Left field is for closers!

Wait, the bullpen is for closers. I'm so confused.

Pierre is only moving to left field as a favor for Mitch and Murray.

Entrusting Pierre with left field is like entrusting Shelley Levene with the Glengarry leads

You can't expect him to sell to the deadbeats...

Unless there is a trade in the works, he's in our starting line-up. I've learned to accept it. I haven't worn my Slappy McPop-up shirt in months.

He also had a much better second half, seemed to put the ball on the ground more often, worked some counts, even had a few key RBIs. Took better routes to balls.

His arm won't ever improve. I wish we'd have signed Lofton for a year if we really wanted a guy like that. However, that is all in the past. He's ours to love for four more years. Or at least to pay 36 million more.

Scott Podsednik went homerless in the 2005 regular season, playing 124 games in left field and 7 more in center, accumulating 507 combined at-bats. I guess if not for whatever injury kept him out for a few weeks that season, he would have qualified as the most recent homerless left fielder with 140+ games played.

Of course, Pods did hit two home runs in the 2005 postseason, including a World Series walkoff off Brad Lidge.

Juan Pierre constructive criticism. I prefer this to college football talk.

By any chance, does anybody hear know a thing or two about road bicycles?

There's an article on CNN that begins thusly:

An unprecedented national survey of pilots by the U.S. government has found that safety problems like near collisions and runway interference occur far more frequently than previously recognized. But the government is withholding the information, fearful it would upset air travelers and hurt airline profits.

When the plane I was on this past Thursday was about to land in Milwaukee (we were maybe 5 seconds from touching ground), the pilot pulled up and did a loop over Lake Michigan before going in to land. The pilot explained to us that "another plane pulled out in front of us on the runway" as we were about to land.

Something tells me that's not supposed to happen...

PS. this is kind of unrelated, but I wanted to share. I've commented maybe a half-dozen times across all of Baseball Toaster, but I've been reading most of the blogs (as well as, frequently, the comment sections on DT and Bronx Banter) on here regularly for about two years. I'm a Mets fan, but it's dawning on me that my Baseball Toaster fandom is plying my rooting sensibilities somewhat. I'm more of a Dodgers, Yankees and Athletics fan than I was before. (I'll never care for the Cubs or Phillies, Scott Long actually makes me less of a White Sox fan, and I've been a bit of a Rockies follower ever since my buddy was drafted by them in the 30-something-th round a few years ago.)

Just thought it was kind of funny. Most of you read Dodger Thoughts because you like the Dodgers. I like the Dodgers because I read Dodger Thoughts.

8 - I'll have to start going door-to-door.

4 - Note that Pierre's better second half only got him to a 75 OPS+. It's not as if we can expect him to play at his second-half level for an entire season.

Maybe Pierre and Young could sort of platoon at least?

Sigh.

8 - welcome!

Oh, and for armchair NBA general managers out there, try this odd but intriguing little concoction on ESPN:
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/trademachine

I tried trading Kobe to the Suns for Barbosa and Stoudemire and it didn't take.

At least Levene had his glory days where he was known as "The Machine".

if pierre is caught stealing scouting reports from little's office, would his contract be voided?

12 He got caught stealing 15 times already, so I guess not.

Putting Pierre in left doesn't hurt us offensively if all we do is shift Kemp over to center. The only difference between Ethier/Pierre/Kemp and Pierre/Kemp/Ethier is defense, and if the latter makes us better defensively, putting Juan Pierre in left helps the Dodgers.

Again, this is only if we aren't going to get any outside help. If we say we can't get Adam Dunn or something because we have Pierre, then there's some problems.

10
I traded Kobe to the Hawks for Joe Johnson, Al Horford and draft picks.

15

That's a bad trade for the Lakers :)

I understand Juan Pierre is not a left fielder. He's also someone I wouldn't have signed to play center field on my team either. But, let's say I'm the Dodgers manager and you were to tell me that in 2008 my three outfielders will be Juan Pierre, Matt Kemp and Andre Ethier and those are the only three guys I'm allowed to start. Then my preference would be:
1). LF=Pierre, CF=Kemp, RF=Ethier
2). LF=Pierre, CF=Ethier, RF=Kemp
3). LF=Ethier, CF=Pierre, RF=Kemp
If someone can remove Juan Pierre from the Dodgers roster I'd be very happy. But I don't see it happening before the start of next season.

16 So the Trade Machine must work accurately, because that's likely the only way any actual trade would pan out for them.

This is what RotoWorld projects as our 2008 line-up: I hate it...and my comp isnt working well so I didnt have time to go to tiny url so here's the link.

http://rotoworld.com/content/features/column.aspx?sport=MLB&columnid=2&articleid=29153

Los Angeles

SS Rafael Furcal
LF Carl Crawford
C Russell Martin
2B Jeff Kent
1B James Loney
RF Matt Kemp
3B Nomar Garciaparra
CF Juan Pierre

Brad Penny
Derek Lowe
Jason Schmidt
Nate Robertson
Daniel Cabrera

Takashi Saito
Jonathan Broxton
Al Reyes

The Dodgers needed a star hitter last winter, but instead of getting one true difference maker, they instead acquired three veteran bats and blocked younger players. Fortunately, James Loney and Matt Kemp broke through anyway. As is, the Dodgers could fill their lineup with those two, Andre Ethier in left, Andy LaRoche to share time with Nomar Garciaparra at third and either Tony Abreu or Chin-Lung Hu at second if Jeff Kent exits. Still, they really need another star and they have plenty of artillery to get one.

