Before I go on, I want to congratulate both the Diamondbacks and the Rockies for advancing to the LCS. This is going to be one awesome series!

Well, in September I said the Diamondbacks were the surest to tank down the stretch.

When October began I said the Diamondbacks were sure to be blown out in the first round.

I have to give it to the pythag defying Dbacks for making a goofball out of me. Who do I favor in the NLCS? Of course, the Rockies!

However, I have a lot more respect for the Dbacks and wish the best for both teams.

http://tinyurl.com/2vdndf

(Apologies if this was noted previously.)

C being the Roman Numeral for 100.

8 - I believe the answer to your question is "yes". Since 1995 (when the current format was installed), we see either teams returning to the playoffs for a decent stretch (Yankees, Indians, Braves early on; Cardinals 2004-2006). And then we also see teams win and then disappear from the playoff picture (Arizona, Florida (twice), Houston). Finally, we see teams be competitive for several years, though not necessarily making the playoffs (Angels, Boston, Mets

I really can't see the Rockies or Diamondbacks doing better than 90 wins next year, but I've been wrong before.

My condolences.

Big hit at parties are ya?

On the other hand, I wasn't really that disappointed, and in a way I expected it. I could not believe the 710 ESPN guys in the Pre Game show bragging about how the line wasn't big enough. Uh, I don't think so. They struggled on offense all year and if anything Stanford was a sure bet to cover.

Anyway, I'm not really that disappointed because I still think USC can run the table the rest of they way. Today, Cal is the clear favorite in the Pac-10.

It is time for the Dodgers to officially name Russ Martin Captain. It is obvious that Kent wants to win his championship working only from innings 1-9 and reading magazines the rest of the time. Nomar just doesn't have that kick-you-in-the-face leadership that is needed.

We need this to happen for two reasons.

1. It would scratch Ned's itch to sign a "veteran presence". This ensures one less player with an OPS below 750.

2. It would put the fate of the team in the hands of a battle-tested, younger guy that can be with the team for years to come (see: Jeter, Matt Holliday, and Eric Byrnes)

Would Ned believe that stitching a C on someones uniform give them adequate presence?

Jeter, Holliday and Byrnes are all much older than Martin. Will the veterans really start feeling inspired by a 24 year old?

They needed to lose one of the close games for the sake of the rest of their season. They will play some tight contests with Oregon and Cal and will need the experience of this loss. Not so much for the players as the coaches. Carroll, it seems to me has gotten a bit cocky (rightfully so). I think that his decision not to take the three points before halftime shows that he thought he could outcoach Harbaugh at the half.

I hope that SC does run the table because the last thing that I want to see (if everything goes as well as I hope) is someone like BC or South Florida in the Title game. I want to see the LSU-USC game that both fan bases have been wanting.

The only two guys that I would worry about are Pierre and Furcal. JP seems to be a pretty good team guy, but the only one that I am unsure about is Furcal. He stays out of the press, but has the potential to be our best all-around player.

I just want to see the guy that everyone knows is the best (albeit inexperienced) leader in the clubhouse get his due. And it would ensure that we do not sign someone like JP or Nomar this offseason just for the sake of "presence".

But honestly, I can't think of an adult, rational reason to root for one team over another. Maybe you know some of the guys on the team? Maybe they have a philosophy with which you agree?

I sort of root for the Chargers because they're the closest thing we have to a local football team. Then again, I tend to root for Miami Uni. during football season because I really wanted to go to law school there (ok, I'll admit, not a good reason).

Werner Herzog should make a film about the managerial career of Jim Tracy.

The strange thing about being a sports fan though is the issue of loyalty. You can be be into toy trains, but unlike a sports team, you wouldn't feel like you were betraying toy trains if you started liking toy cars instead.

Teams do alot to anger their fans, or offer nothing TO like about them. Seems to me the most rational of us respond by disowning their team. And the non-rationals respond with battered woman syndrome.

