baseball stuff has to give way to off-field/clubhouse considerations.

2006-12-04 16:57:31
548.   Andrew Shimmin
543- There's a hard and fast rule (sort of):

"A player with three or more years of service, but less than six years, may file for salary arbitration. In addition, a player can be classified as a "Super Two" and be eligible for arbitration with less than three years of service. A player with at least two but less than three years of Major League service shall be eligible for salary arbitration if he has accumulated at least 86 days of service during the immediately preceding season and he ranks in the top 17 percent in total service in the class of Players who have at least two but less than three years of Major League service, however accumulated, but with at least 86 days of service accumulated during the immediately preceding season."

2006-12-04 16:57:52
549.   blue22
542 - That was in games after he made his debut, right around that Cinco de Mayo game. It was Kendall, Johjima, Martin in the latter 2/3 of the year.
2006-12-04 17:00:11
550.   jdm025
I think any line of discussion will unfortunately be clouded because the Dodgers have not disclosed their player payroll budget.

However, if money were no object, I would still like to keep Broxton and sign someone like Gonzo (shudder) to a one-year deal. Since it will take Broxton and Loney/LaRoche/Kemp in the end, I think that we can get nearly as much production from a combination of Gonzo, Kemp, Loney, and Broxton than Manny and an unproven set-up man.

Of course, I have no evidence of this. Just a feeling...

Show/Hide Comments 551-600
2006-12-04 17:04:02
551.   trainwreck
I really wished we signed David Dellucci.

Do we really need Gonzo? I think Ethier will be better than him by himself. I would take the Loney/Kemp/Anderson platoon over him as well.

2006-12-04 17:04:52
552.   trainwreck
Heck, I think Loney will be better than Gonzalez and so will Kemp eventually.
2006-12-04 17:06:26
553.   MMSMikey
Dodgers named 2006 Organization of the Year by Baseball America

2006-12-04 17:08:42
554.   Disabled List
553, my friend. Learn it, love it, live it.
2006-12-04 17:09:33
555.   Greg S
I think that we can get nearly as much production from a combination of Gonzo, Kemp, Loney, and Broxton than Manny and an unproven set-up man.

I strongly doubt it. Not in 2007 or 2008. And I've come to believe that in this day and age, planning (specifically) more than about three years out is impossible. Generally, you can work towards a strong core prospect/rookie class. But guessing your starting lineup 3 years out has become completely impossible. I'm not saying give up everything for Manny. Buy our young player cup runneth over and if you are ever going to spend that currency, Manny is one of the few you should be willing to spend it on.

2006-12-04 17:09:59
556.   LAT
535. Cannon, now that I have the ticket in hand, I can disagree with you :-). Bonds quit on his team as well. I don't remember exactly where or when but there was an article about him not being ready or willing to pinch hit late in various games while the Giants were still in the hunt.

That being said, if Bonds means giving up no prospects for a one year deal vs. Manny for prospects and 3-4 years, I'll take Barry. I won't like it but its the more prudent deal.

2006-12-04 17:10:09
557.   CanuckDodger
441 -- It wasn't clear you were just asking a question at all, and you weren't. You have a point of view and you were advancing it, but without being emphatic -- hence why I used the term "suggesting."

The Dodgers with Ramirez and without Broxton are not going to be a "powerhouse." Ramirez would probably hit about 20 more home runs than another player we put at the same position. That will still make the Dodgers one of the least HR-powered teams in baseball. Our offense can be adequate -- with or without Manny -- as long as the pitching is top notch, and our bullpen minus Broxton falls apart. Broxton really is the linchpin. And no, a set-up man who did what Broxton did last year and is as likely to do it again is not obtainable. No team that has his equal will move that pitcher. That is why the Red Sox are insisting on Broxton. If Broxton goes Tomko is his replacement, and nobody around here even wants Tomko on the team. The sabermetric idea that "middle relievers are fungible" really becomes dangerous, if still true in MOST cases, when it makes fans think that pitchers like Broxton are fungible. They are not, and whatever some fans may believe, no GM thinks they are.

2006-12-04 17:14:26
558.   Disabled List
This heartbreaking paragraph appears in's winter meetings preview:

GM Ned Colletti has made it clear that he's Brian Sabean's offspring, and will consistently value experience over potential. That's why the Dodgers now have a two-year commitment to Nomar Garciaparra despite the possibility that he's their third-best corner infielder. It wouldn't surprise me to see Colletti deal for a starting pitcher, something the Dodgers need, using an Andy LaRoche or Jonathan Meloan or a James Loney to get it done. Dodger prospects are for trading, not playing.

2006-12-04 17:15:35
559.   CanuckDodger
546 -- I must have misremembered something I read. Perhaps it was started more games than all but two other catchers "after April."
2006-12-04 17:18:23
560.   twerp
I've read that if a team has a chance to get an everyday player for a pitcher, it almost always should make the deal.

Izzat so? I dunno.

2006-12-04 17:19:20
561.   ToyCannon
That is just Joe Sheehan's opinion. Until Ned trades a top prospect this type of commentary is total conjecture. Joe has been wrong about many things many times. He does not walk on water.
2006-12-04 17:20:24
562.   trainwreck
Quality pitching is a lot more limited then getting quality everyday hitters.
2006-12-04 17:21:13
563.   still bevens
Agreed. Just because Nomar was resigned doesn't mean that Ned has 'made it clear that he's Brian Sabean's offspring.'
2006-12-04 17:22:22
564.   trainwreck
After this season, Brian Sabean will see the error of his ways. At least if he has a brain.
2006-12-04 17:22:29
565.   Greg S
557 Not sure why you are telling me what I meant.
Not sure why Broxton is the "linchpin" but Manny is just another player with nothing but a mere 20 HR to add to the Dodgers. And I wasn't using the term "powerhouse" to denote home run power. The Lakers were a powerhouse 5 years ago without hitting any home runs.
As for relievers, if you'll remember a year ago at this time most had never heard of Broxton or Saito. Not were Carter or Baez on the team. One year later we are twice removed from the planned setup man and closer so no, I don't think Broxton is the "linchpin" of our future. He's a good young player who could be even better. He's not in a league with Manny Ramirez when it comes to what he's likely to contribute.
2006-12-04 17:22:54
566.   dzzrtRatt
I think Colletti would do a swan dive from the upper deck into a shot glass full of acne creme before he'd sign Barry Bonds.

I kind of agree with Toy Cannon's logic, I must admit. But then I don't have to deal with his demands and the fallout from the manager and players. Barry Bonds will not be a Dodger. He will get his record-breaking home run for a second-division American League club desperate to boost attendance, like Seattle, Toronto, Baltimore or Kansas City.

2006-12-04 17:24:51
567.   Indiana Jon
I guess I don't see what everyone's hang up with Broxton is. He doesn't seem anywhere near untouchable to me. He's just a relief pitcher. However, I can't say the same for Kemp/Laroche. In two or three years, they could be among the best in the league at their positions. I say Penny/Broxton/Betemit is about all Manny is worth. I'm not sure I'd trade Kemp for the guy even up, considering all the problems Manny brings to a clubhouse, his age and his salary. Money would be better spent on Schmidt.
2006-12-04 17:25:48
568.   trainwreck
Broxton is our closer (or will be), he is not just another reliever. Our offense can survive without Manny Ramirez. I do not think our bullpen can survive without Broxton.
2006-12-04 17:26:17
569.   LAT
564. He already has. Instead of fielding a team of 40 year olds he now has a team of 35 year olds. That, my boy, is called progress!
2006-12-04 17:29:20
570.   Indiana Jon
If Gagne and Saito are back, Broxton could end up being a 7th inning pitcher that hurts his arm before he ever gets a chance to close. Billingsley/Elbert/Kershaw = untouchable, Broxton = just another reliever.
2006-12-04 17:30:39
571.   Disabled List
561 I agree. The only blue-chip prospect Colletti has traded is Guzman, and the shine has worn off of him anyway. And it's not like the Dodgers were shy about playing rookies in 2006.
2006-12-04 17:31:12
572.   trainwreck
Counting on Gagne is not very reliable because he is coming off two seasons of injury. Saito is here one more season at best and I will be amazed if he is anywhere as good next season as he was this past season.