Barry Bonds is out and the Dodgers aren't going to get a top center fielder and bench Pierre. Acquiring Miguel Tejada to play third base would make some sense if he's willing to switch positions, but it's still hardly the best option. Miguel Cabrera for third base and then eventually left field would be ideal, and the Marlins would have to be interested if the Dodgers offered up Chad Billingsley or Clayton Kershaw and a couple of young bats for him. Still, he might not be available. How about a deal for Carl Crawford? The Rays would have to strongly consider it if offered Billingsley, Jonathan Meloan and Abreu for Crawford and Al Reyes. That's the scenario I have here, though it's a highly unlikely one. With Crawford's arrival, Andre Ethier is expendable. He goes to Baltimore for Daniel Cabrera's high-upside arm.

Odds are that Billinglsey will stay and be the third starter. If Jason Schmidt can pull off a successful comeback, the Dodgers should have one of the NL's top rotations next year. Still, they'll likely want to dump Esteban Loaiza and try another fifth starter. The Tigers might give up Nate Robertson for him if the money was evened out. The one-two bullpen punch is set. The Dodgers will want to bring in some middle-relief help, but they should also have youngsters to break in as the year goes on. Meloan, for one, should contribute, though his command was a major problem during his September audition.

Even if the Dodgers can't land a big bat, they should be involved in another four-team battle for first place in the NL West. Kershaw could be ready as soon as June or July and make a major impact when it happens. LaRoche will prove to be a better player than Garciaparra if he can avoid further back troubles. Since that's hardly a given, it's a good thing the Dodgers have both. Kent has talked about departing, but that's sort of based on the premise that a younger Dodgers team won't contend, which is simply foolish. I don't have much faith in GM Ned Colletti getting them over the top, but this is a talented team that should be playing meaningful games in September for at least the next few years.

If Pierre were ever considered a platoon option, he would have sat at some point in September when we were out of it.

Maybe Ned and Grittle wanted to justify his signing and were trying hard to get him to 200 hits. I'm sure they are patting themselves on the backs for the .290 average. Basically, they got what they expected from him, actually more stolen bases than they expected.

BTW, did he lead the league in outs? If he didn't, he had to have been pretty close.

Boston showed us this year that they can carry a Julio Lugo or Coco Crisp bat if the rest of team performs. What we need from Pierre is to be in the post season for him to do something special to win a game or two. Then all will be forgiven. JD Drew is a hero in Boston this week!

14 - I realize that moving the players around doesn't change the Dodgers' offensive production - it's just rearranging deck chairs - but my point is that once you give up on Pierre in center, you should give up on Pierre, period, because it should be easier for you to do better at the position you move him to.

7 Ten years ago, I was on a Delta flight to LAX from Tampa. Right before we touched down, we suddenly shot back into the sky hard and fast. Threw me back into the seat. We circled for 20 minutes or so and landed.

We never got an explanation. It was freaky. What is strange is that at times this kind of thing hits the local news like a big story, but I agree, I think most of them go unreported.

20 Nope, he got beat out by Rollins and Reyes.

19 Other than Ethier for Cabrera that would be pretty much a disaster.

22
At the time, I didn't really think much of it. But looking back, there's a good chance we avoided disaster by a few seconds or so. I think we probably could have easily collided with the other plane.

It just certifies that Ned made a big mistake signing Pierre in the first place. It also says he didn't trust non of the youth to hold the position until somebody became available via free agency or from with in the organization, I feel like Ethier could have done a serviceable job there until Kemp was ready & I think there was talk about it last winter, oh well. I'm neutral on Ned Colletti but if he makes bad moves this winter my feelings toward him will probably tilt toward not liking him as our G.M. sometimes the best moves or NON moves/hold pat & trust our youth.

22 I think I remember a report a few years ago that there were quite a few near misses at LAX, most because of other planes on a runway. I imagine that is what my flight was dealing with, but I might never know. I was shaken, but got off with no issue. I am generally an easy passenger to please, turbolence is fun at times, it's like a roller coaster. I kind of like the little dips the most.

8 Elliot, I understand what you mean. I'm a regular on Bronx Banter, and I'm a Yankee fan for life. But I've never hated the Dodgers like some Yankee fans, and I like the team more after reading this blog and its comments.

And with Bad Altitude and the Rockies' incredible run, how could anyone NOT be a Colorado fan?

I think the Giants regret the Dave Roberts signing. However, they are paying him 12 million more and he has only two more seasons.

I wouldn't have hated the Pierre move so much if it was only a three year deal. If he loses a starting job, he wouldn't be very valuable on the bench unless you needed a bunt or a stolen base late in a game.

if Pierre becomes a LFer and isn't deemed dept enough to play CF then he has pretty much lost any value that he may have had. He was already at the low end of the spectrum offensively, now he is also there defensively?
vr, Xei

I know this won't be popular but I wonder if Kemp in CF is the answer. He has the speed, the arm, but the finesse . . . He runs some wacky routes. Don't think this means I want Pierre there, or in the lineup, period.

21 True, but baseball just doesn't work that way. Juan Pierre is owed 36.5 million dollars, he's going to play. If Juan Pierre has to play, they should put him where we can extract the most value for him.

Note that I don't actually think that Pierre would be better served in left with our current lineup. If we got Andruw Jones or Mike Cameron, then I'd begin to consider it.

30 Let Kemp pitch if it keeps him in the line-up everyday.

I think they'd only move Pierre if we pick up Andrew Jones or Tori Hunter as a free agent. We aren't giving out five year contracts to those guys I don't think, but who really knows. Maybe we sign Rowand?

22 - Same thing happened to me at John Wayne! The disgruntled exec who got bumped from first class and was seated next to me was about to pee his pants.

