from last thread.

http://dodgers.scout.com/2/663575.html

Ey Gets the Call-- Outfielder Delwyn Young, who has had his way with Pacific Coast League pitching, was promoted to take Wilson Betemit's spot on the bench at least until newly-acquired Scott Proctor reports, and general manager Ned Colletti said that third baseman Andy LaRoche, who is on a batting tear, is close behind."

"He's pretty close to earning his way up," Colletti said of LaRoche. "We feel he's on the verge. Whether when he comes up and plays full-time, that's not my decision."

The move serves notice that the Dodgers could be getting younger.

GM Ned Colletti, who was unable to come up with a trade of an additional bat, said the team would go with the players they have.

"You can't always come and change the whole face of the club. From time to time winning's got to come from within," he said

They're moving someone else,either DFA or the minors. It doesn't make sense to bring up DY for a day or so.

I thought this was cool to read..(PE paper)

Jettisoning Betemit, one of the Dodgers' top power-hitting threats, also represented a vote of confidence for hot-hitting Las Vegas third baseman Andy LaRoche, who struggled in his first big-league stint.

"Had he not (done well in Las Vegas), I can't say we would have made the deal," Colletti said.

I thought it was pretty funny on last night's broadcast. Jon Miller said "sellout crowd here @ Dodger Stadium" but when the camera panned it was AT BEST 20% capacity at first pitch and I can't imagine it was more than 25% full by the time BLB's first AB.

4 seems to be a an exaggeration. "20% AT BEST"? The stadium was more than half full by first pitch, but certainly less than you would expect in such a game in another stadium.

It appears that D4P awoke a sleeping dog with comment 391

Where...?

4 - It was about 70 percent full by first pitch, and filled quickly thereafter.

6. I'm assuming that 399. is not actually you, and may be the friend you were referring to in in 391.

8
399 was my "in kind" response to Andrew's 398. I was just playing along.

If anything, it looks like 391 put the dog to sleep, at least for a little nappie poo.

If Dodger Stadium were 20% full, there would only be 11,200 people in the seats.

That's highly unlikely.

Even in St. Louis, the stands are only about 70% full at the time of the first pitch. People have to buy food, go to the bathroom, and all sorts of stuff.

I was watching @ about 7:03-4. Thought it was 7:05 first pitch. My bad. You LA-ers sure do love to cut it close though.

I'm glad there was no nonsense at the Stadium last night. We'll see how the next two games go. With Bombko and Lurch pitching, and the Dodger offense in sleep mode, I fear the crowds will be restless and angry.

I really hope they get a clever, funny chant going, like "Barry Sucks." That gets me every time.

I had the pleasure of sitting near Vic the Brick in the RF pavilion. What a freak! He looks like some kind of a hip hop sherpa. I sat behind a couple sporting "asterisk" t-shirts from boobarrybonds.com. The highlight of the night was an inflatable syringe that made the rounds.

I really enjoy your writing, Jon. Anyway, I watched on TV and wasn't particularly surprised out the way the fans reacted. I'm very curious to see what would happen after he hits 755 (if he hits it in LA).

11 This just in: traffic in Los Angeles is bad, and the parking situation at the stadium is -- at very best -- a work in progress. On sold out nights, like last night, it can be a bear.

11
If the people selling concessions worked more quickly, there would be a lot more people in the seats at first pitch.

I wonder if now that people cannot park as close to their seats that it is taking even longer for people to hike to their seats.

Lot B, where i pay way too much money to park every night was full at 645p with media vehicles taking 2 spaces each, and when I improvised a parking space, someone took exception and keyed up my truck. I wish it was towed instead. That would have been cheaper to fix.

15 On top of that, there are very, very few sold out games on weeknights, where rush hour traffic has to be factored in. Fridays are the exception, hence the 7:40 start times.

Wow. Alyssa really made a concerted effort to respond to people's comments and questions.

from the last thread:

A rough comparison of Dodger Prospects to what the Braves gave up for Teixeira/ Mahay and Boston for Gagne.