Broxton is not untouchable, but he is not Brett Tomko or Joe Beimel.

2006-12-04 17:31:19
573.   natepurcell
Greg Miller= Cole Hamels of 2006

The prodigal young lefty returns from injuries to regain the thrown of top lefty pitcher in the minors.

eh eh eh? makes a sexy storyline for Plaschke at least.

2006-12-04 17:32:28
574.   trainwreck
The reason I say Saito is here one more season is because he seems very inclined to go back home to Japan. In addition, he is old.
2006-12-04 17:33:48
575.   s choir
557 It's not that middle relievers are fungible. It's that nearly everyone is fungible, except franchise types that filled the seats like Bonds or Gagne once did or international stars that widened a team's fan base like Ichiro or Matsuzaka do.

What we can extrapolate from Moneyball on relievers and apply to the Broxton situation is that the contribution of a closer tends to be overrated. Boston sees Broxton as a potential closer. Since the ability to pitch the 9th inning of a game is overrated, Boston must be overrating Broxton's potential.

I understand the sentiment behind wanting to keep all our prospects. It would be great to have a home-grown team. But the Dodgers can't keep all of the kids on the farm. The more prospects we have, the more we'll have to protect in the Rule 5 draft. It makes sense to shed a few every year. And it would not be prudent to pass up a trade for an impact slugger like Ramirez if the sticking point is a young relief pitcher.

2006-12-04 17:33:57
576.   natepurcell

A mod on the dodgers board posted a recap of a tony jackson interview on mlbradio and it was basically Colletti wants a SP ASAP and Schmidt is the #1 priority. And that they are close on a 2 yr deal with Saito.

2006-12-04 17:38:29
577.   Steve
The key question isn't role, it's talent. Broxton can start. He's not a "relief pitcher," even if used as one. So he is definitely distinguishable from the Baezes of the world.
2006-12-04 17:41:42
578.   Indiana Jon
I'm certainly not convinced Broxton can start, especially at the ML level. Similar to Gagne I think, dominating stuff for short periods of time only. That's alot of weight to carry around for 9 innings on the mound on a hot night.
2006-12-04 17:46:00
579.   s choir
576 The Saito aitem is good news if it's true.
2006-12-04 17:46:21
580.   mountainmover
This cannot be the first time we have won the "Organization of the Year" Award. Surely Paul DePodesta was responsible for winning it several times and this year as well!
2006-12-04 17:48:29
581.   twerp
Whatever the facts with Sammy Sosa and Rafael Palmerio, are they worth a team bringing into spring training to see what they may have left?

Someone very likely will, at minimal cost.

Oakland was rewarded big time this year for taking a shot with Frank Thomas, even if he did have a terrible start.

If Sosa in particular has anything left (his last year said maybe not), how were his outfield skills?

Should the Dodgers be the one to bring him to spring training?

(Moves away from the question, takes cover, just in case.)

2006-12-04 17:54:08
582.   mountainmover
No way that Moron, Ned Colletti could have a hand in the Organization of the Year Award!

Blind, Dumb Luck!

... and he traded for Pierre!

Doesn't that disqualify him?

DePo was responsible for it - I tell you!

2006-12-04 17:56:06
583.   natepurcell
madduz to the pads

arbitration should have been offered :(

2006-12-04 17:56:20
584.   Steve
DePo could probably tell you that Pierre was a free agent.
2006-12-04 18:01:17
585.   robohobo
Maddux won 9 games playing 2/3rds of a season on the worst team in baseball. With the Padres bullpen, he could win another 16 or so, right at his lifetime average.
2006-12-04 18:02:52
586.   trainwreck
Pretty sure we won that award because of Logan White and his scouts.
2006-12-04 18:04:42
587.   Indiana Jon

I wouldn't be totally opposed to bringing in Sosa for a look. Palmeiro doesn't seem to fit anywhere though. He basically would be a left handed Saenz at best these days. I still just don't understand why we don't give right field to Kemp. I think he's a better option than these old men and may turn out to be a great option by the end of the year.

2006-12-04 18:04:50
588.   adraymond
I smell a violation of rule number 7. And possibly number.
2006-12-04 18:05:06
589.   trainwreck
I am happy with no Maddux.
2006-12-04 18:05:11
590.   adraymond
number 3 that is
2006-12-04 18:08:51
591.   D4P
Maddux signing elsewhere would seem to increase Ned's desire for Schmidt, which would seem to decrease likelihood of trading for Manny
2006-12-04 18:10:04
592.   rockmrete
Bonds makes the team more dangerous. When he starts, and comming off the bench. Keeps the kids in the fold with plenty of time on the field to boot...Sign Schimdt, keep Penny!
2006-12-04 18:13:50
593.   bigcpa
Looks like this thread came full circle. Just a minor update from Jon should suffice.
2006-12-04 18:14:14
594.   Andrew Shimmin
Broxton may be a middle reliever this year, because of Saito, and maybe, maybe, Gagne, but that's not his ceiling. He could easily become an overvalued closer, some day. Better to trade him at the peak of his value, instead of not.
2006-12-04 18:15:34
595.   Indiana Jon

If you sign Schmidt and keep Penny, then who do you not start? Lowe, Kuo, Billingsley, or Wolf?

2006-12-04 18:16:31
596.   Andrew Shimmin
So, was Colletti playing chicken, to drive up the price? Let's say he was. It's nicer, that way.
2006-12-04 18:17:18
597.   Sam DC
Nats blogs are abuzz with a rumor from the Globe's blog of a trade between SF, BOS, and WAS. It's such gross rumormongering, I'll not even pass on the players as the three he lists don't add up to anything approaching a possible deal.
2006-12-04 18:17:42
598.   dsfan
Looks like Padres will get 5-8 extra draft picks and the Dodgers will get maybe two. With Maddux, Padres have a nice front four: Peavy-Young-Hensley-Maddux and the back end of their bullpen appears strong: Hoffman-Meredith-Linebrink-Ring (tough on LHP).
2006-12-04 18:22:34
599.   natepurcell

post post!

2006-12-04 18:23:32
600.   dsfan
Padres appear to be dealing with Boras better than the Dodgers. The Drew machinations, for one. Plus, it appears Boras scared off Ned on Maddux arbitration and cut a deal with SDP to not accept arb. on Park.
Show/Hide Comments 601-650
2006-12-04 18:23:35
601.   trainwreck
Interesting becaue Jim Bowden on ESPNews today was asked for some tidbit about the Nats and he promised a big blockbuster was going to happen in the next few days.
2006-12-04 18:25:57
602.   Andrew Shimmin
Because, unlike Sam, I haven't any credibility to regret losing:

"The rumor sweeping the lobby is that the Washington Nationals might be part of a three-way with the Sox and Giants, offering closer Chad Cordero as part of the deal, with a pitcher like Noah Lowry headed toward D.C."

2006-12-04 18:26:44
603.   Sam DC
Oh allright. No no one is going to act as if this means anything:

SF: Manny
BOS: Chad Cordero
WAS: "a pitcher like Noah Lowry"

The thing is, Boston obviously needs more than Chief and I think the Nats need a little more than Lowry for their All-Star closer.

2006-12-04 18:29:23
604.   D4P
Andrew finally beat someone!
2006-12-04 18:29:42
605.   natepurcell

I assume more players (especially from SF and WAS) would be changing teams.

Maybe Lincecum could be traded as a PTBNL.

2006-12-04 18:30:42
606.   Andrew Shimmin

In. Your. Face. Sam!

2006-12-04 18:31:10
607.   trainwreck
Get these young players out of SF. What are we running a daycare here?
2006-12-04 18:32:00
608.   Sam DC
Bowden has a big crush on Wily Mo.