25 I am neutral on Colletti as well. If anything, he his one real bad move was signing Pierre for 5 years. I can understand the Schmidt signing because good starting pitching is at a premium and if Schmidt was healthy, the Dodgers may have made the playoffs. He had a shot at Schmidt and took it. It won't be the last time that a pitcher blows out his arm. Pitchers are so delicate these days, it really is about lucking into a good arm that stays healthy.
Colletti has done alright by trying to at least bolster the rotation with guys like Maddux and Loaiza (who I don't think is as bad of a pitcher as everyone thinks). I will not like him the second he trades Kemp, Ehtier or Delwyn Young.(Young is going to become a real big threat I think next year.) He is playing fall ball this year like Kemp did last year and that helped Kemp with hitting the curve a ton. So that guy just needs a chance.

29 I think this comes from too much focus on his arm. It's terrible, but it's not like it cost us multiple wins. I still think he's above average defensively if only because of his speed (terrible arm excluded), so he should stay in center if he's going to play.

Plus I really don't like Kemp in center.

21 PLEASE don't even mention Mike Cameron coming to us. He is the anti-Pierre. Great glove, good arm, power, and LOTS OF K's!!!!

If the Mazzone magic didnt work on Cabrera I dont know what will. Maybe some Criss Angel magic might get him on track.

34 A very well written and intelligent post. Well said.

37 - teach him a cutter?

Patel?!!!!!

36 I see three things I like and one things that doesn't matter.

Don't see how that hurts the Dodgers.

34 You're missing the whole Tampa Bay series from Ned's history.

In response to all this neutrality on Ned:

http://www.gotfuturama.com/Multimedia/EpisodeSounds/2ACV02/03.mp3
http://www.gotfuturama.com/Multimedia/EpisodeSounds/2ACV02/04.mp3
http://www.gotfuturama.com/Multimedia/EpisodeSounds/2ACV02/06.mp3
http://www.gotfuturama.com/Multimedia/EpisodeSounds/2ACV02/07.mp3
http://www.gotfuturama.com/Multimedia/EpisodeSounds/2ACV02/26.mp3

38 thanks! I am big on Young from watching him hit and Vin Scully has a pretty good eye for young big league players. He talked him up a lot this year.

the scary thing about the Pierre signing is that some scouts advised Ned to get Pierre & Ned Colletti was dumb enough to listen to them, man, if I were gonna sign a guy like Pierre for 5 YEARS & some hefty money I would take a step back & evaluate the good & the bad that Pierre would bring to the table, for me his arm alone would have scared me off completely.

43 Keep in mind that Vin loves Pedro Feliz.

Isn't the anti-Pierre exactly what we want?

41 Those Tampa Bay moves aren't going to hurt the Dodgers in the long run in my opinion. They weren't great moves by any means, but I don't think general managers are going to be right every single time. Look at Theo Epstein and his plethora of bad moves, but the Sox are still in the World Series.

43- Dont know if that is the be all end all in player scouting. Whats not to like about Young though? Besides trying to hit every high fastball he sees out of DS.

Epstein looks like a genius now for not re upping damon and giving into boras..er wait scratch that he just paid that much for JD. nevermind carry on...

45 I am not saying that Young will be good because Vin Scully is Vin Scully, but more because Vin has been watching baseball clubs for over half a century. Most of the time when he says "this guy can really hit," all the time it turns out alright.

47 Even if they don't pan out the mind set behind the trades (promising talent for assorted utility guys) was terrible. Theo Epstein would have never made a trade like that. Even if we didn't give up anything, we sure didn't get anything.

43 He struck out all the time in AAA and doesn't walk. Tearing up Vegas at age 25 isn't all that impressive.

43 48 I can't comment on Young, I know his family and I want him to do well so badly, I can't see the situation clearly.

Our best hope for him to play in 08 is as a bench player, a pinch hitter with power. A versatile switch hitter who can cover second base if necessary. I just don't see Ned or Grady handing that role to a rookie especially when Abreu is likely to be the guy to replace Ramon Martinez. I think Delwyn is trade bait. I wish it weren't the case, but I feel that is where we are headed. Gotta run. Be well Dodger friends.

I wouldn't be surprised if Ned gives up on Greg Miller and makes him trade bait.

53 I'd be surprised if we could get anything for Greg Miller. I think he's out of options after this year and unless something miraculous happens he's nowhere near big league ready.

51 Theo gave up a young Bronson Arroyo for the likes of Wily Mo Pena and Coco Crisp. Those guys seem pretty utility to me.

I think everyone here is dreaming. Coletti likes Pierre. Pierre performed exactly as he has in the past, which is what prompted Coletti's contract offer. To think Pierre is going anywhere, or not going to play 162 games, I think you are kidding yourself.

further, the mere fact that they couldn't even sit pierre after we were eliminated to let a kid play, says alot

55 No, they really aren't. The year before they went to Boston:

Crisp: .300/.345/.465
Pena: .254/.304/.492

A bit more impressive than Baez or Hendrickson.

57 But, Pierre has his all-important streak to keep up.

I hate to bring this up again, but nearly all of Gurnick's "mailbag" articles (for as long as I can remember) are super annoying. As a big LaRoche fan, it sickens me when this Gurnick character dismisses Andy's future with the Dodgers just because his ML debut wasn't on the level of others.

If he was the Rockies' beat writer, he probably would've wanted Tulowitzki gone after his .240/.318/.292 debut in 2006.