A small sore point of mine, is all.

I can't figure this whole thing out though. I tend to believe that the human aspect of baseball is overlooked in the statistical analysis, so maybe having a captain and thereby an undisputed leader is a good thing. But then, how many teams actually have captains? The Yankees and the Red Sox? Who else? Is it really going to affect things on the field more than a year of improvement from Loney, Kemp, and Ethier? Or more than having someone who can actually play defense at second base?

I think I'll switch back to cable once the satellite contract runs out.

Hopefully the Bruins will have figured out how to beat winless teams by then.

For what it's worth

For Ned, this would give him peace of mind that the clubhouse situation has been addressed and would allow him to acquire the best players irrespective of their status as veterans. It could be the difference between someone like Mike Lowell coming in versus a Miguel Cabrera.

There are some other things to do in the area, too. Springfield was on the way for us, so we stopped at the basketball HoF (which I have to admit was more fun for the kids, because there are more hands-on things to do there).

Would ARod even consider LA if the Yankees were offering the same money?

I spent about 4 hours there and I pretty much saw every single exhibit that was on display. Cooperstown has very poor dining options.

Hence, Mike Lowell. The trouble with Colletti is he appears to think "doing something" is always preferable to doing nothing: that more is more, regardless. It's better to sign Pierre or pick up Loaiza than to do neither, because, y'know, you can't have too much of an almost-good thing. Pierre doesn't walk, or play defense, but he "led the league in hits." Lowell likewise: "insurance." But it'll prevent LaRoche from developing or playing and we'll trade him in the offseason for a sack of magic beans or Scott Shields, whichever gets offered first.

The organization's lack of foresight, its continuous poulticing of wounds that need to bleed clean, is potentially its doom. This whole "veteran" thing will go away, and Kent--if he comes back next year--will feel better by virtue of its being a new season. But Colletti will doubtless feel compelled to address this somehow, too.

Ahahahahaha! They have a nice website too :) Is their food as good as Sam Wo's?

In a lot of ways, we have a ton of flexibility because of our organizational depth. Guys like McDonald, Hu, Abreu, and LaRoche could be traded without touching our "untouchables". If I am not mistaken, we turned Joel Guzman into Chris Withrow (Guzman=Lugo=draft pick=Withrow). Something similar could be done with a guy like Dunn or ManRam.

I am not advocating any one particular move per se, but I think that a lot of GMs will come to Colletti if he is patient instead of aggressive.

http://tinyurl.com/yq8sr7

However, we must not underestimate the power of C-Rod. She apparently hates NYC.

Dodgers that are truly "untouchable" (as I think back to Greg Brock's brilliant "show me on the doll where the Dodgers touched you"):

Martin
Billingsley
Kemp

2nd tier of untouchability (i.e. would have to be for a truly great player -- Santana, Cabrera, etc):

Loney
LaRoche
Broxton
Minotaur

Everyone else is quite touchable.

Whether or not they actually can run the table is a different question. I think if they played today, USC would lose to both Cal and Oregon. But if the entire team and coaching staff takes this loss to heart (as they should), and if this cold slap wakes them up, then I can certainly see them winning out. USC plays down to their competition, but certainly plays up to competition as well.

If Stanford wons another few games, that'll help USC in the computer polls as well.

LSU looks strong, but I don't know how they'll face up against a really good Pac-10-style team (Oregon, Cal, or possibly USC). It would certainly be a fantastic game, and I hope we get to see it.

Frank: what is 54 + 52?

Ned: 106?

Frank: what is 108-106?

Ned: 2?

Frank: Just think about that a while. And don't come out of your room until May.

Even Kobe Bryant doesn't get as much ink. And the Beckhams barely made a splash.

http://tinyurl.com/2mp7tc

I try to stay calm, but Ned scares me. As I say, he just needs to wheel-n-deal.

Most of us will still be climbing up the stairs to the reserved level.