And just cause we're all having some good clean fun here, about a week ago, the Nats took Cordero's picture off the banner at

2006-12-04 18:33:02
609.   Sam DC
(slumps down in chair)
2006-12-04 18:33:37
610.   natepurcell
padilla to the rangers 3/34

and apparently dodgers have approached tigers about Craig Monroe.

2006-12-04 18:34:32
611.   natepurcell
and i ask..why monroe when thames would be a better choice?
2006-12-04 18:35:18
612.   rockmrete

Let Bills have the 5 spot with some fill from Kuo

2006-12-04 18:35:49
613.   Andrew Shimmin
Does my new status as first (first!) mean that Steve is a prophet, or some kind of evil soothsayer?
2006-12-04 18:37:45
614.   D4P
why monroe when thames would be a better choice?

Because Monroe gets on base an awful lot...

2006-12-04 18:39:15
615.   trainwreck
D4P, UFC has offered a contract to CroCop.
2006-12-04 18:40:58
616.   D4P
I heard a rumor about that. I wouldn't want CroCrop in the UFC because there's no competition for him. I hope all of PRIDE's heavyweights stay where they are.
2006-12-04 18:42:23
617.   King of the Hobos
611 They're the same age (29), and Monroe has had more past success. They're pretty much the same player as far as I'm concerned (save defense, which I know nothing about either).

Thames: .241/.316/.450, 706 AB
Monroe: .263/.310/.461, 2057 AB

If it were up to me, I'd choose neither, unless all we needed to deal was Beimel, then I'd take either.

2006-12-04 18:43:54
618.   trainwreck
Fedor and his brother Aleks contracts are up too.

I think Rampage is going to be UFC bound.

2006-12-04 18:46:07
619.   adraymond
But not nearly as much as our new centerfielder.
2006-12-04 18:46:59
620.   rockmrete
If Ned trades for a non stud for the outfield, he then truly begins to block the way for the young players. To me that is the biggest problem I have with the Pierre signing.
2006-12-04 18:49:08
621.   trainwreck
ESPN Insider says the Devil Rays are looking at Darin Erstad to play first base. Don't they have enough hitters to stick someone there?
2006-12-04 18:49:19
622.   bigcpa
I know we're not supposed to leap to conclusions about rumors, but if Craig Monroe were on waivers would he even be worthy of starting for us?
2006-12-04 18:49:42
623.   D4P
Aleks would be fine in the UFC, especially since he's not good enough for PRIDE. But unless Fedor and CroCop go there together, it would be pointless for either of them to go on their own.

Rampage would be fun to see in UFC

2006-12-04 18:51:36
624.   Andrew Shimmin
Don't know if anybody else was following the story, but just after Thanksgiving an editor of CNET, and his family, went missing. His wife and two small children were found alive today, but they're still looking for him.

2006-12-04 18:55:36
625.   trainwreck
They could also add Heath Herring and then they would have a nice heavyweight division.
2006-12-04 18:57:09
626.   trainwreck
Someone needs to take the title away from Sylvia.
2006-12-04 18:57:23
627.   Peanuts in My Shoes
Okay, big lurker here, but has anyone thrown out Betemit and Anderson for Beltre? Who else would it take to get him back in LA? A pitcher or two (Tomko, Hendy)? Getting Beltre frees up LaRoche for a package trade (with Penny?) for an outfield bat. And maybe Beltre would be solid again?
2006-12-04 18:59:32
628.   D4P
Someone needs to take the title away from Sylvia

I was hoping Monson would do it. There's not many options at this point.

has anyone thrown out Betemit and Anderson for Beltre?

Thrown out as in discarded...?

2006-12-04 18:59:35
629.   trainwreck
Beltre was good one year. I do not trust him and I bet LaRoche will be a better player than him at a fraction of the cost.
2006-12-04 18:59:57
630.   Indiana Jon

I would start Kemp, Loney, Werth, Repko, or my mom before I started Monroe, but maybe nobody else.

2006-12-04 19:01:40
631.   Uncle Miltie
and apparently dodgers have approached tigers about Craig Monroe.
no! Monroe sucks. Wrong Tigers outfielder.

617- last year's numbers
Thames .256/.333/.549 26 hr (348 ab)
Monroe .255/.301/.482

Monroe is a Juan Encarnacion clone (plus he likes to steal $30 belts), while Thames is a solid player (and a great backup at worst).

2006-12-04 19:05:32
632.   trainwreck
Your mom sounds promising; we should sign her.
2006-12-04 19:08:51
633.   Indiana Jon
She fields better than Manny, hits better than Monroe, better for chemistry than Bonds, played more recently than Sosa............sounds like I'm talking about Gonzalez or my mom!
2006-12-04 19:10:13
634.   trainwreck
I would sign your mom over Gonzo.
2006-12-04 19:11:02
635.   GMac In The 909
633 Yeah, but her agent is Boras.
2006-12-04 19:12:57
636.   Indiana Jon
She's healthier than Gagne and could really use the money, does that help? With Boras, she could probably get a million this year.
2006-12-04 19:14:30
637.   Sam DC
Wonderfully droll take on the BCS system:

2006-12-04 19:14:42
638.   Robert Daeley
Wow, check this out (from Yahoo):

Rays willing to move young OFs
December 4, 2006 | 10:07 p.m. ET
By Tim Brown

LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. – The recent contracts for outfielders Gary Matthews Jr. (five years, $50 million from the Los Angeles Angels) and Juan Pierre (five years, $44 million from the Los Angeles Dodgers) have convinced the Tampa Bay Devil Rays that their two young outfielders – Carl Crawford and Rocco Baldelli – might bring dramatic help for their starting rotation. Second baseman Jorge Cantu could also be had. Since losing J.D. Drew, the Dodgers have been searching for corner-outfield help.

2006-12-04 19:17:34
639.   D4P
Tomko and/or Hendrickson for Crawford
2006-12-04 19:18:19
640.   trainwreck
Great, now we look at Carl Crawford. He could have been our CF!!
2006-12-04 19:18:40
641.   D4P
Make that Tomko and Hendrickson for Crawford and Baldelli
2006-12-04 19:19:22
642.   D4P
Make that Tomko and Hendrickson and Pierre for Crawford and Baldelli
2006-12-04 19:21:22
643.   Uncle Miltie
I would definitely include Broxton in a deal for Crawford. I will sell my soul to the Devil (Rays) to get Crawford in a Dodgers uniform.
2006-12-04 19:23:26
644.   Indiana Jon
Just doesn't make much since. Ethier/Pierre/Crawford or Baldelli really blocks Kemp for awhile. Pierre needs to be in this deal. I'd give Pierre/Penny any day.
2006-12-04 19:24:08
645.   adraymond
FWIW, a poster on the board says that Hacksaw is reporting a one year deal to The Father of the Triplets, to be signed tomorrow. Assuming this is true, you would have to think that it means No Manny and a hardcore pursuit of Schmidt.
2006-12-04 19:24:33
646.   Uncle Miltie
644- Ethier should be traded for pitching and then those pitchers can be included in the Crawford deal.
2006-12-04 19:27:08
647.   trainwreck
Leave it to Ned to sign Gonzo over Indiana Jon's mom.
2006-12-04 19:29:50
648.   Indiana Jon
Did I mention my mom has never been in a single steroid rumor?
2006-12-04 19:30:39
649.   GMac In The 909
647 Tie goes to the triplets (assuming Indiana Jon doesn't have a pair of twin siblings)
2006-12-04 19:31:21
650.   trainwreck
Kansas is extremely overrated.
Show/Hide Comments 651-700
2006-12-04 19:33:02
651.   Indiana Jon
Laroche or Betemit

We could win with this lineup. I say send them Loney and Penny for Crawford. Am I crazy? Then by late this year or next Kemp replaces Pierre and we get stronger.