59 regardless, he gave coletti what coletti was buying, I don't think there is buyer's remorse

60 somewhere, there is a happy medium between LaRoche's extreme patience and Kemp's being so anxious...I hope so...

if not, they two of them are my candidates as trade bait

are you guys as surprised as I am that PAUL BYRD used HGH!?!? the guy throws 85,86 MPH. I'm thinking with out HGH he'd probably throw 82,84 wow, or maybe I'm just not know-eth with that stuff, why would he use it if he isn't throwing that much harder. I'm guessing it helped his healing in between starts, that's all I can come up with.

10 I discovered that a while back, lot of fun playing GM. I worked out a three team deal between the Lakers, Suns, and Jazz that had the Lakers landing AK-47 and Shawn Marion while giving up Lamar Odom, Kwame Brown, and Brian Cook. It was a very good deal, at least as a Lakers fan.

63 given his performance, I am inclined to believe that he did, in fact, take it for medicinal purposes and not performance enhancement

Dustin Pedroia first 166 PA:

.184/.273/.272

Does he keep getting chances if he were a Dodger?

I don't hate Juan Pierre as a person, I'm sure he has many lovely qualities. But I hate him as a player on the Dodgers. The day they signed him I lost faith in Coletti. I could have lived with a 1 year contract...

so tempted to start a blog...

www.BenchJuanPierre.com

66 no

67 I think that territory's already covered in the blogosphere...

The discussion between 47 and 51 reminds me of the part in Casablanca where Louis admonishes Rick for throwing women away when they might be rationed one day.

Reading the reports of the Dodgers returning to KABC and how nostalgically some are taking that makes me think of how the way things were when you first started paying attention seem like the natural order. To my mind the state of nature is that the Dodgers are on KFI and their soft drink sponsor is Pepsi, though I don't think this set-up actually lasted very long.

It's a philosophical problem with Colletti (and I think Little). It's sort of an old school approach (and one that I find annoying, no devil's advocate from me on this one) that puts a premium on veterans because "they've been there before" and "they know how to get things done" and all the other little cliches. With respect to young players, the only way they get a chance (as most of us would define it) is if an established vet gets hurt or he just blows the door down. The great legend in this area is Lou Gerhig and Wally Pip.

It's sort of like Bob's recent football commentary about traditional powers, only with players.

70 yup, 50000 watt, clear channel station KFI

71 but that won't happen with coletti or little...kemp blew the house down a couple of times and the best he could get was platooning...

he does that once somewhere else, and he starts forever...

loney blew the league away and started the season in AAA for a couple of months!

Yes, but the point is Ned bought him- AND HE WILL PLAY SOMEWHERE!!! Putting him in left field accepts the offensive handicap and attempts to minimize the defensive one. A more sensible solution is to trade him, pay whatever amount of salary you have to give, and take the loss like a man.

73 - yeah, unfortunately, I think if Gerhig and Pip were playing for the Dodgers circa 2007, Pip would still be penciled in as the everyday first baseman.

Here is what wikipedia says about HGH (there are 2 takes on it on Wikipedia but I chose the one that Paul Byrd was probably diagnosed with) >>>>Growth Hormone Deficiency is the medical condition of inadequate production of growth hormone (GH) and its effects on children and adults. Growth hormone, also called somatotropin, is a polypeptide hormone which stimulates growth and cell reproduction. See separate articles on GH physiology and GH treatment.

Deficiency of GH produces significantly different problems at various ages. In newborn infants the primary manifestations may be hypoglycemia or micropenis. In later infancy and childhood, growth failure may be major effect.

Adults with growth hormone deficiency may have diminished lean body mass and poor bone density and a number of physical and psychological symptoms, including poor memory, social withdrawal, and even depression. Abnormally low growth hormone levels in adults typically result in diminished quality of life and can even be disabling. Physical symptoms include loss of strength, stamina, and musculature. Adults suffering from these symptoms should seek laboratory testing by an endocrinologist. Other hormonal or glandular disorders frequently coincide with diminished growth hormone production.

GH deficiency can be congenital or acquired in childhood or adult life. It can be partial or complete. It is usually permanent, but sometimes transient. It may be an isolated deficiency or occur in association with deficiencies of other pituitary hormones.

GH deficiency is treated by growth hormone replacement.

36. 21 PLEASE don't even mention Mike Cameron coming to us. He is the anti-Pierre. Great glove, good arm, power, and LOTS OF K's!!!!

I don't have an opinion on Mike but if he's really the anti-Pierre then I'll take him. :-)

Yeah that ESPN Trade thing is fun. Check out the 4-teamer I just pulled off to help LeBron win a championship (sorry Im not a Lakers fan) LOL it's so lopsided and the salaries even out.

Lakers Get: Zydrunas Ilguaskus, Larry Hughes, Nate Robinson
Kings Get: Drew Gooden, Eric Snow, Ira Newble, Damon Jones, & Cash
Knicks Get: Daniel Gibson, Francisco Garcia
Cavs Get: Kobe Bryant, Mike Bibby, Shareef Abdur Rahim, Andrew Bynum, Ronny Turiaf, AND David Lee

here's what ned said about pierre during the live chat:

gelomac: Mr. Colletti, how do you feel about signing Juan Pierre? Do you think it is a mistake or do you think you did the right thing?

COLLETTI: One of the things you have to take into account is the makeup of the club at the time the deal was signed. We see Juan Pierre as a very good complimentary player. When we signed him, we didn't expect him to carry the club. Our expectations were for him to be on base over 200 times and steal 50-plus bases. It's also only four months into his first season in a new city, and I think we have to wait a little longer before we make judgments on what he can or can't do.