Florida showed that they are not impenetrable, but there may not be more playmakers anywhere in the country on one side of the ball. Last year, LSU had 4 first rounders, and this year it looks as if there will be at least three (Doucet, Dorsey, and Highsmith).

Unless the team is playing at Vanderbilt.

Of course, I admit I haven't seen a lot of LSU games, so maybe I'm not seeing them at their best. Certainly I would think USC is over-rated if I'd only watched the last couple games.

I wish more teams had the guts to regularly schedule major out-of-conference games -- it's really interesting and fun to see teams with very different philosophies match up.

The SEC plays road games? Almost all of LSU's games are inside their state! Then you have three in neighboring Mississippi and Alabama... the farthest they have to travel is to Kentucky.

Just a few miles east down the interstate (I90) is an underground cave tour site worth seeing.

The lake and its environs should be very pretty this time of year. The lake is the headwaters of the Susquehanna River.

My wife and I stayed at a B&B outside of Cooperstown run by the HOF historian's wife. If you are looking for accommodations call or visit the Cooperstown Chamber of Commerce Visitor's Center. They were the most helpful visitor's center of all the places we visited in upper NY state.

He's right about the terrible dining options, though. Two things I would recommend. For lunch, get a sandwich from Danny's Market. For dinner, you should go to Nicoletta's. Both are on Main Street, near the CVS.

I would not trade for Santana, period. The Dodgers with Penny, Lowe, and Billingsley are good enough in 2008 for them to wait for Santana to be a free agent in 2009.

If the Dodgers can't resign/extend Furcal before 2008 starts then I would include him in a trade and give Hu or Abreu the ss job in 2008.

If Kemp is traded it only would be if Pierre and Kent were part of the package and if this is difficult, well who wants to trade Kemp anyway.

A few others:

6) The failure to call up Jonathan Meloan in midseason, so he could get his big league jitters out of the way in July and be a contributing pitcher down the stretch. He had nothing left to prove in the minors at that point.

7) Speaking of nothing left to prove in the minors, I was also distressed by the failure to replace Garciaparra with LaRoche in late July/early August.

8) The insistence on giving some August starts to Brett Tomko which should instead have gone to James McDonald.

10) Giving up on Betemit too soon, and when they did, not giving LaRoche a real chance and handing the at bats to Abreu, then Nomar.

20. Also, what is the rationale behind not having the division winner with the best record play a wild card winner from its own division?

Why not just seed them according to most wins?

The Commissioner would prefer to avoid the embarrassment of a scenario whereby Team A could completely dominate Team B during a long season series only to have Team B then unceremoniously dump Team A from the playoffs by getting lucky in the short opening series. This situation became acute with the current unbalanced schedule whereby a team may play other teams in its own division 18 or 19 times while playing far fewer games against other teams. For example, lets say San Diego has a great season winning 100 games or so while dominating the Dodgers by winning 16 of 19. The Dodgers then sneak into the playoffs as the wild card, gets lucky for just three games and boots out the team that beat them like a drum all season. The Commissioner put at least two obstacles in the way of this happening. The Dodgers would have to:
1). Defeat one of the other Division winners first, and
2). Defeat San Diego in a best of seven championship series (should San Diego advance)

The current unbalanced schedule is due to the need to schedule interleague games. So, while the Dodgers would have played 18 or 19 games against San Diego they would only have played 6 or 9 games against the other two Division winners.

That is a different question, and I think the answer has something to do with the objections by baseball traditionalists to having a wild card to begin with. They want finishing in first place to still have some advantage, so they make things as tough for the wild card as possible. This is why the wild card can never have home field advantage in any series (except the World Series), even if they have a better record than the team they are facing.

Yep, 1988 was the first thing that I thought about when the question first came up. I didn't remember 1983 though.

Upside: Edmonds will be off the payroll sooner and could be replaced by Young, Repko, or a FA outfielder. Would not have to play every day. Put up a Rate2 of 106 in CF last year (compare to Pierre's 90).