2006-12-04 19:34:56
652.   trainwreck
I would take Crawford over Manny.
2006-12-04 19:36:48
653.   Uncle Miltie
1. Furcal ss
2. Martin C
3. Nomar 1b
4. LaRoche 3b
5. Crawford cf
6. Gonzalez/Floyd lf
7. Betemit 2b
8. Penny/Lowe/Wolf
9. Pierre lf
2006-12-04 19:39:08
654.   Indiana Jon
Where did Kent go?
2006-12-04 19:40:19
655.   trainwreck
It is not fair. I should be so thrilled about us even being mentioned with the name Carl Crawford, but Pierre's presence has put a bit of a damper on it.
2006-12-04 19:41:00
656.   Robert Daeley
654 On the DL. ;)
2006-12-04 19:45:55
657.   StolenMonkey86
Encouragement from ItD

As for all the Manny rumors floating around - don't get too excited. There hasn't been much news coming out of MLB today, so the 200 media members in the lobby tend to float a lot of rumors. I even got a call from one reporter a few minutes ago telling me that he heard the deal was done. Definitely not true.

2006-12-04 19:46:45
658.   Indiana Jon
I plan to reserve judgement on Pierre until the season begins. He's every bit as good as Lofton and I think Lofton and Furcal were good at the top last year. Pierre may be overpaid, but what do I care? Not my money. He is an above average leadoff man and Furcal can drive in some runs when he gets a chance. I just hope Pierre bats 1st.
2006-12-04 19:48:17
659.   trainwreck
Sign with the Orioles Gonzo!
2006-12-04 19:51:09
660.   trainwreck
Tito Ortiz is going to be on Stephen A Smith's show tonight.
2006-12-04 19:54:10
661.   Indiana Jon
Are most people on here from CA?
2006-12-04 19:54:11
662.   still bevens
Pretty good article on up about the day's activity. Some good info on Miller's future and Coletti quotes..
2006-12-04 19:56:45
663.   Robert Daeley
You know, if this was the actual conversation, I'm not surprised Ned walked away:

"A face-to-face session between the general managers of the Dodgers and Red Sox illustrated the two are not compatible trade partners for Ramirez as long as the Red Sox insist on four of the best Dodgers prospects from a group that includes pitchers Jonathan Broxton, Scott Elbert and Chad Billingsley, infielder James Loney and outfielder Matt Kemp."


2006-12-04 19:57:07
664.   Sam DC
661: My rough guess is 3/4 CA, 1/4 elsewhere, maybe fewer out of state than that. There's a map in the sidebar, but I expect it hasn't been updated by folks in some time.
2006-12-04 19:59:51
665.   trainwreck
4 of them?!!!
2006-12-04 19:59:56
666.   Indiana Jon
Just wondered, not many Dodger fans around here. The last one I knew here died 13 years ago, true story. Thank god for the internet and MLB Extra Innings.
2006-12-04 20:01:51
667.   Indiana Jon
I wouldn't give them two of those 5.
2006-12-04 20:02:36
668.   Andrew Shimmin
658- Pierre is a bellow average leadoff man. Looking at team production from the leadoff spot in 2006, his .718 OPS would have been twentieth, in the league. 761.8 was average (give or take; it'd take too long to adjust for PA). His OBP would put him at 25th, which makes it even worse. His was .330, .343.3 was average (give or take, again).
2006-12-04 20:09:38
669.   rockmrete
Because Pierre puts the ball in play he is better suited to the 2 hole IMO.
2006-12-04 20:09:50
670.   D4P
Pierre's SB% isn't very good either
2006-12-04 20:10:22
671.   StolenMonkey86
661 - I'm from around Richmond, VA, and go to school in Fairfax, VA.
2006-12-04 20:12:53
672.   Sam DC
I'm so tired, but Mystery, Alaska won't let me go to sleep.
2006-12-04 20:13:16
673.   Indiana Jon
Name 19 better leadoff hitters.
2006-12-04 20:15:41
674.   StolenMonkey86
Just wondering: how useful a stat is GIDP?
2006-12-04 20:17:09
675.   StolenMonkey86
673- a challenge, then!
2006-12-04 20:17:58
676.   Andrew Shimmin
Using the same criteria, Hee Seop Choi was less below average for a big league 1B than Pierre is below average for a leadoff man. In addition to being free.

669- He's even more below average for a number two hitter, than he is for a number one. Which is something of an indictment of our professional betters. It looks like only the eighth spot is consistently less productive than the number one, one.

2006-12-04 20:18:18
677.   D4P
Name 19 better leadoff hitters

Pierre ranked 130th last season in OBP among players with "enough" plate appearances to be included in the rankings below.

If the most important aspect of "leading off" is getting on base, which it arguably is, then there were arguably 129 better lead-off hitters.

2006-12-04 20:18:43
678.   Steve
The last 19 people that posted on this website.
2006-12-04 20:19:17
679.   Bob Timmermann
Guys with a lot of GIDP have this remarkable ability to bat with runners on base. Guys with low GIDP totals tend to be leadoff hitters in the NL.
2006-12-04 20:21:17
680.   Andrew Shimmin
673- Last year:

1 Alfonso Soriano
2 Grady Sizemore
3 Julio Lugo
4 Reed Johnson
5 Gary Matthews Jr.
6 Jose Reyes
7 Hanley Ramirez
8 Johnny Damon
9 Rafael Furcal
10 Jimmy Rollins
11 Kevin Youkilis
12 David DeJesus
13 Curtis Granderson
14 Ichiro Suzuki
15 Jamey Carroll
16 Rickie Weeks
17 Ryan Freel
18 Brian Roberts
19 Dave Roberts
20 Craig Biggio
21 Randy Winn

2006-12-04 20:24:47
681.   StolenMonkey86
Criteria of better 2006 OBP under "leading off" split at
Jimmy Rollins
Rafael Furcal,
Ichiro Suzuki,
Johnny Damon,
Grady Sizemore,
Alfonso Soriano,
Hanley Ramirez,
Gary Matthews
Jose Reyes,
Randy Winn,
Brian Roberts,
Curtis Granderson,
Scott Posednik,
Marcus Giles,
David Eckstein,
Kevin Youkilis,
Dave Roberts
Reed Johnson
Luis Castillo
Ryan Freel
2006-12-04 20:25:39
682.   Uncle Miltie
1. Brian Roberts
2. Kevin Youkilis
3. Johnny Damon
4. Rocco Baldelli (last year)
5. Reed Johnson
6. Grady Sizemore
7. Curtis Granderson
8. David DeJesus
9. Luis Castillo
10. Maicer Izturis
11. Jason Kendall
12. Ichiro
13. Whoever hits leadoff for Texas this year (Michael Young?)
14. Hanley Ramirez
15. Jose Reyes
16. Jimmy Rollins (he has some power)
17. Alfonso Soriano
18. Ryan Freel
19. Rickie Weeks
20. Eric Byrnes
21. Rafael Furcal

Thanks for wasting my time ;)

2006-12-04 20:27:48
683.   rockmrete
It's a funny thing how one's (mine) perception of what I think I have seen does not jive with the reality of the numbers. It's one of the most difficult parts for me to marriage the old school with the new.
2006-12-04 20:28:27
684.   Brendan
Currently playing on PBS KLCS Ch 30 on TW cable is a program about the 1955 WS. Started at 8pm ends at 9pm.

has game film

2006-12-04 20:29:51
685.   thinkingblue

that would greatly weaken our team.

2006-12-04 20:29:52
686.   Uncle Miltie
680- Biggio was worse than Pierre last year
2006-12-04 20:30:34
687.   Sons of Steve Garvey
Pierre's 2007 ZIPS projection as a Cub:

663AB 299/.342/385 38BB 41K 45SB 18CS

The statistical measures of Pierre's defense range from one of the top CFs in baseball to slightly below-average, depending on whose system you look at. I tend to place greater trust in the systems that rank him highly - Mitchell Lichtman, a guy who actually gets paid by the St. Louis Cardinals to quantitatively measure defense and Chris Dial, defensive metrics guru over at Baseball Think Factory - but YMMV, and I think we can all agree defensive metrics are works in progress.

