I'd love to chat but I have to catch the last train to Clarksville.

Sounds good

I'll meet you at the station.

This may have been mentioned in another stream, but what am I supposed to think of the mlbtraderumors.com rumore regarding Gagne to the Giants?

3 I know nothing about that, but I do like the injection of Italian into the remark. "rumore?" Conjures up pictures of Dean Martin.

3- The site rule is to take it as gospel, and immediately start calling somebody an idiot (preferably the Dodgers' GM). But I've always found that a little reactionary.

Went to the stadium store last night.. If anyone wants to get their hands on a Mueller, Maddux, Drew or Perez tshirt, they're being sold at rock bottom prices.

I managed to pickup a 2006 playoff hoodie for $10 so it was a worthwhile trip.

5 There is an alternative...

Immediately blame Scott Boras and demand a future boycott of all Boras clients.

I blame Ned's toupee.

I am awaiting somebody from Slate to write how Augusto Pinochet was a misunderstood genius.

He was apparently a genius at diasappearing people.

Ned está loco, se imagina no chupando hasta Boras y pagando Amordazado 6 millones.

Google Translation: Ned is crazy, she imagines not absorbing until Boras and paying Gaged 6 million

11 Babelfish translation:

"Ned is crazy, it imagines not absorbing until Boras and paying Gaged 6 million."

Aced again. I'm just not edgy enough, I guess.

That's a tough one.

Is Ned a "She" or an "It"

Just don't combine the two. We'll have a rules violation.

Regarding the question of Dodger Stadium changes this off season, seems like I remember from last off season they were going to redo all the bathrooms this year, among other things.

14- If I'd known you were going to post it, I'd have spent thirty seconds doing this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piU75Y-J4X8&eurl=

I don't see what this guy's so proud of, though; it's not like his country has any chicken fried bacon, either.

17
Yes, the women were so jealous of our circle urines they demanded their own.

19
If they outlaw the urine troughs, only outlaws will pee into a trough.

Yet another year goes by without me getting a Nobel Prize. I really thought I had a chance at the Economics Prize, but I think the Nobel people had the wrong phone number for me.

If I were a deaf actor/actress, I would be really angry at Marlee Matlin for taking absolutely every role on television.

Seriously, Marlee. Let's spread it around a little bit.

Thought was a G site.

This is a bit stale but really rubs me the wrong way:

"Everybody we've added brings something special," said Colletti. "They've been through many seasons, many winning seasons, and they come in with a certain perspective that a player who hasn't been through it can't have. They've been through the peaks and valleys, the ups and downs, and know how to keep it going in the right direction. When they walk in the room, everybody knows who they are and what they bring."

This reads like the Proven Veteran Manifesto. It's fine to stroke the guys you just brought in, but here he's revealing a bias against buying low on unproven guys. With a blindspot like this he's doomed to sell low and pay retail forever.

I find it amusing that the Red Sox may not sign Matsusaka. I see the following possibilities this week:

a) Red Sox pony up $62 million/4 yrs. for Matsu; Theo signs onto the "Put Boras Head on a Pike" campaign; Ned laughs and says to himself "I told you so".

b) Red Sox do not consumate deal for Matsu; Theo calls Ned and says "It's a good night for a hanging- what are you doing tonight?";
Ned laughs to himself and says "I told you so".

c) Red Sox do not consumate deal for Matsu; Theo calls Ned and says "I'll give you Man Ram for Penny, Broxton and Ethier"; Ned laughs to himself and says "Where do I sign?".

Some anti-dodger fan sentiment over at Bronx Banter.

26 Hmm... how I ought I to have expressed that? "anti-dodger-fan"? That doesn't seem right. Somebody help me out!

25 I suppose if Boston doesn't sign Matsuzaka, that might make them desperate for a starting pitcher. But I wonder whether they can even afford to trade Ramirez. Their offense will not be terribly strong without him.

