Ned must have never had a boring office job then...

Wow. Just wow.

1. Which, thanks to the addictive nature of Dodger Thoughts, I might not have for long, either.

I'll just add this, at some point, and especially in professional sports, there is a time to move on.

Oh, and I think Josh R. or someone else has probably read the letter by now.

Colletti gets really defensive really quickly.

Next he'll be dissing Jenny Agutter.

Bravo for comment 161. in the last thread D4P, bravo. And now it will be acceptable to discuss the DRC.

reprint from last thread...

i'm sure this has been done to death, but does anyone know/remember what the talk around Pierre was when we signed him? It seems to me that other teams must have been in the running and offering relatively similar contracts--how else do you get to 5 years? Were any other teams involved?

My question is, SOMETHING must have justified the contract, other than fear-based spending by Ned (I can't imagine he was getting 2-3 year offers and out of nowhere, we offer 5). At the time, did the rest of the majors feel Pierre had SOME value at least kind of justifying the contract? I can't fathom how a guy could go from meriting 5 years/$40mil to having to beg people to take him, when, after one year, he essentially did what he's done every year...

Was Juan Pierre the ONLY option? He overreacted no matter how he wants to slice it, we needed power and OBP, and he got the exact opposite. Sigh.

4 - I think it's certainly fair to talk about the Pierre signing today.

As for the letter, yes, I'm sure someone has read it. But it was addressed to someone specific :)

The man is consistent, he has not waivered from that story and while the logic may be flawed, I do think to continue to ask him if he made a mistake is just an attempt to antagonize him.

10

If Colletti doesn't read blogs, just send that letter to him via the United States Postal Service.

8 The Giants. Unfortunately we 'won' that bidding war.

Responding to 162 in the last thread, I think Garciaparra will end up in the Saenz role by the end of the season.

13 - Ouch. That's pretty severe. But at the same time, it's probably true.

Other late 20th/early 21st century innovations about which Ned is not familiar:

OPS
VORP
Mach 3 razors

11 - I see. So your comment was more about the reporter than about us?

Im positive Josh gives him weekly updates on the blogosphere. What was all that talk about a few weeks ago about blogging having a bigger role in covering the Dodgers?

11 In my opinion, signing a new centerfielder to a monstrous contract necessarily requires pressing Colletti about this subject in a pretty vigorous manner.

Ned gets so defensive about the Pierre signing, I almost feel sorry for him. But to answer 8 , it was a vintage Colletti Panic Move. I remember myself and a few other posters here guffawing about the rumors that the Giants were about to sign Pierre to a ridiculous 3-year contract, only to have Ned swoop in and make us swallow our own guffaws.

Ned, I hated you for so many years. I think that I did things to myself, to hurt myself so that you'd know - that I could hurt you. You were just being strong for all of us the way Campanis was. And I forgive you. Can't you forgive the bloggers? They're so sweet and helpless without you. You need us, Ned. We want to take care of you now.

I don't know what "check it out on some blog" is supposed to mean. But Ned sure gets flustered and defensive, seemingly very easy.

Without coming out and saying so, Diamond seems to be hinting at a bit of a dramatic conflict between Pierre, his agent and the Dodgers. Now that gives me hope!

I would have signed Lofton for 1 year, that's what.

I don't blame Ned for getting defensive, but I do blame him for his continued mockery of a particular genre of baseball fanaticism (e.g. blogs, stats, etc.).

I'm also really glad we didn't sign Aaron Rowand.

23 I think his comment was towards the part of the question about 'expectations'. Pierre met Colletti's expectations 100% judging by Ned's comments.

12 Exactly! We know Frank and Ned read snailmail.

Send it by carrier pigeon if you have to.

But I'm sure he has people to at least read them for him, and then tell him anything important. Like whatever we say here. Er, eventually.

24 To be fair, blogger support for Lofton was weak throughout the 2006 season. Nobody was calling for Pierre, but few really mourned Lofton until the 2007 season was underway.

I'm talking myself into the idea that Juan Pierre is getting traded.