I don't really want to get into the merits of whether this is a valid topic or not. It's the first time I've written about the possibility of Juan Pierre moving to left field. I think it reinforces the depths of the Pierre problem. Whether or not Ned Colletti would agree with me is besides the point for Dodger Thoughts.

That doesn't mean I should make this point over and over again every day, and so I won't. The rule on Dodger Thoughts prohibits tilting at the same windmill over and over again. It doesn't ban tilting at a new windmill.

This came up earlier this year with Pierre's place in the batting order. People said that Pierre should bat eighth (or ninth) because, given that we know he's going to start every day, that's where he'll do the least damage. I wasn't satisfied with that – because I felt it gave Colletti the easy way out. Pierre batting eighth is still a problem. I can acknowledge the reality that Pierre will probably continue to start, and still call for Pierre to be benched, because frankly, it's the right thing to do.

The fact that Pierre might move to left field is, frankly, an indication that nothing is etched in stone. A year ago, we were told that Nomar Garciaparra could not play third base. A year ago, we were told that Matt Kemp could not play center field. A year ago, Colletti signed Pierre to play in center field. As far as I'm concerned, even entertaining the idea of moving Pierre indicates that things can change, however slowly. (Whether that change is for the better or worse is debatable.)

I have no illusion that Colletti pays any attention to Dodger Thoughts. I don't need to be told how unlikely it is that Pierre won't start. But if we only advocate change in the places where we know change can occur, that's the easy way out. The things we write might not make a difference, but the only way to guarantee that they won't make a difference is to assume they won't.

If something is wrong, say that it's wrong. Eventually, if you build a track record of getting some things right, maybe someday people will start paying attention to you. If you've got better things to do, that's great, but let's not be silent just because the odds are against us. We're here to fight the good fight, people.

No offense guys, because I have the same qualms about Juan Pierre in the outfield as many of you, but do we have to spend the next four months obsessing about him repeatedly? I guess I just don't feel he's as important as some of you. Yes, we'd be better with someone better in CF (to put it simplistically) but the Dodgers missed the playoffs more because of all the injuries to their pitching staff and the subsequent inconsistency thereof (imho) more than Slappy McPopup.

But also, what Jon said.

79

He has an OPS+ of 84, 84! (lifetime!!) & his best OPS+ year was 107 (100 is considered average, mind you) I would be o.k. with Pierre manning CF if he had an awesome glove but he doesn't even have that. I'm sure he's a great guy & from everything I've heard he has a heck of a work ethic but for my taste I would have passed on him easily.

78 Nice work. Hah. It actually let you do that one?

Joe Posnanski writes about Lofton being held up last night. He's adding Joel Skinner to the list of Cleveland goats through the years.

That was the only play I saw in the game. I thought to myself, how could Skinner put up the stop sign? He's the anti-Donnelly if you will.

Someone needs to teach Pierre to throw right handed. His market value would increase if he played 2nd base.

80 I read that and put my hands up in the air, Man-Ram post-homerun celebration-style. I don't think anybody in the office noticed.

62. 60 somewhere, there is a happy medium between LaRoche's extreme patience and Kemp's being so anxious.

This is the first area I'll be looking for improvement with Kemp next season. I'm sure the stats guys have the exact figures but as best I can remember Kemp came to the plate with the bases loaded over a dozen times this season and I don't recall him getting a single hit. Maybe he got one early on and I simply forgot. But all I remember him getting is one bases loaded walk. I kept waiting for Matt to make somebody pay for loading the bases and it never happened. At least he showed improvement during the second half by not striking out on the breaking ball away. But that just usually resulted in a routine fly to right center. And to add to my frustration he would usually take a fastball over the plate early in the count (that I thought should have been hit out :-) ). I just felt part of the problem was him walking up there with visions of grand slams dancing in his head. Since he hit higher than .333 I would expect at least four hits in those opportunities. So, the first few times he comes up with the bases loaded in 2008 I'll be watching. If he makes someone pay then I'll know he has arrived. :-)

OT, hope everyone is safe and sound from the fire and wind, or at worst only has a smokey sky and some ashes in the yard. The smoke and ash is bad where I live. Yesterday the sky was black during the day. The air quality reminds me alot of Beijing.
vr, Xei

88 - http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?playerId=28476

Matt Kemp did indeed go 0 for 9 with the bases loaded (with one walk) in 2007.

However, with runners in scoring position, he had an .853 OPS. With runners on, .956.

The whole fire scenario is night and day depending on where you live. I was in Oxnard with my family on Sunday and it looked like the apocalypse was coming. Smoke was everywhere, ashes were floating down and the wind was about 30+ mph. I drove home to Culver City later in the day and there was nothing. No sign of any fire activity whatsoever. It was just unusually hot out.

I ran this idea up the flagpole a few weeks back, but nobody saluted (or sold short on effigy futures), so I'll try again.

I endorse Jon's position on Pierre completely. But I think it's even worse than he suggests. I suspect that Pierre would be WORSE defensively in LF than he is in CF. Sure, the throws to 3B and HP would be shorter, but not enough to matter. We saw guys take 2nd on bloops last year when Pierre was about 30 feet behind the bag. His arm would not be less of a problem in LF.

But I think moving JP to a corner spot reduces the value of his single above average attribute: his speed. He gets horrible jumps most of the time, and takes looping, inefficient routes to the ball, but he is able to outrun his mistakes often enough to be average overall. But that requires the ball to be in the air a long time. In LF, bad jumps mean more balls off the wall or in the corner before he can catch up.

Anybody? Anybody?

78. Yes it did now if only it were true. Sigh.

I was shocked that the wind never blew in my area all weekend. It ALWAYS blows like hell when the Santa Anas come. I've replaced all my backyard fences through the years because they blew down during Santa Anas.