27 Just going by the CW that Boston no longer can stand him and that they really were counting on a new starting pitcher.

That and they've already picked up two Dodgers from the 2005 squad, why not three?

28 That and they've already picked up two Dodgers from the 2005 squad, why not three?

Three? Fine. Five? No Way!

Back in the '70s, at Thee Movies of Tarzana, my brother, sister and I mistook a broom closet for an exit and got locked in. That was pleasant.

So, I assume you found a mop and bucket instead of Narnia?

And Plaschke with another incredibly senseless and stupid article. What a surprise.

http://tinyurl.com/yx246b

24 - This reads like the Proven Veteran Manifesto. It's fine to stroke the guys you just brought in, but here he's revealing a bias against buying low on unproven guys. With a blindspot like this he's doomed to sell low and pay retail forever.

This is news? Colletti came from a Giants organization dedicated to the proposition that all rookies are created incompetent, and were valuable for one thing and one thing only: the getting of Proven Veteran Players. That Russell Martin and Andre Ethier have gotten the playing time they have is an astonishment; that they haven't been traded counts as one of the wonders of the modern world.

25 - the pressure is all on Seibu to do something, not the Red Sox. There will be a deal done, with kickbacks to Boston and/or Matsuzaka.

Without a power hitter, Luis Gonzalez is just another old guy with warning-track power.

With a power hitter, he can be a clubhouse leader and late-inning hero.

Of course, with a power hitter, Gonzo can activate his good guy powers, why haven't I thought of that before?

Without a power hitter, Jason Schmidt is just another 15-game winner with funny facial hair.

With a power hitter, he can be a World Series force.

Of course, a power hitter somehow makes Schmidt better, I love Plaschke's reasoning!

The same save-our-kids Dodgers fans Colletti smartly ignored last summer when he traded prospects to make the playoffs are surely hoping he will listen to them now.

He shouldn't. And he won't.

Yeah, that Lugo for Guzman and Pedroza trade was a stroke of brilliance, and it was the key to the playoffs! And Cesar Izturis was our best prospect, great thinking!

The kid outfielder was a star during the middle of the summer, but in the final two months of the season he had one homer and 15 RBIs and batted .264. His batting average in the second half of the season was 77 points lower than his average in the first half.

Yeah, and we should judge a kid who's never played in september before on a small sample size!

After Kemp's initial power surge last summer, he looked lost against the curveball and is still clearly a year away from making a regular impact. Considering he may never field the position well enough to play center field, why not take advantage of his potential in a trade right now?

Wow, so we should judge Kemp on superficial things like looking lost, instead of his incredible minor league numbers for a 21 year old?

And so we should trade a guy who will be great for a long time for a 1 year rental, brilliant!

Wow, Plaschke is worse than ever.

31 - Colletti needed a new cell phone about this time last year

That is a bit of a myth. Just in the last 4 years Sabean has incorporated lots of young pitching into the Giants rotation. Ryan Jensen, Jerome Williams, Hennessey, Foppert, Ainsworth, Lowry, and Cain all come quickly to mind. Until Billingsly and Kuo showed up in 2006 what young Dodger pitching prospects have they allowed to take a regular role in the rotation this century?Luke Prokopec is the only name that comes to mind.

If Sabean had quality position prospects he'd have kept them and used them. He had quality pitching prospects and he kept them and used them. You use what you have.

From Bill "What's a Paragraph" Plaschke:

Even if it means trading Brad Penny.

OK, especially if it means trading Brad Penny.

The guy will never get over that trade.

36 refers to 32

"Plaschke is worse than ever". Idiots rarely change their spots.

Back in the '70s, at Thee Movies of Tarzana, my brother, sister and I mistook a broom closet for an exit and got locked in.

Nice sum up of Colletti's off season. Hopefully in Schmidt and maybe Wolf there is a way out of the abyss else we'll be waiting for good ol' Logan White the janitor to bail us out. :)

38.

good point.