Downside: he could hit .252/.325/.402 again and would get AB in the middle of the lineup.

In 11 games the Mets scored 49 runs and gave up only 18. Gooden had 4 starts and went 3-0, the only non-decision, the Mets won in extra innings.

They had a team ERA of 1.51 against the Dodgers who were not an offensive juggernaut anyway. Gibson had a .576 OPS against the Mets, Hershiser only had one start, he lost 2-1, pitching a complete game.

I will say that even though we will end up playing the bulk of our games at home, our schedule will have included at least 6 ranked teams, and that may balloon to 8 if Arkansas and/or Alabama are any good toward the end of the year (VA Tech, Florida, Kentucky, Alabama, South Carolina, and the SEC title game if all goes well). And that is before our bowl game.

I would prefer if we scheduled more legit out-of-conference foes. The VA Tech game was a home and away that we scheduled in 1997.

But more games like Cal/Tenn, USC/Arkansas (a few years back), Michigan/Oregon, etc would be really fun in the regular college season, and I think would be good for the sport in general (although individual teams might occasionally be hurt by a loss).

78

I would have to agree about the Tomko thing. Probably more than any other point.

Per 75, it appears to me that the Dodgers decided going into Spring Training that Loney and Kemp weren't ready yet, Loney and Kemp proved them wrong, and the Dodgers sent them down anyway. Assuming Gonzo and Garciaparra would be more productive players in the year 2007 was simply wrongheaded. Winning teams put the best nine men on the field regardless of what they've committed to pay them.

80 - I'm going to go with the cliched response: that's why they play the games. I get the Commissioner's "concern", but if you're really worried about that, why not go back to two divisions and one round of playoffs?

81 - I have no problem with the division winners having home field against the wild card teams. Perhaps I worded it wrong. What I meant was, let's say we have a situation like this: Mets win the East with 100 wins; Cubs win the Central with 93 wins; Dodgers win the West with 90 wins; and Atlanta takes the WC with 88 wins. Why not let NY and Atl play each other in the first round, instead of going with the Dodgers vs the Mets and the Cubs against the Braves? Now, if the Braves, in my scenario finished with 95 wins, I'd have no problem with the Mets playing the Dodgers and the Cubs playing the Braves (with Chicago having home field).

Great comments about the HOF. I was just there over Labor Day Weekend, and you guys just brought back memories of the beautiful lake as you approach the HOF.

One thing to consider about A-Rod is that he has the reputation of not being great as the main guy in the team. Also who knows how he would get a long with some of the up and coming rookies. He didn't fare too well in Texas. He's not known as a leader.

So, the question is, at what point is it being lucky and at what point is it just being good and playing better than the other team?

um, I'll take a risk on that. He wasn't bad in Texas. And his "down year" in NY was just really good instead of awesome.

Also who knows how he would get a long with some of the up and coming rookies.

He was teammates with Gary Sheffield. He can handle anyone.

He didn't fare too well in Texas. He's not known as a leader.

http://tinyurl.com/28p7my

Good call, although I don't think Colletti did a lot of calculations.

I'm sure you've looked it up since, but the funny thing is that I also remembered 1988 as 11-1 Mets. How could we both have been wrong? :-)

Were the Cardinals the best team last year or just fortunate the Carpenter was able to avoid injury until this season.

There are just too many times when the "best" team does not win the championship but championships are not given based on criteria that determines the best team, it is all about what happens that day.

What Red Sox fan doesn't catch that foul ball, what if Manny just misses that pitch?

For Colorado to win 17 out of 18 games, sure it takes skill, it also took Saito giving up his first walk-off home run, it took Hoffman blowing two saves, the D-Backs maybe have less of luck factor but now maybe they are unlucky to face an NL West team that does give them trouble.