I was really expecting the hills of Altadena to burn up, but so far so good.

a little more on my 83

I don't trust defensive metrics (I rather go with my own eye) but I think even defensive metrics say he's an average CF'er with a very weak throwing arm. on another note it was pretty hot this weekend & I saw nothing of the fires, aside from turning on the tube early saturday morning, I'm sure it's pretty bad cause even now there showing it locally on the news.

92 - Yeah, I kinda agree with that.

6

This may be a bit late, but I know a thing or two about road bicycles. I would list off all my qualifications for discussing such bicycles, but in the interest of brevity I shall only say one thing: I shave my legs.

97
Say one more thing: are you male, female, or some combination of the two?

81 do we have to spend the next four months obsessing about him repeatedly

You mean four years.

And the answer is yes.

98

a friend of mine shaves his legs & he's male, I don't think theres anything wrong with it if your avid at it (running,cycling or swimming)

I haven't been following this whole Ellen Degeneres dog adoption thing, but I just realized I adopted my second dog from the same woman.

Seriously, the talk about moving Juan Pierre to left does, on the one hand, show how things change, and Jon's right to point that out. But on the other hand, it also shows that the team has a fundamental misunderstanding of the team's primary long-term flaw, why it is a flaw, and what should be done about it.

Sometimes when those of us who have a negative opinion of Colletti's tenure discuss his positive attributes, we talk about his ability to learn from his mistakes and from his successes. He traded for Baez and Carter, and it didn't work, and even though those were big acquisitions, he gave up on them relatively quickly. He followed that up by inviting a lot of NRIs to spring training, and came out with a very successful bullpen.

The idea of moving Pierre to left seems to indicate that he thinks that the problem Pierre exposed was "Gee, we didn't pay enough attention to defense," and he's going about learning from that mistake. The thing is that while that was a mistake enough, it's not the real problem with Pierre.

98

Male.

If you are going to talk about Juan Pierre and whether or not he should be playing, you have to take the contract off the table.

What I mean is that, if Juan Pierre was making half that for only two more years, would you want him playing left field. If he was getting the minimum, would you want him on the team at all.

I figure that most would not want Juan Pierre at any price so it shouldn't matter how overpaid you think he is or isn't.

His contract gets in the way of the discussion because the terms would appear to bar any chance that something can be done about his tenure in L.A.

So, to me, if they are seriously considering moving him to LF, that is just a shorter distance for him to be on the bench and perhaps somewhere else.

If you are confused by this post, I don't blame you and if you understand, let me know so I can be assured that I make sense now and then.

I think my posts are the crossword puzzles BhSportguy yours make total sense. :o)

I think he just flat out stinks PERIOD but that's just me & apparenlty all DT'ers. Do you like his play BHS??

104 Makes perfect sense. Personally I don't want him on the field at any price for any amount of time.

Therefore since the money is sunk anyway, I'd honestly prefer to pay Juan Pierre $36 million to play for someone else, preferably a divisional rival. I think that's a better use of our money, and probably contributes more to the betterment of the Dodgers. Pierre to an NL West rival, Young in the outfield is a double win.

Yes, I know it's not going to happen...

102 - One thing about Ned that has impressed me is his willingness to admit mistakes and make changes. He probably doesn't get enough credit for that. See Danys Baez, Tomko, Jae Sao, and I think I'm forgetting some other acquisitions that he rather quickly dispensed with.

You can argue that he never should have acquired those players in the first place or that he waited too long to dump them and you would probably be right. But these quick reversals undermine the argument that his first priority is to always justify his own signings. I think we may actually see a Pierre trade before next season.

106 Can Juan Pierre ever reach Kevin Appier and Russ Ortiz status with the Dodgers?

104. I understand you, but I sort of disagree. To say that you don't want player X at any price is not to say that the money doesn't make it worse (and not just in an "adding insult to injury" sort of way).

In addition to the "mistake" of having a poor player suck up plate appearances and play at best average defense with a horrible arm, if you pay the guy $9M per season that you continue that mistake, that's $9M you can't spend on someone else as well.

More to the point, however, the size of the contract shows just how badly the GM overvalues the player, and makes one worry about similar mistakes in the future.

Finally, as many have mentioned, it's possible that there's an interaction effect: that the contract keeps him in the lineup. It's possible that if he were a league-minimum guy, he'd be the Ramon Martinez of the outfield pinch hitting/running and spot starts.

So there are three prongs to the prosecution case, which are separable and additive:

1. waste of PAs regardless of cost
2. waste of money regardless of playing time
3. indication of what the GM thinks is important, which bodes ill for the future.

108 Sounds like a question for Bob.

And re 107 Ned sounded more than reasonable in the Times this morning. Maybe you're right and there is hope for JP to be shifted?

109 But the money is gone unless someone takes him off your hands or trades you someone else with even a worse contract for him. That ship sailed when he signed his contract. We cannot spend Pierre's 36 million on someone else because it is already spoken for.

So now, the only question is do you want to have him collect while being a Dodger, sitting on a couch somewhere or playing for another team while they only pay him the minimun veteran salary (whatever that is).

109 And again, I think our GM has been pretty clear on why he signed Pierre from day one, if he is beginning to shift to a different place, as Jon said in his post, we can only hope that it leads to less to playing time next year.