34 Why is anyone bothering with Plaschke anymore? Let's just ignore him. I'm sure he reads this site and sees all the posts about him and says, "They're reading me!" It's like Rush Limbaugh. Whenever anyone calls his show to tell him what a jerk he is, he can always come back with: "At least you're listening to me." If you want to stab Plaschke in the heart, stop talking about him.

Since I stopped getting the LA Times at home, I now live in a blissfully Plaschke-free life. My theory is, the more we read Plaschke, little by little the more we all start to resemble him.

Instead of the LA Times, here's a good way to spend your Sunday:

http://tinyurl.com/yhvbwc

What is it? Hint: Arthur "Two Sheds" Jackson.

And a caller on Hacksaw's show again referrs to Izturis as an "all-star shortstop." And Hacksaw comes back with "well, I think Izturis was an incredibly gifted player, and I was surprised he hit .245 in Wrigley."

Lot of Python love on this board. Has anyone seen the Spamalot musical?

32 scareduck
Colletti came from a Giants organization dedicated to the proposition that all rookies are created incompetent,...That Russell Martin and Andre Ethier have gotten the playing time they have is an astonishment; that they haven't been traded counts as one of the wonders of the modern world.

Either that or you are mistaken...

42 That just got added to the bookmarks.

Thanks!

41, Your recommendation to stop reading and reacting is definitely the best way to make Plaschke go away. For any entertainer, especially a purported one, the opposite of hate is not love, but indifference.

Thee Movies of Tarzana... Now that brings back fond memories... Is it a Mann theater, still?

48. If that is the same Mann theater I know of in Tarzana on Ventura just West of Reseda, then no. They tore it down and are in the process of building a shopping center.

I think the best course of action is for the LA Times to make their opinion columnists part of the LA Times Select, so that you have to pay to read Plaschke. Then we won't have to worry about him.

It's the same reason that a lot of my favorite economics blogs stopped bothering with Paul Krugman.

50-

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

There are about a billion writers who could do a better job than Plaschke. The fact that he is one of the lead sports writers for one of the biggest newspapers on the planet is absolutely astounding and mind boggling.

Seriously, is there a single person here that doesn't think Jon could do a better job? Heck, most of the baseball blog writers are better...unreal.

It's the same reason that a lot of my favorite economics blogs stopped bothering with Paul Krugman.
Not a fan of Krugman, he wrote my Macro book and it was terrible. I've read some of his stuff in the ny times -- he's extremely biased.

Have you read Free To Choose by Milton Friedman? I'm going to start that when I'm done with finals.

I think it was about a week ago that I quoted Joe Sheehan of Baseball Prospectus's comment that Colletti regards prospects as nothing more than "trade chits and insurance policies." I said that I feared Sheehan is right, and that I had a bad feeling we would be making a very bad trade to get Manny Ramirez. I also begged Colletti to prove Sheehan wrong, although I expected to be disappointed. And here we are now. No Manny trade. Not a single prospect traded, and we signed a very obvious roster-filler vet who can't be anything other than a short-term bridge to a young player (Kemp) that nobody believes is really ready to be productive as an everyday major leaguer. So the question has to be faced: has Colletti not, in fact, proven Sheehan wrong?

If you are a GM that believes that prospects are trade chits and insurance policies, does it really matter how many prospects Theo Epstein wanted, or which ones? Such a GM surely grabs Ramirez and gives Epstein whatever prospects it takes to make the deal happen. At least offensively, Manny is the ultimate "proven vet." The Holy Grail of proven vets. If a GM could have had Ramirez and instead decides "I'll settle for Luis Gonzalez and keep my prospects," I think you have no choice but to say that that is a GM who highly values the prospects he has, and intends to let them play for his team sometime in the not-too-distant future. Otherwise, there is no way he passes up Ramirez.