Colletti could have looked at this season as bad luck if we had failed in the playoffs again. Who knows? He may have even signed the "gritty" Tomko to an extension. [he said, piling on unnecessarily]

Said Colletti: "Young players, in general, when they get to the big leagues, it's about personal survival. As time goes on, and I've seen it amongst our young players, especially in the last month or so they know that they're talented enough in the big leagues. Now, the focus has started to turn to, 'How can we win the game?' That's a key component, but that takes time."

Moises Alou (42) - $7.5MM club option for '08
Barry Bonds (43)
Milton Bradley (30)
Adam Dunn (28) - $13MM club option for '08
Cliff Floyd (35) - mutual option for '08
Luis Gonzalez (40)
Geoff Jenkins (33) - $9MM club option for '08
Reggie Sanders (40)
Shannon Stewart (34)
Brad Wilkerson (31)

we'd certainly be better off just letting ethier play every day.

is there anyone here even colletti would sign?

I noticed that earlier this year. I guess I should have expected them to match it against the same link I'd had them generate a day earlier but I was surprised anyway.

I was guessing Sanders or Alou.

Foolish? Yes. Inconceivable? Absolutely not!

It's the difference between committing to the youth movement and being Plaschke.

Some would say:
Malone
Stone
Wallace

The first part of that I can see, but what may have to happen there would be LaRoche/Young to the Sox with us getting Manny and then having to sign a 3B like Lowell...

(Who am I, Scott Boras?)

Not that Malone is a youngster.

Still, I wouldn't mind seeing his bat hitting in between Kemp and Loney. And he would not have to be a leader due to my suggestion in 17 . All he would have to do is play.

There wasnt much difference in the way any of them were playing the game. With a month left in the season they obviously didn't know how to win any differently than the month before. It's just a bunch of excuse making.

Your rebuttal and then conclusion was the problem (as u suggest), not the way they were playing the game. Loney was hitting last year and hitting this year. Kemp too. Sure everyone improves and has much to learn, but...

Really the main problem that no one mentions is that for a team built on chemistry, it was sure built poorly. Forgetting the OPS or non OPS of certain guys...but the vets, because according to those in charge, need guiadance and need to learn...well who better to learn from then

Jeff Kent? Shea Hillenbran? David Wells? Loaiza?

Coletti just failed in every aspect you can think of and he blames the youth.

But let's temporarily forget that. We're gonna drop Gonzo and Wolf from the payroll, not to mention Tomko and hopefully Hendrickson. That's like $20 million there, and if you're gonna spend an extra $10-$15 million that'll all but guarantee that the Dodgers sell 4,000,000 tickets, then hey, why not, from McCourt's point of view.

The Dodgers cannot buyout Kent. His $9m option vested (became guaranteed) when he reached 550 PA this season. The only way they can avoid paying Kent's salary is if they trade him (unlikely) or he retires (more likely, but still not likely).

He turns 31 next April.

None of these might have resulted in a playoff victory but we would at least know the following.
1. Can DJ succeed in a major league rotation
2. Can Meloan translate his minor league success to the major leagues
3. Can Hull do the same.
4. The kids wouldn't have felt the need to respond themselves if management had the balls to say something 1st.

Right now, I think that big name Japanese guys are becoming overvalued, but the guys just below them (like Iwamura and Iguchi) are way undervalued.

The WhiteSox would be our best hope. They need a CF and they have shown the willingness to spend money on worthless players like Erstadt and Podboy in the past.

The negative side of that is every teams internet sites are looking at their crappy veterans and thinking the Dodgers might want them since we have shown the same tendancies as the White Sox.

http://tinyurl.com/2y8pwt

128 The Giants did want him last year, but Sabean swears he's sworn off.

Someone should explain to him that hockey's minor league system works like baseball's minor league system.