Pierre's baserunning is among the best and adds at least a couple extra runs a year. And he's durable, which helps guard against flashbacks to Dodgers OF during stretches of 2005. ("And playing LF for your Los Angeles Dodgers, Mike Edwards").

All in all, I think he's likely to be a pretty average CF overall. Overpaid? Yes, probably so, which becomes a problem if - a big IF - his signing means we ended up with, say, Randy Wolf instead of Jason Schmidt. But I don't understand all the intense negativity towards his signing from many at this site. He's not blocking any of our young guys - the organization clearly sees Matt Kemp as a RF. Pierre doesn't cost us a draft pick. And signing him means Ned didn't trade prospects to fill the hole in CF. I could understand the vitriol if we'd signed Carlos Lee at 6/100 and blocked the young corner OFs (that was my big fear when the off-season began), but the Pierre deal just doesn't seem that outrage-worthy.

2006-12-04 20:31:10
688.   Andrew Shimmin
680- A couple of those either (a) really burn, or, (b) are on their face preposterous. Assuming league wide production from the leadoff man is relatively stable (not a safe assumption, but, we're on the quick and dirty tip, here, tonight), Pierre has only beaten average twice in his career, and one of those years was in pre-humidor Coors.
2006-12-04 20:34:05
689.   Andrew Shimmin
686- Not while batting leadoff!

I confess, without any hesitation, that my methods leave much to be desired.

2006-12-04 20:35:00
690.   Indiana Jon
Some of the guys on that list rarely play (Freel), other are just not good (Johnson), still more won't lead off this year (Soriano), and Jason Kendall?, please. I'll take Pierre over all of them except Rollins, Reyes, Ramirez, Sizemore, Damon, Roberts, Suzuki, or Weeks.
2006-12-04 20:35:12
691.   regfairfield
Is it bad that I see three hundred new comments and assume something terrible has happened? Granted Craig Monroe's name popped up, but that's definately the best thing I could have hoped for.
2006-12-04 20:36:31
692.   D4P
the Pierre deal just doesn't seem that outrage-worthy

The Pierre deal is more evidence that Ned doesn't evaluate players the way many of us would like him too. Ned presented "200 hits" as an indication that Pierre "gets on base an awful lot," (while presumably ignoring OBP), and it's safe to assume Ned looked to Pierre's number of successful SB attempts as an indication that Pierre has speed and is a good base runner (while presumably ignoring the number of unsuccessful SB attempts).

Pierre is exactly the kind of overrated player many of us feared would catch Ned's eye, and exactly the kind that someone like our former GM would never even consider.

2006-12-04 20:39:30
693.   Indiana Jon
Would the other year he beat average be the one year he played on a good team by chance? Just curious.
2006-12-04 20:39:38
694.   Steve
Though honestly, I've noticed that Andrew does best batting last.
2006-12-04 20:40:29
695.   D4P
The Dodgers seem more likely to acquire Andruw Jones, Vernon Wells or no power hitter at all than they do Manny Ramirez, judging from early Winter Meetings returns

Colletti indicated the Dodgers are thinking of leading off their batting order with center fielder Juan Pierre.

"I'd probably say Juan Pierre if it's Opening Day, but it's up to Grady and I'm not Grady and it's not Opening Day," Colletti said, indicating that Rafael Furcal, last year's leadoff hitter, is capable of batting in other spots, including No. 3.

Once the debate considers batting Furcal in the no. 3 spot, the Dodgers have already lost.

2006-12-04 20:42:09
696.   Andrew Shimmin
All on my list had at least 300 PA as leadoff hitters. Freel didn't play nearly as much as some, but he had a respectable five hundred and some odd plate appearances.

693- Not really. '04 Marlins; they went 83-79.

2006-12-04 20:44:13
697.   Indiana Jon
Your stats link lists Lugo as number three. Guess that's a good example of stats lying to us.
2006-12-04 20:44:35
698.   adraymond
But he's not a league average CF. By any meaningful offensive measure he is below average. There were 30 CFs with 400 plate apperances last season and was 20th in RC/27, 23rd in OPS, 21st in OBP and 23rd in SLG.
2006-12-04 20:45:14
699.   Curtis Lowe
Not to discount OBP but Pierre did reach base 244 times last years. I would still rather have Furcal hit lead off though because he reached base 270 times.
2006-12-04 20:47:03
700.   Steve
No, it's a good example of how many people you can list that are better than Juan Pierre, and that the list includes Julio Lugo. I would suggest that you or I, as sentient beings, are far more likely to lie than that list is.
Show/Hide Comments 701-750
2006-12-04 20:49:24
701.   Indiana Jon
I agree with much of what you say here. We only signed him to replace Kenny Lofton. Surely most here consider that an upgrade.
2006-12-04 20:49:51
702.   Andrew Shimmin
He had a terrific year in Tampa, and didn't bat leadoff in L.A. Lugo has out OPS'd Pierre each of the last two years, and his career numbers are better. Lugo was bad as bad can be, for the Dodgers, last year. But, overall, people who stand against the ragging on Pierre, would be on better footing if they did it for Lugo, instead.

Or just not at all. I come not to praise Lugo, but to bury Pierre.

2006-12-04 20:50:29
703.   D4P
Not to discount OBP but Pierre did reach base 244 times last years

In over 700 plate appearances! Why discount OBP...?

2006-12-04 20:51:50
704.   trainwreck
I use to love the Hot Stove, I now hate it.
2006-12-04 20:52:12
705.   Steve
Not necessarily, and certainly not when you consider that we did not need to replace Kenny Lofton every year until 2011.
2006-12-04 20:52:28
706.   regfairfield
701 If Pierre hits .301/.360/.403 with an 86% stolen base percentage, I'll be very happy and very surprised.
2006-12-04 20:52:54
707.   D4P
We only signed him to replace Kenny Lofton. Surely most here consider that an upgrade

We don't, and don't call us Shirley.

Lofton gets on base a lot more, hits for more power, and steals bases at a much better clip. Granted, Pierre might have the edge on defense...

2006-12-04 20:55:42
708.   Indiana Jon
Why do I feel like the only non-stathead in here? Is everyone here a Depodesta fan too? Sometimes instead of the stats we just have to look at the reality of the game. I think that's what Ned has done and it seems to be working somewhat. I know a lot of players with high OPS that have never won a World Series like Pierre.
2006-12-04 20:56:15
709.   regfairfield
To be fair, Pierre was worth .8 wins more than Lofton last year, due to Lofton's Clouseau-esque defense and Pierre recieving 200 more plate appearances.
2006-12-04 20:56:54
710.   StolenMonkey86
701- Well, the outrage, for me anyway, is the 5 year contract, and in that, he not only replaces Lofton, but whoever else could be there instead in years to come.

He'll be better defensively than Lofton, but not as smart a baserunner or as patient a hitter. Even if he beats Lofton at best, I can't say I'm confident in the long term.

2006-12-04 20:57:36
711.   Sons of Steve Garvey
I can't believe I'm actually defending Juan Pierre, but here goes...


Those numbers only take into account his offense. His defense and baserunning (not just SBs, but baserunning in general) give him a bump that pushes him closer to the middle of the pack. Add in his durability - which means you're not stuck giving 100-200 ABs to your backup CF and/or AAA CF - and he gets another push, to around average. Nothing to write home about, but nothing to wring your hands over either.


I agree that Pierre is an uninspired move. My point is that he filled a genuine need and only cost us money. Given the other possibilities - Carlos Lee, Aramis Ramirez - I can live with Juan Pierre.

2006-12-04 20:58:27
712.   trainwreck
Just because he won a World Series does not mean he is any good.

There are other non-statheads here.

2006-12-04 20:58:42
713.   Andrew Shimmin
702- I didn't mean to imply that anybody shouldn't stand up for whomever he likes. I mean, clearly I did, but, re-reading it, I'm embarrassed that I did. That's not at all my place, and I hate it when other people do it.