Coletti signed A-J to play CF. Coletti has to known that Pierre would have even less value in a corner outfield role. I dont think he has any intention of playing Pierre in that position and his comments can be read as some combination of protecting his job / building a market for Juan Pierre.

Colletti is nailed on this one, that's why his arguments make little or no sense. But you have to keep in mind that he needs to do three things:

1. Cover his own tail as much as possible on the bad signing of Pierre.

2. Not insult Pierre because he is still a member of their team. It's not really cool of an employer to bad mouth an employee who is giving it his all.

3. He can't talk down Pierre's value as there still may be a bigger "sucker" than the Dodgers as to wanting to trade for Pierre.

These three things need to be taken into consideration in the context of what Colletti is saying in regards to Pierre today. Not that I am making excuses for him, just my perception.

vr, Xei

NED COLLETTI KNOWS WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. BLOGGERS DON'T KNOW A THING ABOUT BUILDING A CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM.

SINCERELY,

STEPHEN A. SMITH

I hope you are all ready for Freakanomics the movie!

And I hope Colletti gets FJM'd.

21-

I understand it was a panic move; I guess my question is even if you panic and decide to sign Pierre, how do you get SO far from market value for $$ and years?

Hard to believe Colletti ever worked in PR.

18 Partly. I am not sure why everyone thinks he's defensive, unless you were there in the room, how can you tell the tone of his answer. I just think he has stated his reasons, they have not changed and that's the story.

Now, should we discuss it here, sure but it was just one move and it was last year, that's all I am saying.

I suggest that LAT deliver the letter to Ned personally.

31 I think that's correct.

28 - No, singing telegram!

36 - But the fact that it was just one move and last year isn't really relevant if there's a news event that brings it to the fore. I'm the first to put the kibosh on endless Pierre talk, but how can you not talk about Pierre in the context of the Jones signing?

I also think that odds are, a comment beginning "You tell me," is going to be defensive, rightly or wrongly.

37 - LOL

I sometimes wonder, what if the Pittsburgh Pirates had engaged in an experiment last year by firing Jim Tracy one year earlier and allowing bloggers to manage the team, via remote control, of course. Then for sure we could have settled this bloggers vs. real baseball people argument!

31 - Good points.

I think we should get Stephen A. Smith to read the letter to Ned in person.

Regarding Logan's Run: You know you are either very young, or something is wrong in your life, if you haven't seen a movie that I have.

In any case, I was really just trying to have some fun with the headline, that's all. I just thought it was funny that Ned's not reading blogs thing would come out the same day I wrote directly to him. (I get that there are other ways of getting the message across.)

36 40 I have to agree -- there's no way, short of a follow-up by Diamond -- that we know with what tone Ned said that. If it was joking or teasing, the "why so defensive?" argument is a mistake. Heck, Diamond himself has a blog, not to mention several other reporters.

33. Please, tell me you are joking.

47 Plus, I would caution against the "let's analyze somebody's off-the-cuff conversation to death as if it were a formal declaration."

FJM opening up comments for half a day is a microcosm of the Pierre signing.

We knew it would be bad, FJM did it anyway, it was a disaster, and FJM quit on it.

The aftermath was some of the best laughing I did all day.

49 - You're right. Really, I was just trying to have some fun. But bringing Bill Conlin into it ... Ned doesn't deserve that.

30 I think this is right. Ned's challenge right now is to keep Pierre and his agent out of the press, and to get the best value for him in a trade. His comments today on Pierre fit with that strategy better than any other.

A good PR person would advise Ned to say it this way?

Q: By signing Andruw Jones, are you saying your decision to sign Pierre last year was wrong?

A: No.

Q: But Pierre (litany of bad stuff)!

A: Juan Pierre made a significant contribution to the Dodgers last season. I am glad he's on the team.

Q: So what's the plan? Left field? Fourth OF? Trade?

A: I hope Juan Pierre is a part of the Dodger organization for a long time to come. However, as with any other player, I will listen to another GM if he wants to make offers on any of our players because that's my job.

Ned's only PR mistake was getting defensive. But the guy has a migraine! And he just finished spending a day and a half talking to Scott Boras. He gets a pass on this one.