Saltamacchia = Loney
Feliz + Harrison + Jones = Kershaw + Meloan
Andrus = Hu + Mattingly

As for the Gagne Trade thats harder because the D's don't have anybody on the team that resembles Gabbard. Eric Stults is the closest thing then Murphy is a less valuable Dewitt.
So:

Murphy + Gabbard = Dewitt + Stults
Beltre = Pedro Baez.

Trivia time:

Which is higher?

1) Juan Pierre's OPS against lefties (2007)
2) Juan Pierre's OPS against the Giants (2007)

Has anyone, anywhere come up with an explanation why the Pirates traded for Matt Morris?

22
I'm sure Jim Tracy had something to do with it.

22 They're trying to expedite their own collapse.

22 I think the only reasonably sane response to the Morris trade was waiver deadline trade bait? He makes 10 mil a year and would definitely clear waivers. Anything else boggles the mind.

22 Short version: Dave Littlefield is bad at his job.

Long version: Where Have You Gone Andy Van Slyke has the theory that the Pirates don't want to win, they want to make money. The casual fan will think "wow, we've got Snell, Gorzellany, and Morris! That's a quality rotation, we've got a shot!" Never mind the fact that Morris hasn't been good for several years, he is a name player.

Because of this, fans will come out to the park with some false hopes until about the All Star Break, then you can repeat the cycle.

Also from WHYGAVS:

The thing I don't like about this move is my gut feeling is that it was made for ulterior motives. Assuming DL remains employed this winter, he now has Morris's $9.5 million contract as an excuse not to do anything. And let's think about things this way, the Pirates get a ton of money pumped into the team from the various MLB revenue sharing streams. If it looks like they're pocketing that money, as a $38 million payroll might suggest, people might have a problem with that and try to take their cash cow away. Adding a guy like Morris with his contract quells that kind of talk. "Hey, look at the Pirates! Trading for a guy with a big contract! Not afraid to spend a little at the deadline."

Pittsburgh is a city in Western Pennsylvania and is said to be the worst city in the National League. Its western half has a stadium called, PNC. Close to PNC there is the dried and frozen carcass of Matt Morris. No one has explained what Matt Morris was seeking in Pittsburgh.

There is a great read on Baseball Analysts regarding how they assume that trade went down, which is pretty funny. Although, I believe that it gives too much credit to Sabean.

20 + 26 are the reasons I get impatient with some of the Colletti-bashing. Any player acquisition comes with a huge downside, both apparent (direct + opportunity costs) and unknowable (What if he gets injured? What if the guy we gave up turns into John Smoltz?). I would have to think most player deals leave their respective teams' fans somewhat unsatisfied at some point. But doing nothing also leaves them unsatisfied. The downside of the decision you make is measurable. The downside of the decision you don't make is not. Amidst all of that fog and much more, a GM has to muddle through. I understand the desire to second-guess; it's an overwhelming temptation. But at some level, second-guessing is inherently biased.

To me, this deadline-day for Colletti was an absolute triumph, one for the ages. The deal he actually made looks like an insignificant one. The results -- faster promotions for two prospects, continued faith in the recent new arrivals -- are extremely gratifying.

Colletti is going to have a much more complicated puzzle to solve in the winter, I predict. Do you count on Schmidt and Kuo? Do you re-up Wolf? If the answers are "no," how do you fill your #4 and #5 pitching slots? The way he approaches that one is going to cause a riot, I predict.

The way he approaches that one is going to cause a riot

Riots are fun, as long as I'm not getting pulled out of my rig and hit in the face with bricks.

30+31, you know, I could use a new TV, and maybe a PS3

30 I don't know, dealing the team leader in patience and power for a nothing reliever (is there any indication, at all that Proctor is better than Seanez?) seems like it could have potentially devastating effects.

Giving Ned Colletti credit tons for not doing something monumentally stupid seems flawed. 28 other GMs managed to do the same thing.