Now what I think CAN be said of Colletti is that he is pretty conservative in the timetables he sets for prospects to make it to the majors and be MLB regulars, so I think there is some truth to the "insurance policies" part of Sheehan's accusation. Garciaparra should have been cut loose and Loney installed as the regular first baseman. Instead, Loney is going to be kept as insurance for Garciaparra going down injured and sub a little in the outfield. I think both Kuo and Billingsley should be in the starting rotation, but instead it seems Colletti wants only one of the two kids in the rotation to begin with, and wants the other to serve as a 6th starter who will slot in when an injury strikes. No doubt, that is all a little too timid and cautious for my liking, but if the kids are being treated with kidd gloves rather than being traded away, you have to believe that the kids are going to be relied on more at some point (otherwise they would be trade fodder and dealt by now), so I can live with the current scenario.

52
he wrote my Macro book and it was terrible

That's partly because Macro is terrible. If you end up at UofO, you should take a class with Ed Whitelaw. He's great.

53 I agree with you. However, to be fair, one could counter your argument by pointing out that Manny Ramirez might be the ultimate proven vet, but he is not a "character guy," nor a "clubhouse guy," two other characteristics beloved by Colletti. If you bolted Ramirez' talent onto, say, David Eckstein, there is probably no limit what Ned would trade for him.

52 - I get that. If you want to read anything good by Krugman, try The Accidental Theorist. It was written, as one of my econ professors said, "Before he went crazy." He still has some Keynesian biases, but the stuff he wrote about labor in there is alright.

I read Free to Choose in high school and I absolutely recommend it, along with just about anything by Thomas Sowell or Steven Lansburg.

53

I agree with much of what you writer here but am unable to draw such firm conclusions because it is only December 10th. If Ned traded three prospects for Manny tomorrow or January 11th or Feb. 13, I wouldn't be surprised. Nor would it surprise me to see him ship out 2-3 kids for Vernon Wells or Andruw Jones (in which case Pierre goes to LF). I am not saying those would be bad moves, but it is too early for me to conclude that Ned is committed to the kids.

Not sure anybody caught this piece by Bill Shanks on trade decisions and prospects, but I liked it:

http://tinyurl.com/ylk4qg

I was checking into who's looking for catching and apparently the D-Rays are interested in Saltalamacchia.

To continue "beer thoughts" from yesterday, right now I'm sipping on "Pils", a "Czech Style Pilsner" made by Lagunitas out of Petaluma. I'm no pilsner expert, but this one has a pretty smooth flavor with only a hint of bitterness. While I usually prefer a sweeter taste, I am definitely enjoying this one.

speaking of czech beer, i hear the original czech budweiser is supposed to be pretty good, but i've never had it.

Some pundits are saying that it's critical that Ned get a power hitter if the Dodgers are to push deep into the playoffs. First, I don't think it's a slam dunk that the Dodgers will get to the playoffs. Far from it. Second, aren't the playoffs pretty much a crapshoot? Third, who's to say that the Dodgers won't develop some pretty good power? At age 25-26 last year, Betemit hit like 19 HRs and 24 doubles in about 390 ABs, playoffs included. That's pretty good. Furcal probably has slightly better than average power for a SS and I suspect a healthy Kent would have more power than a typical 2B. A tandem of Nomar-Loney could hold up the 1B end. Martin seems capable of 15 HRs and 35 doubles.

The OF appears to be power deficient, no question. But if Kemp figures out a few things, who'se to say he doesn't slug .490 or so in the second half (I would like to see him start out in Triple-A). Even with his late slump, Ethier slugged .477 -- pretty darn good for a rookie.

LaRoche could also punch things up.

Sure, it would be great if the Dodgers had more power, but I wouldn't be forcing the issue if I was Ned.

53-You saved me the trouble of saying it myself. I also might suggest that Ned's valuation of "experience" isn't, unto itself, proof that he'd mortgage the farm for a bunch of gimps who went to the postseason once. I'm not sure it's a popular opinion around here, but there may indeed be some legitimacy to the notions of "veteran" players who bring with them "intangibles," Plaschkes of the world notwithstanding. I'm hardly thrilled with Juan Pierre and would rather see Kemp than Gonzales, but until the former gives even the bare indication he can handle a curveball, the latter will do more for us.