So. Sorry.

2006-12-04 20:59:08
714.   Indiana Jon
If Pierre hits .301/.360/.403 with an 86% stolen base percentage, I'll be very happy and very surprised.

If Pierre can run to 1st without a limp and catch a fly ball more than 20 feet from him, I'll be very happy.

2006-12-04 20:59:09
715.   regfairfield
708 Ted Williams never won a World Series, nor did Ernie Banks and a whole slew of the games greatest players. Juan Pierre is not better than any of them.

Teams can win a World Series in spite of certain players. If this weren't true, we should go get Ramiro Mendonza and his six rings out of retirement.

2006-12-04 20:59:15
716.   Steve
Andrew, do you have any Wal-mart merchandise to post tonight?
2006-12-04 21:01:25
717.   Steve
Well, I have an idea. Rather than argue the marginal merits of the thoroughly mediocre again, let's try this one:

One possibility that sources said has at least been discussed internally would be dealing third baseman Chad Tracy to the Angels for one of their surplus pitchers

Supposedly we have surplus pitchers.

2006-12-04 21:03:19
718.   D4P
Andrew, do you have any Wal-mart merchandise to post tonight?

What did I do to deserve that...?

2006-12-04 21:05:03
719.   Indiana Jon
Mendoza would be better than Beimel.

I would take Dimaggio over Williams because of this fact.

I wasn't trying to argue for Pierre or his World Series winning ability. I was simply trying to argue against OPS heroes like Bonds, Rodriguez, etc. and imply that there is more to baseball than stats.

2006-12-04 21:06:35
720.   Steve
There is more to baseball than stats, but your implication doesn't work.
2006-12-04 21:08:04
721.   trainwreck
There is more to life than winning.
2006-12-04 21:09:35
722.   Indiana Jon
Unfortunately, I do. So I guess I better get to bed.

What else is there?

2006-12-04 21:10:27
723.   StolenMonkey86
708 - Honestly, stats are fairly accessible, at sites like,,, and, among others, and they're useful to go on.

I personally am not that big a fan of either. If Depo communicated what he was doing better, then maybe. On net, I'd say the Penny trade worked decently, and he did a good job getting D-Lowe, Kent, and Drew, and Milton Bradley too. My biggest complaints were the delays in filling the hole at third and behind the plate (but how was I supposed to know Martin wouldn't be ready until now), and trading Dave Roberts for a 29 year old minor leaguer.

2006-12-04 21:11:03
724.   Steve
That's what comes from living in a state with such wacky time zones.
2006-12-04 21:11:38
725.   Andrew Shimmin
D4P's right (doesn't happen often, but when it does, it's no good to pretend it didn't). When he irritates me, it's Walmart links. When I offend the proper sensibilities of the site, it ought to be, um, what, the only cool electric car?

I'd adopt vegetarianism to have one. Then I'd sell it for a million dollars, and buy a million double cheeseburgers at Walmart.

2006-12-04 21:11:39
726.   Uncle Miltie
I'm anti-Walmart, but I don't think I'd be able to pass up decorating my front lawn with a few of these babies

2006-12-04 21:11:57
727.   trainwreck
Saving prospects!
2006-12-04 21:13:13
728.   adraymond
RC/27 does take stolen bases into account. The point about durability doesn't hold up. In fact, it's one of the easiest ways to see why this deal doesn't make sense. If Pierre didn't play in some games and Repko or Kemp had to get 150-200 ABs would that be a bad thing? Or would it be a much cheaper version of what Pierre is, if not better?
2006-12-04 21:13:44
729.   StolenMonkey86
711 - Aramis Ramirez wasn't actually a possibility though. The Cubs retained him really quickly.
2006-12-04 21:13:54
730.   Indiana Jon
They fixed our times zones. We're on Eastern time all year now. I found one stat you guys missed!!!!!!!!!
2006-12-04 21:14:17
731.   Steve
I can't believe nobody wants to take the Chad Tracy bait. That could be 1,000 comments just on its own.
2006-12-04 21:16:00
732.   D4P
I'm anti-Walmart

And anti-Jeff Kent? You're a good kid, Miltie. Just don't skateboard outside my window. I hate that sound...

2006-12-04 21:16:26
733.   robohobo

I like that you are pointing out the benefit of having a healthy player. The longer I am a Dodger fan, especially this decade, the more I appreciate players that stay healthy. The last two years we would have been better if we had stayed healthier and we were pretty good last year.

That being said, I feel a little better about signing brittle veterans like Nomar because we have viable and exciting young players to take there place (Not Mike Edwards or Oscar Robles).

2006-12-04 21:18:30
734.   StolenMonkey86
I'm anti-Walmart

I am not in favor of forcing Wal-Mart out of business, but I would rather not do business with Wal-Mart.

I think you could substitude "Juan Pierre" in there easily.

2006-12-04 21:19:23
735.   Andrew Shimmin
Last year, I bet I don't remember what that Baez would not be the difference between a playoff entry, and missing them. This year, I'm willing to bet the same thing (whatever it was) that Pierre's lineup spot out produces him, when he's not in it. And half of whatever it was that the backup CFs do, too.
2006-12-04 21:19:29
736.   StolenMonkey86
734 - I think I could have stood to use the spell checker on my google toolbar.

Now I'm gonna do some homework.

2006-12-04 21:21:22
737.   regfairfield
731 The Dodgers aren't the Angels.
2006-12-04 21:24:28
738.   robohobo

errr...their place.

Firefox 2 has a built in spell check.

2006-12-04 21:26:32
739.   LAT
Probably mentioned above but if not here it is:

The Padres are closing in on a major off-season coup, nearing an agreement with free-agent right-hander Greg Maddux, has learned.

The deal, which would be a significant blow to the Dodgers, the Padres' NL West rival, will be for either one or two years, or possibly one year with a club option.
Pitching for both the Cubs and Dodgers in 2006, Maddux posted a record of 15-14 with a 4.20 earned run average and 117 strikeouts in 210 innings pitched.

Maddux, who has a home in the San Diego area, has a record of 333-203 and an ERA of 3.30 over his 21-year career.

2006-12-04 21:27:30
740.   Sons of Steve Garvey
Kenny Lofton has been a better offensive player than Pierre, but Lofton is 39, fragile, and is really just a platoon guy at this point in his career. He was also painful to watch in CF last year.

FWIW, ZIPS has Kenny Lofton, as a Dodger, at .286/.346/.358 for 2007, which is similar to the Pierre projections.

Look, if we had a stud CF prospect, or there were people out there on the trade/FA market who looked wonderful, I'd be all for skipping Juan Pierre. But Vernon Wells would likely cost us 3 of our top prospects, and would be a 1-year rental unless we're willing to pony up $20 million a year over the next 6-8 years. Ditto Andruw Jones.

Finally, I think Pierre's being overrated is a good thing for us going forward, as it means his trade value will likely be higher than his true value. Given where we are in the baseball salary inflation cycle, I think his contract will remain dumpable (meaning we could give him away for free) come 2009 or 2010 should we find a better option in CF.

2006-12-04 21:27:36
741.   Steve
I'm not looking for a metaphsyical discussion; I just think a debate over trading for Chad Tracy would be an interesting one.
2006-12-04 21:28:26
742.   still bevens
This is a coup in its own right. Kent is apparently trying to live up to his bloated contract extension:

Second baseman Jeff Kent, who missed 47 games because of injury last season, informed the Dodgers that he wants to come to spring training in the best condition of his career. Now he's doing something about it.

Doug Jarrow, the team's strength and conditioning coach, is spending the next two days at Kent's Texas ranch, helping him implement a rigorous off-season training program.

"Kent doesn't like players who get injured," one Dodgers official said. "He doesn't want to continue being one of those guys."