33 Poor Dave Littlefield. The stupidest GM at the trade deadline this year.

Your statement that 29 GMs didn't do something stupid assumes that no GMs had potential deals offered to them which they were monumentally stupid for turning down.

33 "28 other GMs managed to do the same thing."

28 other GMs don't have our prospects.

anyone see this?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/01/AS.TMP

A team source confirmed that the Dodgers had some reservations about the fact that Blanton's performance has dropped off since a 122-pitch complete game against Toronto on July 3, and the source also confirmed that the A's wanted to include Class A shortstop Ivan De Jesus Jr. in any deal, but the Dodgers did not want to part with the defensive whiz.

its hard to imagine Ivan De Jesus holding up the deal.

31 I never thought it would happen, but someone finally found the words to describe the experience of the Pierre signing. We got Reginald Denny'ed.

If Dave Littlefield stuck a fork in an electrical outlet, and Colletti didn't follow his lead, how much credit should he get for that?

35 Yeah, but pretty much every team has at least a couple players they can't deal, and they managed to hold on to them.

36- Ch-i bless Ivan De Jesus. For reasons that surpass understanding, but still and all.

It's all fun and games until Matt Morris is pitching for us in three weeks.

40 Never lose guys with Russian first names and Latin surnames.

I mean, is Ivan De Jesus that highly regarded? Sure he's a great fielder and so far in his minor league career he has hit for decent average and very good plate discipline with low K totals but he is absolutely void of power.

34 Holding his title for the fourth consecutive year.

I love Vin Scully.

http://tinyurl.com/2wme7p

There must have been other prospects in that deal the Dodgers didn't want to part with. I'd lose DeJesus over Hu if I had to choose (though maybe Dodger scouts like the way DeJesus is progressing this year.) Does seem odd. It was probably overheard as, "mumbleKershawmuble and mumbleLaRochemumble and Ivan De Jesus!"

"Turmoil within the organization" can apparently be defined thusly:

Everyone except Ned: "We can trade Ivan De Jesus. He has no power."

Ned: "I'm not trading Ivan De Jesus. He hits for a decent average and doesn't strike out much."

41 LOL-no doubt.

33 If 20 is correct, Schuerholz pretty much did what Colletti wouldn't do: Bring in someone you think can help right now, and send the future packing.

Littlefield is working in a different universe than we are. He gave up nothing for Morris, who might not be worthless, but is definitely overpriced. But since the Pirates have a famously tight budget, it was a great big bag of stupid.

Not as stupid, however, as the Giants' original decision to sign him. The whole Sabean/Magowan project, sign Bonds and build a World Series winner around him, is now a wreck. Morris and Metheny were part of the last desperate grab for a ring that they should have known was already out of reach.

[42] that's probably a good rule of thumb actually... all i can think of are vladimir guerrero and ivan rodriguez.

50 - Turn tail and run from any Latino first names and French last names though.

45 That's exactly the right approach to take. Let the listeners hear the fan's reaction, and then narrate what is happening. No need to make a statement about the event's importance in history or to comment on steriods. Simply: "Barry Bonds has just hit home run number 755 to tie Babe Ruth, and the fans at Dodger Stadium are letting him hear it." Fade to crowd.

45 As long as Bonds doesn't spin around when he hits 756, we'll be alright. If he does, Martin will be traded, Ned will get MS, the McCourts will go bankrupt, and the franchise will fold.

Those pirouettes can destroy a franchise. Or so I've heard.

Turn tail and run from any Latino first names and French last names though

Problem is that they can run faster than you can...You're better off taking them on mano a mano.

49 The Braves situation right now is entirely different. Their window of competitiveness closes in about 2009 and they need to win now before the core of their team abandons them.

The Dodgers window is just opening, and it would be foolish to throw that away to win now, when they have a much better chance of winning in 2009.

54 - Arm wrestling contest? Long drive contest at the driving range?