48
Nope. They are getting a bunch of popular documentary directors to make a segment about various chapters in the book.

This Could Bode III? I haven't even seen This Could Bode I and II yet!

31
Bingo - and yet we go through this every time Ned opens his mouth. Honesty is not something I want my GM to have when discussing his players to people outside of the organization. EVER

Gurnick continues his obsessive rant about "holes" and 3rd base. Really, how is the joke even employed?

54 Inevitably followed by This Could Bode, Bode Harder.

53. I just hope that the filmmakers don't confuse statistical analysis with economics like the authors of the book did.

57 - You guys are Bode millers.

"4:03 p.m., from Jayson Stark
• After announcing the Miguel Cabrera trade Wednesday, the Tigers said they weren't sure whether they were going to trade Brandon Inge or keep him and make him a super-utility guy. Well, looks like they've figured that out. Clubs that spoke to the Tigers on Thursday report that they are telling clubs looking for a third baseman that he is available. The buzz is that at least two of those teams -- the Dodgers and Phillies -- have already said no. But the Tigers still appear to believe there's a market for Inge down the road."

http://tinyurl.com/36w93x

Peter Gammons just said on 710 AM that he'd be "shocked" if Kemp was traded.

So is Ned's comment about using 'pitching' to solve his need for third base suggest that he wont trade for a 3B because everyone in the league is asking for Kershaw and he sees Kershaw as able to help the big club in 08?

52 - just so.

37. By golly I'll do it!!!

Jon, nice work today. I got on a plane at 7:00am starved for news of the signing. At 1:15 I come to DT and find the most insightful up to date info all in one place. You have outdone yourself. . . again.

29 I recall alot of us here would rather not have Lofton, but between the two, given the years/money etc many of us prefered him based on this years FA CF class.

I agree with those who say we are moving him to lf is a classy way of ned say we want to trade him.

32 lol..love the all caps on that one.

37 "I suggest that LAT deliver the letter to Ned personally."

Naw, then Ned could just start a new thread and ignore him, and by association, us.

Ned's boots were probably too tight as well.

59 Bravo!

I run my own small publishing house, and one of our specialties--in addition to fiction--is publishing progressive political books that come out of the "netroots", i.e. the political blogosphere. As we have learned through our dealings in the political realm, the kind of anti-blogger sentiments that Colletti reveals are reflective of a large battle that is being waged today between the old school print media and the newly emerging blogosphere. My two cents is that people like Colletti view blogs as the expressions of the "common man" who know little about sports, as opposed to the "trusted" experts of the mainstream media. Fortunately, the tide is slowly turning, but it will take a long time until this kind of attitude goes away.

when asked if [Colletti] regrets signing Pierre, he said he absolutely does not. He can't re-write history, but he implored everyone to look back at the circumstances that we were in when we signed him

His house blogger asked him the question, presumably not to antagonize him. And that answer's not so good for PR purposes.

He's probably getting the question every time he picks up the phone. I don't know if it's wrong to suspect that he gets defensive at the drop of a hat, but I don't think it's a stretch to see defensiveness in his responses. Besides which, he has much to be defensive about.

BTW, the look back at the circumstances excuse doesn't fly. Ned, you didn't know A Jones was going to be a FA the following year. I understandd the situation before last summer but the 5 years is inexcusable when you should have known other FA would be available in the coming years.

70-Of course, there's defensiveness in his response. Though it's worth noting there's an equal or greater defensiveness in some of the comments here. Frankly, I don't really care if our GM reads blogs--it'd be better for all concerned if he did, but it's not the end of the world if he doesn't--so long as he doesn't gut our baseball team. I don't think he's trading anybody, either...I suspect his depth obsession makes him mean what he says about four outfielders. Wouldn't have minded him reaching out to Andre Ethier, though.

6 Sam I didn't know you were old enough to know much about Jenny Agutter. What gives! If she's the actress I'm thinking of, my fettish is because she looks just like an old girlfriend.

71. That is a very very bad post. It sounds like it should have been written with finger paints.

I was just trying to point out that Ned's "look at the circumstances" excuse does not stand up. It would work had he signed JP to a one or two year deal but 5 years is inexcusable. Especially when he should have known that Jones, Hunter and others were going to be FA the season following the JP deal.