2006-12-04 21:31:34
743.   D4P
I was disturbed by the 118-point plummet in Chad Tracy's OPS from 2005 to 2006. His SLG% alone dropped by over 100 points, and his Ks went way up.
2006-12-04 21:33:16
744.   Bob Timmermann
Some would argue that Indiana's time zones never needed fixing. Jeff Sagarin, who has one of the rating systems used for the BCS, didn't like the method adopted. He wanted Indiana to be on Central time.

Indiana Jon,
Most of us here aren't that bad. But this seems to be a really, really, really, really long thread.

2006-12-04 21:33:55
745.   StolenMonkey86
this caught my eye. Apparently it will be even longer before the Giants rebuild

2006-12-04 21:47:35
746.   Vaudeville Villain

The Giants would actually be pretty smart to re-sign Barry. It's their only hope, considering their oldness.

Also, about the Julio Lugo/ Juan Pierre thing. Yes, Julio Lugo is better than Juan Pierre.

Why did his acquisition flame out so catastrophically as a Dodger?

Ned Colletti bought about as high as he possibly could on Julio Lugo. He was in the midst of a rediculously lucky offensive season in Tampa, and as we all know, regression to the mean is a cold hard fact. Lugo's numbers were so terribly out of whack with his normal numbers that he was bound for a devastating slide back to his normal numbers.

Yes, Lugo was terrible for us, but he's not normally that bad a player. There, I did it.

2006-12-04 21:50:18
747.   Andrew Shimmin
Were there twenty prospects better than JtD traded last year?
2006-12-04 21:52:06
748.   Bob Timmermann
Why Julio Lugo turned into Ray Oyler is a mystery.
2006-12-04 21:53:29
749.   Andrew Shimmin
Is there any explanation for how bad McPherson's been? I would be inclined not to give up on him, yet, based on nothing. But, if there were some reason to, maybe trading for Tracy wouldn't be dumb. I hope it doesn't happen, since the D'backs getting more pitchers is even worse for us than five years of Juan Pierre.
2006-12-04 21:55:02
750.   D4P
Five more years!
Five more years!
Five more years!
Show/Hide Comments 751-800
2006-12-04 21:56:55
751.   natepurcell
Not a chad tracy fan. Chase field severely inflates his states and i dont think his spike in power in 2005 was for real at all.
2006-12-04 22:00:09
752.   natepurcell

hes been injured, given a short leash and his minor league K rates should have been a warning that it could take some time for him to adjust to major league pitching.

also things are basically solved when you move wood to 3b, keep aybar at SS and have a pretty awesome infield of kotchman, kendrick, aybar and wood.

2006-12-04 22:00:40
753.   Sons of Steve Garvey

As I said, I'm talking about baserunning in general, not just SBs - e.g., going from 1st to 3rd on a single or 1st to home on a double. At non-SB baserunning, Pierre is apparently quite excellent. Here's a link to an article studying the subject:

Is baserunning as important as offense or defense - not by a longshot. But it adds a little something to Pierre's overall profile that should not be ignored.

As for Kemp, I love the guy and hope to see him in a Dodger uniform for the next decade or so. But I don't see him as a real option in CF. To fill in in a pinch, sure. Maybe even to start when an extreme groundballer like Derek Lowe is on the mound if you want to get really creative. But starting for a 20-game stretch while your starter is injured or on a regular basis in a platoon, no thanks. He looked absolutely lost out there in CF last year.

As for Repko, I'm skeptical that he's even a major-leaguer, rather than a AAA/5th OF-on-a-bad-team type of player. His major league numbers are .232/.302/.382 in over 400 ABs. His minor league numbers are pretty mediocre as well. He makes J.D. Drew look durable, and he's about to turn 26, so I think it's getting awful late in the day to talk about his potential. As for his defense, I've never been particularly impressed (others may disagree), and with all his injuries I think he's likely to decline defensively pretty rapidly.

Again, I am not a huge fan of Juan Pierre(although I do think he'll be fun to watch), but I don't see why his signing is being viewed as Dreifortesque.

2006-12-04 22:04:52
754.   D4P
The problem is that too many of Pierre's plate appearances end with him running part of the way to first base and then walking/jogging/running back to the dugout.
2006-12-04 22:07:10
755.   Vaudeville Villain

Some people might argue that at least with Dreifort, you were getting a potentially good player for your dollar. Pierre is arguably average, and not likely to improve any.

2006-12-04 22:07:22
756.   Andrew Shimmin
Is Wood's moving to 3B a fait accompli? That's too bad.
2006-12-04 22:09:35
757.   D4P
Does Walmart allow French-speakers in the door...?
2006-12-04 22:11:57
758.   natepurcell
Is Wood's moving to 3B a fait accompli? That's too bad.

no its not but if they want to keep all three of their MIFs (wood, kendrick, aybar), one of them is gunna have to move to 3b and wood is the ost logical choice with his power.

2006-12-04 22:15:32
759.   Andrew Shimmin
2006-12-04 22:19:04
760.   dsfan
Touchy Diamondbacks fans strongly disagreed with me last year when I said moving Tracy back to 3B would backfire. I know you guys just love Old School observations such as these, but his footwork at 3B is questionable and he gave evidence of the throwing yips in previous tours at 3B. Those tend to be major obstacles for a 3B. Tracy, who is about 26, works extremely hard but hasn't been able to overcome those obtacles and they get magnified at Arizona, which has the fastest infield surface in the NL. Tough to grow grass there.

Arizona would be wise to trade him, unless they have a fit for him at 1B, which I doubt because Conor Jackson is a fairly promising hitter.

If Byrnes can get Ervin Santana for Tracy, that seemingly would favor Arizona. His Buldger-for-Callaspo swap with the Angels in March was a beauty.

Tracy is a pretty good hitter, but I would rather have Betemit-LaRoche.

2006-12-04 22:19:14
761.   Andrew Shimmin
Is Aybar really good enough to move Wood off SS? It seems like you could pick up a more productive 3B relatively easily, and savor the beefy goodness of your SS hitting a million homeruns a year.

Keeping Aybar isn't a deal breaker for me.

2006-12-04 22:20:59
762.   natepurcell

I think the pitcher being talked about is Joe Saunders. If Hold em stoneman wont deal santana in packages for better players, hes not going to deal him for tracy.

2006-12-04 22:22:19
763.   natepurcell

it isnt a deal breaker for me either but it seems the angels love aybar so who knows what they are going to do. Wood is still almost a year aways still anyways.

2006-12-04 22:23:14
764.   bigcpa
"While there's a whole lot of clamor for a glamour bat and that type of run producer, it doesn't rule out scoring a lot of runs with speed, with clutch hitting and if you pitch better you don't have to score as many runs."
2006-12-04 22:28:42
765.   dsfan

Pierre's baserunning is a subtle boon? I'm in. James had some compelling stuff on it, beyond the SBs, and a 74-percent career SB rate is a plus.

Is durability an asset, even if you're an out maching? Yes. It's up to the manager to rest the guy but his availability across 162 games gives a club roster predictability. That's an asset. I am impressed by someone who has the durability, mental and physical, to play that many games, especially in two of the more grueling spots --CF and leadoff.

If Pierre split the difference on his two best OPS-plus years, which were something like 107 and 100, I'd say most people would be happy. Is that realstic? Probably not, but I wouldn't be shocked if he did it twice in the next five years.

I also think the dearth of catching, which appears to be getting worse, can make his SB talents a bit more impactful, although his age suggests maybe not.

I have searched over and over for subtle positives, reasons for encouragment, and these are a few I've come up with, but I always get back to the large amount of evidence that shows he's an out machine and still want to know why Ned gave him five years.

Awfully tough to get on base when about all you do is bunt and slap the ball up the middle or the other way. Maybe he can make an adjustment or two. Dave Roberts' best years came at ages 33 or 34, but I tend to think Roberts had a swing that was more geared to all-fields hitting and better power dating to the minors.

I could be wrong, but my recollection is that Pierre is mediocre at working the count, seeing a lot of pitches. Seems to me, Roberts wasn't afraid to bat with two strikes.