102 Ned has never admitted making a mistake. He just acquired better players (?) for the ones he previously acquired.

Jackson > Baez + Carter
D.Sanchez > Seo+Navarro > Hendrickson+Hall
Proctor > Betemit > Baez + Aybar
Brady Clark > Dessens> O.Perez
Maddux > Izturis
Anderson > J. Nunez
Lugo + draft choice > Guzman
Ethier > Bradley

For all the above mistakes and corrections all we have left is Ethier, Proctor and unfortunately Hendrickson.

Ned does not learn from his mistakes he just keeps making the same ones over and over again expecting a different result.

7 i've just started working at an airport and so i'm still learning about aviation, but from what i understand, missed approaches are fairly commonplace. what was the weather like, out of curiosity?

JP is the 2 ton elephant in the room. It does not matter where you play him he still smells like a 2 ton elephant.

90. Matt Kemp did indeed go 0 for 9 with the bases loaded (with one walk) in 2007.

Thanks for the stats, Jon. I noticed Matt batted 1.000 in the cleanup spot (in only two ABs :-) ). Too bad Jim Tracy is not still here. Because that would mean Matt would be batting cleanup in 2008. :-)

111 But the money has to factor into his playing time. I don't agree that it can be discounted. I feel like my desire for Juan Pierre to be on this team is directly tied to his salary, since his salary, in theory, expresses his perceived value to the Dodgers. They value him more than I value him. So he plays more than I wish him to play. Given his acquisition as a free agent- his salary absolutely has to be built into his value.

I wish I could believe that he would be benched or platooned if he had similar production at a minimum salary, but I absolutely don't believe that.

I would like to report that there is a very substantial drop off from Gorky Park to Polar Star.

That is all.

Return to your Wan Pierring and related business.

117 Excuse me, I mis spoke. Change "would" for "wouldn't." If he were a minimum salary player, he would be a pinch runner/ defensive replacement for a good team. His salary (slash perceived value) has everything to do with his playing time, which has everything to do (detrimentally) with my desire for him to be on the team.

35 i'd like to see a study on how many wins his arm cost us. i remember games where it cost us multiple bases, and those bases add up to runs, and the runs add up to wins. even if it's just a win or two, if you add that with his lack of hitting ability... he could be costing us a lot.

63 does HGH let you throw harder, or just recover faster?

80 hear, hear.

121

It doesn't let you throw harder, and from what I've read about it in clinical trials, its effects in helping recovery time are still somewhat dubious.

HGH's effects on the human body have almost nothing in common with the effects of synthetic testosterone. The only reason I can think of for why it's illegal without a prescription is because like all hormones, in high doses it can be dangerous. As for why it's banned in sports... well, I have no idea. There has never, to my knowledge, been any evidence that it actually enhances baseball performance of any kind.

Check this article out. It basically says everything I have, except in more detail:
http://tinyurl.com/2utp39

As an addendum, one has to wonder whether or not athletes take HGH because it is banned by baseball.

Rockies Place Their Faith in God, and One Another

>> DENVER, Oct. 22 — As a Jewish player who attended a Catholic high school and a Lutheran university, Jason Hirsh knows what being a religious minority feels like. So last December, when he was traded to the Colorado Rockies, Hirsh wondered if what he had heard about his new organization was true. <<

## Even if the Rockies are not consciously doing it, reliever Matt Herges, playing for his seventh organization, said the team had the highest concentration of devout Christians he had seen during his nine major league seasons. ##

%% "When you have as many people who believe in God as we do, it creates a humbleness about what we do," Affeldt said. "I don't see arrogance here, I see confidence. %%

http://tinyurl.com/24g6xl

man, I hope those of you in SoCal and near a fire are safe and remain that way. My mom called me to tell me how much ash there is in the air (and on the ground) in Santa Barbara and friends in San Diego are miserable right now. Yuck. I wish you guys shared some of the rainfall we got up here last week. I'm coming down to LA for a day or so next week so I hope they can control at least some of those fires.

---

Off topic, but weird, me and "Loney's Losers" just tied in our fantasy football matchup in the DT league. Never saw a tie before, but, well, better than losing! Thank you Dallas Clark.

125 I would feel uncomfortable in that group, as a Jewish person myself, even if the players are welcoming, which presumably they are. But it depends on how it manifests itself.

125 Is it humbleness if you talk about it all the time? Granted this story is getting legs and they probably get asked about it alot, but Im always wary about this type of talk.

128 I'm reminded of the following sage words whenever anyone talks like that:

"Hitchin' up the buggy, churnin' lots of butter
Raised a barn on Monday, soon I'll raise anoder
Think you're really righteous? Think you're pure in heart?
Well, I know I'm a million times as humble as thou art
I'm the pious guy the little Amlettes wanna be like
On my knees day and night scorin' points for the afterlife
So don't be vain and don't be whiny
Or else, my brother, I might have to get medieval on your heinie."

104 All of Ned's comments on Pierre lead me to this conclusion: Colletti is willing to stake his job on Juan Pierre. He thinks Pierre

a) is contributing just what he expected, and just what the Dodgers need; and

b) will improve.

These two positions are somewhat in contradiction, and b) is irrational based on Pierre's historic production. Ned calls Pierre a "complementary piece," but what kind of "complementary piece" is guaranteed a start every game? Ramon Martinez was a "complementary piece." Pierre is a mainstay, a signature player. When planning future personnel movies, Colletti never considers life without Pierre. Which is disturbing, since he is obviously willing to consider life without Kemp, Loney, LaRoche, Young, Meloan, Kershaw and Hu. He wavers on those players, but is a brick wall on Pierre.