I'm guessing Ned's getting it from everywhere.

The store check-out clerk: What about Pierre?
The dry cleaner: What does this say about Pierre?
The guy in the little shack at the gas station: What do you do with Pierre now?
The gardener: Where do you hide Pierre?
The Toupee shop: Why'd you sign Pierre to 5 years?

75 - That's what I've found fascinating about Pierre since April. People who can agree on nothing else agree on him. When Daniel Stern's character in City Slickers had nothing else to talk about with his dad, they could still talk about replacing Juan Pierre.

75. You forgot the turtleneck salesman and the Keystone Cop Reenactment Club (oh the moustache, oh the horror...)

72- The PR department wrested the screenname from Mary Landrieu's husband late this morning. Tom Cruise is waiting his turn, but has a really terrific "How Hendrickson Could Become a Useful Pitcher Through Dianetics" post cued up.

66 That was funny!

78 I'm back, I kicked out the PR department.

Helen Thomas: President Colletti, are you now admitting that invading a sovereign nation based on questionable intelligence was a mistake?

Ned: Based on the information we had and the history of the man we were dealing with, I stand by the decision 100%.

81 Be very careful when taking this conversation there.

64 - Thanks, by the way.

74
Sure it doesn't hold up. No one questions that it was a bad decision. But what do want him to say when he's asked the question? Admit he made a mistake and immediately the player he goofed on takes a huge hit, not to mention the bad feelings it creates between himself, the player, and the agent he will need to deal with time and time again? There is no win to him saying he made a bad deal except for those of you who want him to admit he made a mistake.
Just the mere fact he signed AJ proves he knows he made a mistake.

No offense but if LAT delivered the letter it would be one day after Juan Pierre's contract expired.

So is Ned's comment about using 'pitching' to solve his need for third base suggest that he wont trade for a 3B because everyone in the league is asking for Kershaw and he sees Kershaw as able to help the big club in 08?

Ned actually said he doesn't want to use trade bait for a 3rd baseman when he'll need those pieces to acquire pitching.

It's not even good at what it's (presumably) meant to be. He could have talked about how exciting he finds Pierre's style to be, or about what a steady influence and hard worker he is, and all the other Flack-speak ditties he's been singing for the last year. Imploring people to look at the circumstances sounds like an excuse. Doesn't just sound like it.

"Ned actually said he doesn't want to use trade bait for a 3rd baseman when he'll need those pieces to acquire pitching."

Translation: I'm going to trade LaRoche and Hu for Joe Blanton.

Imagine what the world would look like today if Ned Colletti could rewrite history...

I could just be looking for hope, and I'm definitely over analyzing his remarks, but "It is what it is, and we did what we had to do" doesn't seem like it could be followed by, "and now we're delighted to have him in let field."

84 - I'd only say 1) suggesting that there was no other option besides Pierre last year isn't exactly a pat on the back for the player.

2) that there are ways of answering the question - a question that he knows is coming and has had experience answering - that are less confrontational than "You tell me ... " Even if he said this in the most diplomatic way.

Being defensive isn't the end of the world - in fact, I could really care less that he is defensive. I get defensive. Most of us do. But, as I think D4P suggests, Colletti still seems to wear some of his ignorance as a badge of honor, using some measuring sticks for value that are archaic.

I'm not at all convinced that Colletti sees Jones as a solution to his Pierre problem. It's still quite likely that he sees Jones as a solution to his pitching problem (by allowing him to trade an up-and-coming power hitter) or his lack of outfield depth problem (by replacing Luis Gonzalez).

So while I don't expect Colletti to admit he made a mistake with Pierre, there remains the issue of him still quite likely thinking that there's no mistake to admit.

I think the problem many of us have is, sure, we understand that he wants to avoid insulting Pierre. But there are plenty of ways to do that without resorting to blatant falsehoods: "He's a very good player," "He gets on base an awful lot," etc.

87
If he did that, then you all would be mocking those comments as well. At least the mockingbird component of DT would be.

Maybe Colletti just doesn't want people to know what he really thinks.