30 I'm trying to find where but I remember reading somewhere that Kuo was contemplating retirement. Colletti can not under any circumstances count on Schmidt, Kuo and Wolf for next year. Hopefully that won't include overspending on a top free agent. But then again hopefully Ned doesn't try to make a trade either because we've seen how that goes...ummm maybe an angel will kiss Schmidt on the labrum?

57 - The Free agent market for starters this offseason is frightening. It's Zambrano, and then a precipitous falloff to the Rodrigo Lopez's of the world.

56
HR derby, Head-butting contest, Hitting the cutoff man on the fly contest...all good options.

43
Nate, check out his July numbers. Maybe a trick of the Cal air but still impressive.

If Vin Scully makes the call on home run #756 will we have to read a column 30 years from now by Bruce Jenkins telling us why it was bad.

Giving Ned Colletti credit tons for not doing something monumentally stupid seems flawed.

Otherwise known as the Dan Evans defense.

57 now that I think about it Ned does kind of look like Cupid with a moustache.

58 All the more reason why we should have dealt Betemit for a spec starter like one of the Twins 8 guys.

49- I'm not sure I understand where you're going, but if it's toward a system where every GM has the same chance of being considered to have done well, I think that's misguided. Stipulating that Colletti addressed his team's specific needs, by doing virtually nothing, and stipulating that the Braves did too, by moving prospects like Crazy Gideon, you're arguing that both GMs should get an A, and be considered to have done an equally good job.

Isn't that like saying that if the CEO of GM has a good year, he's done just as well as the owner of a coffee shop who's also had a good year? Why should both be thought to have the same potential score on an imaginary management report card?

64 also if we hold on to Betemit his year end numbers would have been pretty decent as he was improving. A better bargaining chip for a starter in the offseason. I can't believe i'm this disconsolate over Betemit. Has anyone else ever noticed that he kind of looks like a turkey?

Has anyone else ever noticed that he kind of looks like a turkey?

I never thought of that but the visual sure makes me chuckle.

In my mind, the one true winner at the trade deadline was the Texas Rangers. Not all those prospects will pan out in a big way, but they re-loaded themselves with a ton of young talent to plan for the future, as they should. The jury is still out on the other deals, but I think the Braves overpaid for a "win now" kind of thing when they still have major questions in starting pitching (as do the Dodgers, but never mind) while also selling off many of their best prospects. The Red Sox added to their already strong bullpen, though they could still use some depth on the bench.

The Dodgers' trade may not amount much - or at least not as much as anyone would have liked if they had to trade Betemit - though they did fill one area of need. But basically, I think the point being made by Ratt above is that if Colletti had traded the same amount of top prospects that the Braves had, for any one of the debatable players out there on the market, I think people would have wanted his head. I know I would have.

So while the Dodgers still clearly need help, the price was way too high for what was available out there. So while Colletti shouldn't be given a medal of honor for not making a major move, I feel like it at least deserves acknowledgment that the farm remains safe when it could easily have been raided yesterday.

From last night 312 Thursday Night is the first promotion dedicated to Washington Baseball history that I know of in DC since the ExpoNats moved in. It is the 100th anniversary of Walter Johnson's first game for the Sens. They will wear Senators caps and his daughter will attend.
I am finally reading Lawrence Ritter's great 1966 book, "The Glory of Their Times," an oral history of players who performed in the 1890s and the first part of the following century. In it, future Hall of Famer Wahoo Sam Crawford, talks about Walter Johnson:
"Of course, the greatest of them all was Walter Johnson. Boy, what a pitcher Walter was! He was the best I ever faced, without a doubt. Did you know that I was playing with Detroit the day Walter Johnson pitched his first major-league game? His very first. In fact, I beat him. I'm not being egotistical, you know, but it's a fact. I hit a home run off him and we beat him--I believe the score was 3-2. I think that was late in 1907. We were after the pennant that year, our first pennant, and we needed that game badly."
I highly recommend this book.

69 Great book, probably read it for the first time 25-30 years ago.

Harry Hooper has some great stories about Babe Ruth.