53 - certainly, some of Colletti's signings over the last couple years have been defensive, to keep kids from being forced into being productive at the major league level too early. But that said, Colletti has also been rather frivolous in some of his trades; Guzman and Navarro come immediately to mind. Rather than bang out the whole list of complaints, I'll refer you to Matt Welch's comments (starting with #10) on this BTF thread:

http://tinyurl.com/ylgzam

56 I'm of the opinion that Krugman is sane and that Friedman went over a cliff a long time ago. And if Sowell writes about anything other than economics (does he know anything about economics? I've never read any of his work that would indicate such) his column should be immediately consigned to lining bird cages.

Obviously we differ.

57 -- That we aren't getting Ramirez is pretty much written stone, I'd say, and in fact, Colletti and Epstein ever making a trade of any kind looks like a long shot, with all the accusations about tampering going around.

And as for the nonsense about Wells and Andruw Jones, c'mon. There are just so many reasons why neither one is coming to the Dodgers. Juan Pierre is the most obvious. He is not moving to left-field. Gonzalez and his rag arm isn't moving to right field, and Pierre's rag arm isn't going to right field either. Jones can and will veto any trade to a team that won't play him in center. Wells can't veto a trade, but he will put up a fuss to end all fusses if he isn't allowed to play center in the season before he hits the free agent market. Also, we aren't going to give up the kind of package Atlanta or Toronto would demand, especially for a one-year rental. And there would be no extensions. Boras is Jones' agent, and Wells wants to return home to Arlington, Texas.

So why is Colletti not coming right out and saying what I think is the real truth, that we are finished making moves? PR. Colletti can't say, in early December, "I'm done shopping. So now while all the other GM's in baseball are still working hard trying to improves their teams for 2007, I'm just going to put my feet on my desk for two months and count down the days till pitchers and catchers report." If Colletti said that, or the substantive equivalent, he would be crucified by the media. He would be roasted on a spit on Dodger fan message boards. And McCourt would be on his back about being a bad communicator who is hurting his ticket sales. So Colletti has to go through the motions for two months now, saying he is pursuing this or that trade possibility, just basically being a busy little bee, but not actually doing anything or intending to do anything.

64- clearly.

64- The columns in which Sowell counsels parents of children who are slow to develop speech really burns me up, too.

63 -- I agree that Colletti has been "frivolous" with some of his trades. I think Colletti has thrown away some young talent without getting much in return, and largely out of a desire to engage in busywork. But as for that BTF thread you referred me to, which I had already read, I tend to agree with "Philly," at least with regard to the point he makes about Colletti making a distinction between the keepers and the trade bait among our young players. However unwise Colletti has been in what he has used the trade bait for, he is not giving up the keepers, even for Manny Ramirez. That contradicts the caricature that so many people, especially on BTF, seem to believe, that Colletti doesn't want to let prospects become Dodgers. Some already have become Dodgers and aren't prospects any more (Martin, Broxton, Ethier, Billingsley, and Kuo -- and Kemp isn't technically a prospect any longer, though he will start 2007 in the minors). Guys who retain their prospect status, like Loney, LaRoche, and Elbert, don't seem to be going anywhere either, though all have been asked about by other GM's. I think Colletti is listening to White about who is untouchable and who isn't. It just would have been nice if we had gotten some more than what we got for the guys who weren't untouchable.

67 What problems do you have with Sowell's opinions on late-talking kids?

69- I wasn't serious. I read Sowell's columns (the Random Observations on the Passing Scenes ones are my favorites), and have liked what books of his I've read very well.

70 Language aquisition and development is a bit of an ongoing research topic for me, so I really find Sowell's personal experiences interesting.