2006-12-04 22:28:59
766.   dzzrtRatt
*751. natepurcell
Not a chad tracy fan. Chase field severely inflates his states and i dont think his spike in power in 2005 was for real at all.*

Is that why Arizona has two time zones?

2006-12-04 22:30:49
767.   dsfan

Joe Saunders for Tracy?


2006-12-04 22:32:13
768.   D4P
my recollection is that Pierre is mediocre at working the count, seeing a lot of pitches

He ranked 139th last season in P/PA

2006-12-04 22:33:59
769.   Bob Timmermann
Arizona has only one time zone, but Navajo reservations use DST while the rest of the state doesn't.
2006-12-04 22:34:35
770.   robohobo
Lofton is 40 and he hasn't slowed down. That gives me hope. I loved Dave Roberts but he was always getting hurt.
2006-12-04 22:43:15
771.   dsfan

Thanks for the research, ugly though it is. Pierre's GOT to improve in that area. He has great ability to get his bat on the ball so he should be less fearful of the count reaching two Ks. Sure pitchers will come after him because he has no power but for a leadoff hitter to see so few pitches is just brutal. He has a certain amount of panic to his approach that is disturbing.

I was thinking he was suspect in that area but that's even worse than I thought. Unless Pierre shows better ability to adapt, it's also another reason to keep him out of the No. 2 spot. A No. 2 hitter should be able to take a few pitches. Man, if Pierre bats first and Nomar third, it won't be surprising to see opposing pitchers throw like nine pitches in the first inning.

More and more, I think Pierre should bat eighth at least some of the time.
I wasn't for batting Martin second last year because he was a terrific No. 8 hitter and rookie who already had a lot to handle but he would be a much better No. 2 hitter than Pierre.

2006-12-04 22:45:51
772.   D4P
I was thinking he was suspect in that area but that's even worse than I thought

If it makes you feel any worse, his P/PA last season was better than his career average.

2006-12-04 22:46:12
773.   Robert Daeley
Looks like that Maddux story might not be quite done:

2006-12-04 22:46:46
774.   D4P
"In past negotiations for Greg (Maddux), it was always important to Scott (Boras) that Greg be compensated fairly within his peer group," (Kevin) Towers said.

Ahhh, ain't Scott a great guy...?

2006-12-04 22:51:52
775.   robohobo
So he wants the same money as past 40+ year old 300 game winners? How about Phil Neikro Money? (Don't mention Roger Clemens...)
2006-12-04 22:54:04
776.   robohobo

How are we Californians gonna deal with Spring Training in AZ? I can never get straight when to add an hour or not in that state. I don't have to figure it out very often. I suspect I will tune into spring training games an hour off for the first few.

2006-12-04 22:56:37
777.   Andrew Shimmin
To reiterate, at the risk of making a bore of myself, Colletti didn't offer arbitration because, what, it was too exactly what he wanted? It was some kind of weird penance?

The Dodgers also are unwilling to give Maddux a second guaranteed year, sources say.

2006-12-04 23:03:08
778.   D4P
I have read that Ned was worried that Maddux would accept and earn a 13-14 million salary, which was more than Ned wanted to pay.
2006-12-04 23:03:30
779.   Andrew Shimmin
776- It's tricky, this year, because it changes March 11; the last five years it's always been after opening day. Arizona is an hour ahead, right now, and will be till we "spring forward."
2006-12-04 23:05:11
780.   still bevens
769 We're an hour behind now, but once the time changes again in the spring we'll be on the same page.
2006-12-04 23:06:51
781.   Vishal
[714] i can do those things! where's my $44 million?
2006-12-04 23:09:15
782.   D4P
where's my $44 million?

First things first. Where's your glossy book...?

2006-12-04 23:10:06
783.   trainwreck
When do the Dodgers move ST to Arizona?
2006-12-04 23:16:11
784.   Vishal
[782] well, let me just head down to the wal-mart photo studio right now. i'm sure you of all people would be happy to note that we've got walmart here in beijing.
2006-12-04 23:19:17
785.   dzzrtRatt
Re: "Is everyone here a stat-head?" (I can't count far enough back to find the original question.)

I'm sure if Jon were here he would say that virtually 100 percent of all baseball fans are "statheads." The question is, which stats? All the arguments for Pierre depend on stats -- his batting average, numbers of hits, numbers of stolen bases, number of games played. His detractors counter with different stats -- OPS, WARP. They can get a little pedantic about those stats, to be sure, but the reason they haul them out so frequently is their superior predictive value.

I'm not on top of the stats as much as the several committed sabermetricians on this site, but they have taught me a lot (even when they annoy me).

But one thing I do know: A lead-off hitter who doesn't walk very often is a substandard lead-off hitter. Pierre walked 32 times! That's less than one walk every five games. That's fewer than half the walks worked by Johnny Damon or Chone Figgins, both of whom played fewer games. Dave Roberts walked 51 times -- in 33 fewer games! Okay, David Eckstein also walked only 31 times -- but in 39 fewer games! Even the much-maligned Gary Matthews managed to walk 58 times -- in 15 fewer games. And LA's leadoff hitter last season, Furcal, walked 73 times.

Because Pierre's offensive game is built around speed, it stands to reason that if he doesn't get on base a lot (OBP), he can't use that weapon. Perhaps his inability to walk accounts for why, despite playing more games than anybody last season, and despite being a leadoff hitter, he was 68th in runs scored last season.

Two lead-off hitters, Jimmy Rollins and Grady Sizemore, were among the top four in runs scored -- and they had 40+ more runs scored than Pierre. Some of that difference is due to other factors, but still... We paid for an elite leadoff hitter. But we didn't come close to getting one. He's not Damon, not Rollins, not Ichiro, not Reyes, not Sizemore. He's not terrible, but his inability to take walks makes him mediocre.

Sometimes the thing with stats is, they can back up an impression you have about a player. But sometimes they can repair a misimpression. J.D. Drew was a better player than most people thought -- the stats show that. Juan Pierre is worse.

2006-12-04 23:28:50
786.   Jon Weisman
785 - Many, many thanks.

I would only add that contrary to what people believe, virtually 100 percent of all statheads (i.e., all baseball fans) also watch the games (and enjoy watching the games) and observe players - regardless of what stats these people prefer.

2006-12-04 23:29:51
787.   bigcpa
"Burrell has two years and $27 million remaining on his contract. The Phils have made it known that they'd pay a significant chunk of that salary to move him, but there have been no takers." Philly Inquirer 12-4-06

There are no takers because we're beating down the door for Craig Monroe and Luis Gonzalez. Valium!

2006-12-04 23:52:11
788.   Jon Weisman
New post up top, to reset the counter.
2006-12-04 23:54:30
789.   ToyCannon
Haven't seen Indiana and Garvey post until today and I just want to welcome them. It is great to see some new blood making posts.

Man your good.

Bill James had Pierre ranked as the 13th best runner in baseball last year contributing a +17. Willie Aybar ranked as the 16th worse. I only mention Willie because of all the Dodgers who played for us in 2006 none of them were in the top 20 and he was the only one in the bottom 20. Our old friend Piazza was -25, good for 3rd worse runner in baseball. Sometimes perceptions are proven by stats. Milton is a big zero. For all his speed, his baserunning ability doesn't help his team much.

Mark Ellis sure has alot of outlier skills. I think he had the best defensive 2nd base numbers and he's the 3rd best baserunner with a +23.

2006-12-05 00:04:01
790.   regfairfield
789 What's the context for +17, runs? If so, it's pretty scary that Piazza's base running costs a team 2.5 wins. Does this include steals, or just things like going from 1st to 3rd?
2006-12-05 08:17:27
791.   ToyCannon
Buy the book. Here is the link

1. 1st to 3rd on a single
2. Scoring from 2nd on a single
3. Scoring from 1st on a double
4. Bases taken
a. wild pitch
b. passed ball
c. balk
d. sacrifice fly or defensive indifference
5. baserunning outs
6. Runs scored as a % of times on base

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