65 Stipulating that Colletti addressed his team's specific needs, by doing virtually nothing, and stipulating that the Braves did too, by moving prospects like Crazy Gideon, you're arguing that both GMs should get an A, and be considered to have done an equally good job.

That's not really what I meant, but it's probably my fault for being unclear. I was really just observing the tendency to criticize most player transactions because the downsides and the risks are the first things that become apparent. On its own, Betemit for Proctor is either a bad trade or an insignificant one. But that trade made other worse trades less likely. With Betemit still on the roster, the chances that another GM could wheedle LaRoche out of Colletti were higher than they are now, when LaRoche seems like a more essential piece. With Proctor on the roster, the shelf life for the other riff-raff hanging around the bullpen now -- Hernandez, Seanez, Tomko and Hendrickson -- is that much shorter.

Using my admittedly cracked freakonomic calculus, Betemit for Proctor will effectively turn into something more like Seanez for LaRoche.

30 Nice post.

This is not a direct reponse to 68 but I think it's much easier to be a seller and be perceived as a 'winner' because of fans' love of potential and prospects...

71 But couldn't he accomplish the same thing with this tactic?

"Hey, can I have Andy LaRoche? You already have Wilson Betemit."

"Nope."

You still have Betemit on the team that way too.

Also, I don't think you could conclusively prove that Proctor is better than any of those guys, except for Chubs.

I find it ironic that the reason Colletti went out and got a reliever is because all our relievers have been taxed so heavily....then he goes out and gets the most used reliever in the last 2 years.

I was surprised that Alyssa answered my question on her blog. I figured she'd only pick a few, so I asked a fashion related one in an attempt to get answered.
vr, Xei

From BP interview with Colletti in 2003:

We saw Ponson in the same vein we saw Jason Schmidt two years ago. Tremendous upside, on the verge of turning the corner from a good pitcher to a potential standout pitcher. That's proven to be case with Jason, we think it'll be the same thing with Sidney. It's a matter of maturing, figuring batters out, becoming completely healthy--they resemble each other a lot in where they were in their careers when we traded for them.

...

BP: What role does statistical research play in the Giants front office?

Colletti: It's part of what we take into consideration, along with scouting reports, and how someone uses their ability. How a player approaches the game, how he approaches life, far outweighs what the stat line looks like.

74 Sure, he could do that. He could hold his breath til his face turns blue, too. But at some point, he was going to look at the third basemen's depth chart and notice three players there, and then look at his pitching staff and notice some holes, and of all the deals presented to him, a LaRoche-for-X deal might have ultimately made the most sense. (I bet if Beane hadn't gotten greedy, LaRoche would be on the A's today.)

But now Colletti's tied his own hands. He knows Nomar is a short-term answer at best -- in fact he's one awkward swing of the bat from the DL, which could happen anytime. By trading Betemit, he's put a lot more chips on LaRoche. LaRoche could be the Dodgers starting third baseman within weeks, as a result of this trade.

You could argue Colletti didn't get enough for Betemit, and I'd agree, but that's partly a function of the market right now. But, I would also offer this theory: The LA overstock at 3B effectively discounted both Betemit and LaRoche's value on the trade market. And this is partly a function of LaRoche's good performance the past month. Colletti could've asked for a lot more for Wilson, but the other GMs could rationally retort: "Gimme a break. Long-term, Betemit's a bench player. You got LaRoche."

That's the truly irrational thing about the flesh-peddling market in baseball. Value is assigned heavily based on what a player is doing right now, in the past 30 days. Colletti could be dead wrong about LaRoche and regret giving up on him. For that matter, Sabean could be dead wrong about Morris, who was pitching well until about a month ago. But based on the values assigned to these players on 7/31/07, what happened makes sense.

I wouldn't have traded for him, but Procter is a Dodger farm alumnus, so that is good for some points from me, and I like his repetoire: 93-97 MPH fastball, hard slider, good curveball, and a decent change-up. The big problem is that Torre rode him into the ground, much like we did with Mota.