Sometimes, that gives you an advantage in negotiations.

It seems that Kuroda is the fork in the road for the Dodgers season.

If they sign him, they go left to ST with the squad in tact.

If they don't sign him, they take a right and our roster will lose some starters.

95

Dodgers offseason.

93 - To some extent, it's just going to be no-win for Ned with regards to Pierre. Perhaps as it should be, at least while Pierre is still a starter here.

It's not as if Ned isn't getting mostly praise for Jones.

Ned can't read blogs because he's too busy reading Plaschke.

His response would be no big deal except that he WAS in PR. I mean, that's the kind of answer he should know better than to give.

As to defending Pierre, most would say Fred Claire made the worst deal when he traded Pedro for Delino DeShields. Claire says he wishes now he hadn't, but he had good reasons at the time. I agree--not only, as he said, did he need a leadoff man, but, as he won't say, Lasorda didn't like Pedro Martinez and wouldn't put him in the rotation and leave him alone. Now, Colletti, as a GM, needs to defend his player, not so much himself. But he did it in the kind of ham-handed way that befits what often has been a classless organization.

"It seems that Kuroda is the fork in the road for the Dodgers season."

Whereas Pierre is just the fork in the Dodgers' season.

Thank you, folks, I'll be here all week. Well, all year, actually.

93- I only make fun of his clothes, now. Though that's becoming a growth industry. I may have to switch to making fun of his taste in music or books, soon, to keep one step ahead. Anybody know what kind of books or music Colletti likes?

Re: 91

Aren't we doing all sorts of over-analyzing here, though? I mean, what incentive is there for Ned to say what he thinks to the media? And there's always a slippage between thought and action; Ned may very well think Pierre's signing was perfectly justified, but that doesn't mean he's hoping to trade Ethier or Kemp for a pitcher. And it's not like correcting one's actions in practice, while denying any initial error, is unheard of for people.

WWSH

100 Is making fun of his attachment to his Giants ring getting old by now? Because we could start that again.

There is an excellent (free) Keith Law article on the A-J signing at www.espn.com

101 - Certainly.

91 - oddly, I'm willing to give Colletti the benefit of a doubt on this call. Whether he got Jones because Pierre was irredeemably bad, because he felt his OF depth was poor, or because he wanted more pitching (and felt he needed to get Kemp into the trade picture), the net result is the same. Certainly, Colletti has no public means available to him, other than action, to say the Pierre contract was a bad idea. If Kemp goes on a trade, then I'll agree with you. Until then, there are too many conflicts for me to write off a prominent possibility.

105 - What are we disagreeing about? What am I writing off? I don't feel like your comment disagrees with mine.

Keith Law's article raises the possibility that the Dodgers will merely send Kemp back to AAA. That's not even within the realm of possibility.

Or is it?

One thing for sure. If the discussion is about "who can you trade who will bring you a front line pitcher?" then the discussion is not about the future of Juan Pierre.

I think it's pretty clear now that if Colletti trades Kemp, it won't be because he's decided Pierre is more valuable to the Dodgers. It'll be because Kemp is more valuable to another team than anyone else Colletti could offer.

Maybe Colletti is frustrated because nobody seems to see that. Pierre's lower value is what makes Kemp "expendable." Maybe he thinks he shouldn't have to spell that out, it's so obvious.

"In what was an off-year, he had power numbers some players would look at as a career year. He's 30 years old. He has talent and desire and passion to play all the time. It's a very good opportunity for us. We put his spray chart on an overlay of Dodger Stadium and it looked fine to me. A lot of balls landed over the fence."

I'd love to see such a thing on Dodger Thoughts, Jon. Any chance someone could create that?

i dont see his comment about checking blogs as a dis...

the question was about expectations...Pierre gave exactly what should have been expected of him...his stat lines never really change.

but the popular opinion on Pierre has changed dramatically from other years. he used to sought after commodity, now he is treated like a trashy player, yet his stats are not much different.

i think the question asked was reffering to the seemingly higher expectations of Pierre now, and asked if the contract had something to do with it....

i think all Colletti meant is, we got what we expected, and what we paid him for.

and we cant argue its the bloggers who have led the change of attitude towards Pierre, therefore the Diamond Leung should check the blogs

Ned getting high-tech:

We put his spray chart on an overlay of Dodger Stadium and it looked fine to me. A lot of balls landed over the fence

103 There are free articles on espn.com? Since when?

109 - I think MLB.com offers those?