I guess it would come down to how many times the WC team comes from the same division as the team with the best record in the league. I would think that in this type of scenario, keeping the WC team away from the team with the league's best record would be an advantage for the WC team.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-071007rogerscubs,1,1329389.column?coll=cs-home-headlines

If one of them signs with the Dodgers and then the Dodgers bench or are able to trade Pierre: more power to 'em. If they move Pierre to left field... surely Colletti, mad as he is, isn't crazy enough to do that.

Also, out of curiosity: what if the final standings look like this?

90-72 Mets
90-72 Cardinals
90-72 Dodgers
89-73 Padres
88-74 Rockies
88-74 Brewers
88-74 Phillies

Do you hold a round-robin to decide which of the Rockies, Brewers, and Phillies get to play the Padres for the WC? What if each team goes 1-1?

Pierre is going to play every day no matter what.

Assuming Dunn isn't on the market, there's no good corner outfielders out there.

Since Pierre is playing everyday, he might as well be where he'll do the least damage.

It's easier to get a new left fielder than a new centerfielder if we ever decide to rid ourselves of him.

In fact, moving Pierre to LF necessitates another move -- replacing Pierre with someone who can hit -- and the Dodgers might not have the dollars for that.

I don't want to violate Rule 8, but I'm not convinced. I still think that Pierre does the least damage in CF -- terrible arm and all -- because the Dodgers get to keep their money.

If NedCo tries to pull any of this, I will honestly not be disappointed to see the Dodgers finish in 4th place for 2008.

I ran through the FA sheet and basically arrived at most of the same conclusions. Why spend money to ride a treadmill?

As much as I dislike the extended rosters in Sept, that emotion pales to having to watch playoff baseball in frigid weather. If you think the bugs were bad, wait until the weather changes off of Lake Erie.

Who wouldn't want to see baseball players turn into icicles standing around the diamond at midnight so the West Coast gets the game in prime time.

Plus, the Dodgers are likely to be a little better this year, playing Billingsly, Kemp, and Loney from opening day. Also, if Ethier is then expendable, who knows who Colletti will be able to get for him. That could improve the team, too.

That said, the Rockies, D-Backs, and Padres are also all likely to be better... so maybe 4th place is where the Dodgers will end up if Pierre is in left.

I say, stick with Ethier for another year, and then, when a free agent bat is available, replace him with somebody who can actually out-hit him.

Apparently, the Mariners are looking to move him (?). He gets $5.5M in 2008. His VORP is 31.3.

Of the others available:

Rowand - low OBP, high Ks
Crawford - low BB, high Ks, low power
Burrell - poor avg
Alou - Gonzo II

Rios would be nice, but expensive in terms of prospects.

Because it sends a message to certain people that Ned is "trying", and that McCourt is willing to spend money.

From what I can tell, GMs rarely lose their jobs over bad contracts per se.

When I was in the military we used to pass the time by playing cards. When someone would take longer than normal to make up his mind someone would usually say, "Do something, even if it's wrong." :-) That's what worries me about Colletti. I have the feeling he will feel the need to do something this off season. Even if it's wrong. :-)

RF Matt Kemp was a main source of the erosion in the Dodgers' clubhouse because his flamboyant style irritated veterans. The talented Kemp, 23, has yet to grasp all of the game's nuances. ...

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Alfs52Au14u3fe7xg.imfBqFCLcF?slug=insidedishmoveovertejada&prov=tsn&type=lgns

Did I watch 162 games? No, I did not.

How many did I watch? Don't know. I would guess parts of 90 or 100.

Did I watch enough of 'em to know that Pierre's arm is completely useless in CF? You betcha.

Have I blocked those out of my memory? Nope.

Do I think the Dodgers have other problems, in addition to Pierre's arm, that could be addressed by spending money? Yes, I do.

Do I think that Pierre's arm is the greatest of these problems and deserves a $15 million fix? No.

End Jim Tracy mode.

Pshaw.

I don't think we have enough offense next year with Ethier in LF and Pierre in CF and Kemp in RF unless there is a serious upgrade someplace..