Colletti, who has admitted other mistakes, does not appear ready to admit this one. Barring injury, Pierre will be a starter on the Dodgers until McCourt fires Colletti or until his contract expires. And I would not be surprised to see Colletti fired if next year doesn't turn out a lot better than this year did. When that happens, the Pierre nightmare ends, except for the money being paid him. I don't care who our next GM is, he will unload Pierre for a handful of magic beans.

130 I would be amazed if Ned Colletti is fired after this year, should it go South.

Firing two GM's in four years would be fairly unprecedented, unless a team changes ownership hands. Colletti will be given rope that DePo was never given, if only for his adeptness with the local media.

Personally, I'd love to see Kim Ng get the gig. Because, and this is very sad, if the Dodgers don't give her the job, I don't think anybody else ever will.

114. I get that sunk costs are sunk when it comes to Pierre's contract (minus whatever portion the Dodgers could slough off on someone else in a trade). I was just arguing that the size of the contract is a reason to dislike his presence on the team, over and above his lousy performance.

And I (and Hallux) were arguing, without evidence, that his salary might increase his playing time, so it's the gift that keeps on giving.

But actually, I believe that Ratt has it right. Colletti loves Pierre. He's not being stubborn in defending a mistake - he's blissfully unaware that Pierre's value is so low. He was probably a little worried with the early season ball-tracking adventures, but by the end of the season, JP gave him exactly what he'd hoped.

It would not shock me at all if Colletti, under oath and drunk on sodium pentathol, would swear that if he had to build a new team and could keep only one player on the current roster (OK, other than Russell Martin), he would choose Juan Pierre.

132 I refuse to believe that Colletti is that obtuse. He needed a CF, he went for the scrappy worker, and he saw a really nice guy with speed.

The Player in LF, as far as I can tell, is pure speculation. Because if the Dodgers were seriously contemplating that, it would represent a fundamental misunderstanding of baseball so large that it boggles the mind.

I don't think Ned Colletti is particularly good at his job, nor do I think he has a grasp on the more sophisticated nuances of statistical analysis. But putting this guy in left field would be, quite simply, a complete nightmare. I don't like Colletti, but he can't be that obtuse. He just can't be. It's not possible.

133. I hope you're right. But my indictment of Colletti's acumen was independent of any worries about Pierre in LF. I don't believe that he has learned anything NEW about Juan Pierre (neither have I). He liked what he saw a year ago, and since Pierre had a career-average year, I'm sure he still likes it.

In my imaginary Colletti-under-oath scenario, I have no doubt he'd want Pierre to stay in CF.

That said, I believe Colletti is pretty darn obtuse. And the next time he bucks conventional wisdom and tries something innovative will be the first.

The most frustrating part about this whole thing is that the Pierre signing made absolutely no sense from the beginning. Colletti is beginning to feel like a dogmatic old schooler who doesn't have a firm grasp on the old school ideas. That is incredibly frustrating.

134 This is why I ask Jon to request an interview the Colletti. I'd like a baseline from which to judge the man. Questions such as:

Which do you value more: Batting average or On Base Percentage?

Do you review peripherals, like BABIP and Line Drive Percentage?

Do you differentiate between counting stats (hits, RBI's, etc.) and rate stats (OBP, SLG, WHIP, etc.)?

Nationals Manager Manny Acta believes that smallball has been debunked by years of research, particularly in the first six innings of a game. Do you agree?

How much stock do you put in comparative stats, Like OPS+ (On Base and Slugging against the league average) and VORP (Value Over Replacement Player)?

Does your front office welcome innovation? Do you talk about new methods of analyzing performance? Or do you stick with the traditional measurements?

Jon could simply e-mail these questions, and Ned's answers would say a lot. He doesn't even have to interview the guy face to face.

136 My only question to this, is there any evidence that Logan White or Kim Ng feel any differently about these types of measurements than Ned does?

137 Well, there are a few things.

1. Most of the sabermetric-friendly GMs have been people like Epstein, Byrnes, and Daniels, who got Ivy League degrees and entered baseball with a non-playing and non-sportswriting pedigree. Ng, having gone to Northwestern and followed roughly the same career path as these other people, can at least be seen as likely to be open to statistical analysis.

2. Neither Ng nor White has ever been quoted in the papers mocking statistical analysis, as Colletti has.

3. Both Ng and, to a lesser degree, White, have been exposed to and utilized these methods while working under Depo. Not that that guarantees they believe in them, necessarily, but it does guarantee that they at least understand the stats conceptually, which Colletti, it appears, does not.

130 "Colletti, who has admitted other mistakes, does not appear ready to admit this one."

What other mistakes has he admitted? My impression is that he is extremely UNwilling to admit his mistakes. He implicitly admitted to making a mistake when he got rid of Baez and Carter so soon after trading for them, but even that was not an out-and-out admission. Most of the time, he has stubbornly stuck with a player long after it's clear to the rest of the world that playing the guy is a bad idea. What mistake has Ned ever admitted?

Wow, I just got word of some evacuated friends/family members around San Diego. I realize most everyone hear probabaly knows someone who's been told to move.

Good luck to all affected by the fire.

While it's probably old news to most, I had not known about Clint Hurdle's ill daughter Madison -- good profile of him and her in the Post today. http://tinyurl.com/2ulaxz

NPUT.

Good reads, folks. Me, I don't think there's any evidence that Colletti at this point has moved beyond "Gee, I like Pierre at the plate but his arm is a little weak. Let's put him in left." It's a defensive (for Ned) move, to try to hide JP's greatest weakness as the media (and McCourt?) perceives it. He'll have to fail there too before something significant happens. But I do agree with bhsportsguy that going to left also will be the first step in eventually being Nomarred.

The main thing is that as GM, Ng will still have Kemp, Loney, et al.