New post up top.

Lots of opinions on whether Betemitt was worth more than Procter. And pointless, too. The sad truth is that all ball players, probably pitchers moreso than batters, is only as good as what he does next time out. Injury and just plain loss of effectiveness is always there waiting to happen. Now is where it matters. Example: Loney is in a slump and Nomar is now hot. I think I would play Nomar at first and bring up LaRoche for third, until one of them gets into a slump, then bring Loney back in. Whether we like the trade or not, it's done and we have to deal with what we have...

81 So any one can be dealt for anyone else because they could get hit by a meteor the next day?

78- So it's not that you're giving Colletti credit for doing something good, you're just saying that the Dodgers are better off because it would now be harder to do something that would probably be stupid? That is twisted. I like it. But I'm not on board. It's not even a hedge, or a backup plan. It's putting all your eggs in one basket so that you won't be tempted to trade them for magic beans.

Trust the market, Andrew. The invisible hand!

68 - In my mind, the one true winner at the trade deadline was the Texas Rangers. Not all those prospects will pan out in a big way, but they re-loaded themselves with a ton of young talent to plan for the future, as they should.

My problem with this read is that Texas has consistently failed to evaluate pitching talent correctly. They have done absolutely nothing to make me think otherwise. I mean, it was looking like they got rooked in the McCarthy/Danks trade (though that is proving much closer now than it did back in May), their trade for Adam Eaton was bad at the time and got worse after Eaton ruptured a tendon in his (right) pitching hand and missed all but 13 games. The Padres rooked them... their player development system seems incapable of producing major league pitching, having come up snake eyes on not one but three of their so-called "DVD" (Danks-Volquez-Diamond) trio:

* John Danks is with the Chisox, and slightly better than what they're getting out of Brandon McCarthy.
* Thomas Diamond is recovering from Tommy John surgery and will miss the season.
* Edinson Volquez found himself demoted all the way down to the Cal League this year after proving unable to fix his command in the PCL the year before. He's back at AAA Omaha now, though his 21:11 K:BB ratio is about the same as it was last year. Whether he'll ever figure it out remains an open question, but one thing's for sure: his stock has slipped a lot. Volquez started the season with the dubious distinction of having the second-worst ERA in major league history for any pitcher with 10 starts.

To me, though, the Eaton/Young trade was probably the worst of all those. Just a total disaster.

I expected no less from you, always a quick putdown to anyone else's opinion... Not that that's what I meant at all. The point, which you apparently missed, is that the debate is history, Ned made the decision using whatever criteria he uses, at this point he has just as good a chance that the trade will be turn out a positive as it will a negative. Look at the trade in which we acquired Betemitt; at the time most people here were unhappy with it, saying we gave up too much in Aybar. But Aybar sure turned sour and Betemitt was clearly the better of the two, if not all that we would like. Players change, good players sometimes turn bad and bad players sometimes improve greatly.

86- Majority opinion was pro-Betemit trade last year. There were stragglers (I was one), but most people liked the deal.

I'm not sure I take the point of your post either; it's clearly true that trades that look good can turn out bad, and vice versa, but then what? It's a good warning against being too sure of anything, but I don't see what it means, beyond that.

85 Oh I agree with all that (believe me, typing the words "winner" and "Texas Rangers" was quite hard for me). But I don't think that automatically categorizes what they just did as a disaster, just because of mistakes they'd made previously. I also thought they'd made some changes to their scouting dept. this past year - no? Yes? I'm just going by scouting reports on the players they did just acquire. I think it's only fair to evaluate based on the present, not the past - knowing, admittedly, that none of us know for sure what the future will bring.

From ItD:

UPDATE: Tonight's lineup:

Furcal, SS

Pierre, CF

Martin, C

Gonzo, LF

Nomar, 3B

Loney, 1B

Martinez, 2B

Ethier, RF

Hendrickson, P

Still no word on what move will be made for Proctor or if that guy on the other team is in the lineup.

Another Update: Bonds is in the lineup