*acquisition. I hate you, fingers.

71- The topic doesn't interest me more than in passing (except when some new report of the rate of autism quintupling overnight gets released, it's nice to have in reserve); I just think of it as evidence that, perhaps, some of his non-economic columns had better uses than as birdcage lining. Sort of like when I called John Wooden a child molesting, illegal downloader, I didn't really mean that, either.

Or did I?

No. I didn't.

65

A lot can change in 3-4 months. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the Manny talks get revisited. If Manny is determined to get traded and some of his teammates are still chapped at him for jumping ship last summer, greater pressure for a trade will come closer to spring training.

You state that Juan Pierre is not moving to LF. How do you know? Dave Roberts, another noodle-armed CF/leadoff man, moved to LF and it worked out pretty well for San Diego last year. Has Ned ruled out moving Pierre to LF if means getting a stud such as Wells or Andruw? I don't pretend to know if he has or hasn't. You seem certain. Can you reference a quote to that effect?

You have your beliefs. I'm not trying to change them. Me? I am unable to draw any hard conclusions that Ned is going to keep he kids. It is December. At this point, I suspect there is a lot Ned hasn't ruled out.

It's easy for me to imagine the McCourts desiring to get a guy like Manny, or Andruw Jones or Vernon Wells. I also put very little stock in the idea that just because Ned and Theo had a reported tiff, that they can't work out a trade down the road.

73 So am I a bad person for believing it when you said it? Because I did, until you said you didn't mean it.

As long as The Mustache doesn't do any deals with that rapscallion Scott Boras, I'm happy.

After all, I hear Boras bakes puppies into pies.

Andrew is just like any GM, never believe anything he says as he always has his tongue in cheek but we just can't see it.

Why give Ned grief over trading Joel Guzman? Seems to me, the Dodgers might have anticipated he was in pretty serious decline. How much value would people here presently assign Guzman? Should Ned have gotten more for him? Hard to know. He had a narrow time frame and a narrow pool of teams that could fit his need. He was going for a playoff berth -- as it turned out, that premise was realistic. He was looking for a guy who could play 2B in a pennant race -- they were still doubting Kent's ability to come back from the ribcage injury. Izzy was needed for Maddux. Not a lot of teams could fit that 2B need. It was reasonable to assume Lugo could be a pretty good defender at 2B and that he could be adeuqate offensively and that he could help at other positions. Further, it was likely that they would get two high-end draft picks as compensation, which they did.

76
Jonathan Swift would approve of such a plan.

78
Because it is easier to knock the JtD deal then to applaud the Nunez deal for Magic Anderson. Plus JtD had the coolest nickname of all the kids. Plus I sponsered the piece of crap on the baseball cube. I hope I'm not a jinx.

77- Sometimes my miss, and my tongue goes in my ear. I try not to miss, though.

77 The problem with Andrew is that usually his tongue is not far enough in cheek for others to be able easily to tell. It is really quite annoying, even if it gives a shallow appearance of edginess.

81 My don't understand. Your are often too oblique.

Luckily I'm so self-reliant that other people's opinions of me roll right off my back. Otherwise, the untrustworthy tongue could be problematic.

74 -- Actually, Roberts' arm, as bad as it is, is marginally better than Pierre's, but arm strength has nothing to do with why Pierre wouldn't be in left. Left-fielders' arms are usually worse than center-fielders' arms. Pierre can't move to left partly because his offensive profile is even less suited for the position than Roberts's, AND mostly because Gonzalez can't move to right with an arm that is bad as Pierre's. The Dodgers are not putting either one of two of the worst arms in baseball in right field. It is not a matter of being too smart to do that -- their traditional scouting ideology simply wouldn't allow it. Every double to the right side of the outfield would be an automatic triple.