A lot of balls landed over the fence

Like, say, 26...?

107
I think he is just trying to say that the Dodgers will screw things up with Kemp somehow.

107 that is precisely what irritates me about Keith Law. He writes inane things like that. I don't want Kemp traded for anything, but you might as well trade him and get value or trade Ethier rather than waste a guy in the minors.

LOL, he takes his spray charts and just puts them on top of Dodger Stadium and thinks that translates everything.

Interesting article on the Dodgers website about the options that the Dodgers have now. Basically, they are:

1. Jones, Kemp and a Pierre/Ethier platoon
2. Sign Kudora and option 1
3. trade Kemp for a starting pitcher
4. sign Kudora and trade Kemp for a starting pitcher

If those are the only options, then I'll go for option 2. But like most here, I'm leaning towards option 5: trade or bench Pierre for anything.

I do not get why we would trade for starting pitching if we sign Kuroda. How many starters do you need?

I would like to see them either trade Pierre or go into it with him as the 4th outfielder. Wait until the trading deadline to make a move for a pitcher when more teams will be willing to trade pitchers for lesser value. Ned has to trust that his rotation is at least good enough to keep them in contention in their division. Why not there just be patience. There might even be another contender out there during the season who wouls see greater value in Pierre by then.

116
Keith Law's exact quote is "Or, should they keep Kemp but send him to Triple A or relegate him to part-time duty, they'll retard his development"

I think Law was just going explaining the outcome of such a decision; he wasn't advocating it. Having Matt Kemp as a part-time player is just as absurd as demoting him to AAA, so it's not out of the realm of possibility for the Dodgers to screw up by sending him down.

Guillen and Gibbons suspended.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3144472

119 - the reasoning had something to do with Joe Torre talking a lot about good pitching. It does guard against Schmidt not being healthy, and moves Loazia to the pen (or trading block). Otherwise, I don't get it either.

Personally, I think the best thing would be to trade Pierre for prospects. It sounds like the Bums are lacking in outfield prospects. I can't see Ned making this move, but, hey, anything could happen.

Don't forget that if Coletti has ever taken a quick look at a "blog", it wouldn't have been DT. It would have been dodger.com's own message board, or maybe ItD (Josh's). Now think about how seriously you'd expect him to take that stuff...

This thread got a link in the BP chat with Christina Kahrl today. So, best behavior, everybody.

120 my apologies for the bad spelling and lack of a question mark. sometimes at work it gets busy and I am forced to write too quickly.....ahh

NPUT

Re 125 , here's Kahrl:

>>Otto (Halifax): Do the Dodgers now have the most expensive 4th Outfielder ever? or does Juan play?

Christina Kahrl: Them, or the Angels; the Los Angeles de los Angeles owe more to Little Sarge than the Dodgers do to Pierre, and it's now clear that the Angels plan on putting Torii Hunter in center and moving Matthews to a corner, which is similarly unwise. In both cases, neither guy should be starting in a major league corner, and either one of them would make a nice solution (funded by the people who made the mistake to sign them) for teams that don't have a ready-now center fielder.<<

105 - maybe I'm misreading your "there remains the issue of him still quite likely thinking that there's no mistake to admit", but it seems to me that you think it's more likely he overestimates Pierre's value than that he sees the signing as rectifying the Pierre deal. Actions speak louder than words, say I, and until that day Matt Kemp is traded, it seems more likely to me that Colletti knows he's fixing a problem signing.

128 - except that IIRC Matthews, Jr. has a two-year no-trade clause.

I was reading a yahoo article on the jones signing http://tinyurl.com/2y7fws
which had this very interesting statement.

A Dodgers source said that if the season began today, Pierre would compete with Andre Ethier for playing time in left field. Matt Kemp and Ethier would be penciled into right field. Competiveness is good right?