I hope I am wrong.

I'm looking at the possible evolution of the younger players for next year. Martin is likely going to continue to develop as a fairly decent power hitting catcher (20-25 HR). Loney and Kemp will likely develop into more stable sources of power. Doesn't it make sense to have a guy like Ethier (essentially a line drive hitter that gets on base fairly well) to set the table for these guys? Yes, I'm saying Ethier would be a great #2 hitter next year behind Furcal.

Plus, assuming we don't land A-Rod, isn't LaRoche supposed to develop into decent power hitter, right?

Pierre would be less annoying in the 7-8 spot. Even if his defense is annoying.

[play goofy music]

I'll answer your question honestly: how many power hitters do we really need? One more, if that power hitter is among the very best hitters in the game. None more if he isn't.

Again, I don't want to violate Rule 8, but the beauty of the A-Rod or Nobody Scenario is that it offers, right in its name, a beautiful alternative to A-Rod if he's not available or you can't get him.

Of course then I would have to not belive it hasn't been put there on purpose.

"Fourth, if you want to play young players, you'd better have the right veteran players to support them. Look at what happened with the Dodgers down the stretch. Hmmm. Luis Gonzalez raised a ruckus in Arizona when Carlos Quentin arrived, and his refusal to accept that times they are a-changin' ran him out of that franchise and into a similar mess in L.A. The Diamondbacks' veterans like Tony Clark, Eric Byrnes, Orlando Hudson and Livan Hernandez have been support nets for all the young teammates, as Trot Nixon, Casey Blake and Paul Byrd have done in Cleveland. Monday night, Johnny Damon acknowledged "our season started to turn when Melky got in there every day."

As we prepare for the arrival of Spawn of Kavula....

Does anybody know a good pediatrician in the south bay? We found one we like in Torrance, but it's far from where we live. Manhattan, Hermosa, or El Segundo would be better.

Kemp in Left/Center, Pierre in Center, Abreu in Right. Hmmm...

If I were the GM, I would find out his price. If he's really available for 2/28 or 3/39, and if the Very Smart People that I would ask about him think that this is just a down year for him or if it's indicative of bigger problems.

If he's affordable, and if this is just a down year according to the Very Smart People, then yeah, I'll get on board with a short deal for Abreu.

It's this year that he's way off (369/445).

Or, we could hire La Russa who would bat Pierre 9th. :-)

1. Given that Andre Ethier puts up something like an 800-825 OPS next year; and
2. Given that the going rate for Abreu in a multi-year deal is somewhere between 13-14 million; then...

...based on Abreu's career 900 OPS, and bearing in mind his drop-off last year, would you be for or against overpaying for a one-year deal -- say, $16 million -- with an option on the second year?

He would seem like an ideal #5 to hit in between Kent and Martin to me. He still has legs (with 25 SB and a 75% rate) and is a good fielder.

We could do a lot worse. If Ned has to "do something" I would prefer him to, say, Jones or Hunter and he would probably cost a LOT less.

I give Ned credit for signing for more money and fewer years. He just isn't too good lately at picking the right guys.

Abreu is made of a substance that repels outfield walls.

But there could then be two Abreus on the team and we'd be confused.

Dear Mr. Colletti:

Really, I advocate doing nothing, but if you can't handle that we understand. So:

Go first for A-Rod, and when (not if!) he is not available, get Bobby Abreu for a one-year deal with an option on a second year.

If you get Mike Lowell or do the other thing that caused me to violate Rule 8, well then... I will boo you from my home in beautiful Hawthorne.

Sincerely yours,

Humma Kavula

I think they exercise it for one more year.

If I were the Yankees, I would definitely pick up that option. With $2 million sunk no matter what, it's really Abreu for $14 million, which is the right price to see if he comes back.

btw, Wang has completely melted down. He lasted 1+ inning.... Mussina in with the bases loaded and no out.