You say we can't know what the Dodgers will do. Well, we definitely know that there are some things they CAN'T do because of moves already made. The objective fact is that the combination of the Pierre and Gonzalez signings has made it absolutely 100% impossible for the Dodgers to acquire a player that has to play in either left or center field. I said above that that excludes any possibility of getting Wells or Jones, but I should have also stated that the position issue is another nail in the Manny trade coffin. Manny's arm is also bad, if not quite as bad as his fielding. Can I say that we definitely won't trade for a big bat? No. But I can say that the only big bats we can possibly trade for have to play either right field or third base. That limits options a great deal, to the point that combined with all the other relevent fact makes trading for the mythical big bat a possibility of extreme unlikelihood.

According to the commercial I just say, I have to get a new cellphone, or else I am responsible for the spread of AIDS in Africa.

My shame knows no bounds. Thankfully I have Sheryl Crowe and Kanye West to show me the error of my ways.

76. that rapscallion Scott Boras

Didn't Taco Bell deterime that's what was responsible for making people sick?

(and that my friends is what killer vauldville)

"killed" you idiot, not "killer"! Ugh.

The joke was bad enough without the typo.

81. A man who can give himself a "wet willie." I'll drop it right there.

Dead? I'll tell you what's dead....Vaudville's dead! And television's the box they're going to bury it in. I, for one, am a tumbler...

Play me off, Johnny {cue the piano}

90 It was kinda dumb how they ran that bit into the ground. Thank goodness they officially retired it one of the more recent shows.

Also, I agree with CanuckDodger - as much as this regime has claimed it values defense, I don't see any way they go with an outfield of Manny/Pierre/Gonzo. If they figured that A. Jones or Wells would be adequate right fielders, that's a different story, but like he said, it might make these guys a bit angry.

91 someone stole my preposition!

I just finished a 15 page paper which I began this afternoon. I've got to stop this. When will I learn??

93 - I always say I'll take the time to learn when they stop making me write 15 page papers.

60 speaking of czech beer, i hear the original czech budweiser is supposed to be pretty good, but i've never had it.

I was in Prague last summer for just this reason. It is outstanding. You can get it here under the name Czechvar, but since it's bottled for export, it's pasteurized, and nothing like the real thing at the source.

Also went to Plsen for Pilsener Urquell (the original pilsener. This is readily available in the States, but again, a mere shadow of it's full hometown glory.

And that Lagunitas Pils is nice. Just had a Lagunitas Red tonight, as it happens.

91 through 95, your posts were made after midnight so officially they were made Monday. This thread was supposed to be Another Pleasant Valley Sunday Open Chat.

My name is Marty and I approve 64

96- well excuse me, but I was trying to remember the DT readers in Alaska and Hawaii.

there's a very optimistic james loney article on the hardball times this evening. well, morning for you fellows i suppose. anyway, worth a peek.

It's OK StolenMonkey, you don't have to drink the Kool-Aid-- but they don't like it when you use the "Crazy" word.

I don't see any way they go with an outfield of Manny/Pierre/Gonzo

I'm guessing whatever defense is gained by going from Manny/Pierre/Gonzo to Gonzo/Pierre/Whomever will not be worth the loss in offense from Manny/Pierre/Gonzo to Gonzo/Pierre/Whomever.

(This is assuming that Whomever is currently on the Dodger roster)

101 cont

In other words, an outfield of Gonzo/Pierre/Whomever is pathetic.

100 - I'm confused now.

I agree with Dsfan, that the potential for decent power is there in the infield. Really, a Loney/Nomar combo should be good for 25-30 HR, Kent for 25-30, Furcal 20-25, Betemit 20-25, and Martin for 15-20. I started trying to break the slugging for last year down by position, but then I gave up and went to sleep when I started thinking about macro and tied exchange rates and the Enron-standard.

Seems to me that not much discussion has centered on just how bad our outfield will be as a whole if nothing changes.

2006 Dodger OPS:

LF: .903
CF: .743
RF: .849

2007 Dodger OPS predictions (optimistic):

LF: Gonzalez 750ish
CF: Pierre 720ish
RF: Group effort 850ish (no change)

Assuming some combo of Ethier, Loney, Kemp, Ja(y)sons, etc. are good enough defensively to handle RF, AND combine to OPS 850, we stand to lose roughly 175 OPS points from last year's OF.

103 - I was just offering a little support in an effort to promote the idea that everyone doesn't have to think the same. In essence, I'd read them all and draw your own conclusions. But don't expect to call certain people "crazy" and expect everyone to let that slide either. In general, DT seems to lean heavily to left politicaly so much so that even mention of someone as influential as Friedman gets regimented (and quickly).

105 - yeah, and I think my power projections are on the optimistic side, too. But still the OPS for the infield ought to improve if (and it's a major if) Kent and Nomar stay as healthy or better as they did last year.

As I remember, Penny, Tomko, and Hendrickson pitched quite well in April and May last year and if Gonzo gets off to a hot start and Pierre does a little better than usual, come June the Dodgers would have some pieces to trade.

Genius would take advantage of hot starts and trade for players getting off to slow starts only to watch the reverse happening for the rest of the season.

if (and it's a major if) Kent and Nomar stay as healthy or better as they did last year

I think a GM should be thought lesser of for holding any such expectation.

122 games out of Nomar last season was a lot, both in terms of being more than we hoped for as well as in terms of its toll on his performance, which declined dramatically in the 2nd half.

Kent could probably play more than 115, but then again, he's a year older and all that truck-washing is tough on an old guy...

Regardless, it doesn't seem reasonable to expect that the infielders will make up for the losses in the outfield.

Genius would take advantage of hot starts and trade for players getting off to slow starts only to watch the reverse happening for the rest of the season

Yes, Genius would. We traded for Lugo and Hendrickson.

Hardball Times evaluates James Loney in some detail this morning: www.hardballtimes.com

Why would the infield be expected to be better? It is essentially unchanged except that a very old player, who showed the first signs of decline in his career last year, will be older still. Nomar ended up pretty much exactly as expected - OPSing a Choiesque .850, but playing a lot less and costing a lot more. Why would these two suddenly improve? Likewise, Furcal was - again as expected - one of the best offensive SS in the game, but again, I can't see any reason to expect improvement this year. 107 expecting some magic at 3B? if so, can you explain why?

Took me two hours to link to the Loney article, but it's up in a new post.

Two words: Julio Lugo. :-)

No, ought is far-fetched. I should've said I can see that they could improve because...

I expect Loney to get more playing time and think that is bettter for Nomar and Loney and the position overall. I think that means "opportunity for improvement".

I expect Kent to play more, but that's is a truck-wash-big if.

I expect Furcal to return to normal for the whole year. (but to be fair he had a career OPS last year)

I expect Betemit to be better than last years combination. (closer to .800 instead of the .750 he put up when he got here)

I think Martin will get better partly because he won't bat 8th, but then again who knows how he will do after a full first year of a lot of games, but he seems Piazza like in his ability to catch a lot of games.

DP4 says: "I think a GM should be thought lesser of for holding any such expectation." I think that's right. And on second thought who's going to play second if Kent does get hurt as much? Martinez? Anderson?

Marty hates special needs children, too. So sad.

106 I'm actually ambivalent about Friedman, as I wrote here:

http://www.linkmeister.com/blog/archives/002155.html

I happen to think that Krugman was a lonely voice crying in the otherwise-cheerleading Op-Ed pages NYT for most of the first Bush term, and he was a welcome relief from the Safires and Tom Friedmans that otherwise populated those pages.

Obviously your mileage may vary.

No love for Kristoff, Herbert, and MoDo? Even I like Kristoff. Well, liked; haven't read any of them in quite some time.

I liked Kristof so much, I never learnt to spell his name properly. But the object lessons in slavery were pretty amazing. I still wonder what the exact chain of events is when a columnist at the NYT submits an expense report with Human Slave as a line item.