I bet Joe could not "work" another day in his life and be just fine.

Paul Scott is ahead after the 1st round with 22 points. He will need the Rockies to win the World Series and that could be a tough road to hoe, once they start playing AL teams.

past tense?

Kent will surely ask about the direction of the team and his playing time before he decides on accepting his option, if he comes back, those issues will already be dealt with.

Maybe Kemp is the 2nd coming of Glenn Burke, I mean when you break out the word flamboyant what are you really saying?

That said, he could request a trade.

1). If there is anything to the criticism from veterans like Jeff Kent that the younger players just don't get it, what's the solution? Why are teams like Arizona and Colorado able to win during youth movements?

2). Who are some Dodgers prospects to watch for next season?

3). Which Dodgers are free agents this offseason?

4). Can you envision Kent agreeing to be traded to another contender, in light of recent turmoil?

5). What's going on with the Dodgers' medical department, in light of the firing of long-time trainer Stan Johnston?

6). Are the Dodgers getting their fair share of the young talent coming out of universities and colleges in California, particularly Southern California?

7). Are any Dodgers involved in the World Cup?

http://tinyurl.com/26cm7g

Oh, oh. So that's why Kent doesn't like him. :-)

From a reliable source:
UCLA quarterback Ben Olson has a partial tear of the lateral collateral ligament in his left knee. As a precaution, Olson will have an arthroscopy on his left knee on Tuesday to check for a possible tear of the lateral meniscus (cartilage). An estimate on his return will not be known until after the procedure.

For reference: McBuck = Joe Buck/Tim McCarver

Unfortunately, the mystique did not mean that those great players came back and played for this Yankee team.

I saw him run at Santa Anita and Hollywood Park and even though I could only win 5 cents to the dollar, you had to bet on him to win those big races.

Sleep well John Henry, you were great one in your day.

My statement, of course, was about the greatness during the playoffs, which lately has been overrated.

I was hoping they'd still win (the Yankees) so Torre could keep his job :(

Don't group me with herm. He was an embarrassment.

198 - AMEN! I would seriously consider flying out to LA just to see a Dodger outfield of Dunn, Pierre, and Abreu, just purely for the comedic value.

215 - "He will need the Rockies to win the World Series and that could be a tough road to hoe, once they start playing AL teams."

Does anyone else think we have major problems if the Rockies play more than one AL team this month? ;)

Cal Ripken was easier to move away from shortstop.

And I don't think fans today really like doubleheaders. Most of us here would find it great, but we're not most fans.

"We beat Boston, bring on Cleveland, Anaheim, and then New York. After that, we'll take Detroit, Minnesota, Oakland... whoever!"

As a nice life lesson: Two Buck Chuck: good for cooking, not so much for drinking.

I think I'm going to be dead within the next six months.

263 Boston will be favored but not in a walkover. I think most will favor the Rockies, though Arizona plays well at home and the Rockies, winning streak aside, do not play well on the road. But if they continue to hit and their bullpen does the job, a Sam Adams vs. Coors Light series could come to fruition.

I am so glad to be wrong; I would be glad to look like an A-hole. I am delighted the way it went. Ya hooooo!

I've never gotten how anyone could be a Yankee fan, given all the money they spend, it's like rooting for a bully to win a fight. But the fans over at Bronx Banter might as well be rooting for a struggling high school football team to win their last game of the year. They really identify with the Yankees and they wear their hearts on their sleeves.

We Dodger fans are a lot more guarded. I think we care just as much, but don't want to show it. We also expect to be disappointed, so we're a little cooler when it turns out like we expect.

But if Jones were in CF, and Pierre (whom we're most likely stuck with) were moved to left, and then presumably Ethier were traded (or made 4th outfielder?), would that be a better outfield than we had this year? I'd argue yes defensively (obviously) and probably slightly better offensively, but probably also not worth the expen$e.

But my expectations for next year will still be high, despite the division's improvement.