Dodgers shortstop of 2009 and beyond

Maybe

one of those guys pans out, but none of them strike me as a future MLB starting shortstop. Also, it's early to figure out who will be the big free agents in 2009. Last, do you really think Colletti will still be there 3 years from now?

by Brickhaus on Dec 19, 2006 4:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

agreed

early to figure out the free agents then. I didn't want to. I just wanted to see if anyone did have someone in particular in mind.

As for Colletti -- I pray and pray and pray he won't still be there in three years. But I don't see him getting fired, either. The team will be relatively successful under him (even if he's squandered quite a bit of the franchise's potential), and it's not like I think Frank McCourt has much smarts or much balls as an owner. I think the firing of DePodesta proved one or both of those -- folding to public pressure to fire a guy who made nothing but smart moves for the franchise.

So, yes, I do think Colletti will be around. Unless someone can put me in contact with a good hitman in the L.A. area between now and then.

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 19, 2006 6:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What exactly has Colletti done poorly?

What farm talent has he squandered?
Which of DePodesta's moves were notably smarter than Neds?
I ask that as a person who thought DePodesta was improperly let go.

bluto!

[IMG]http://www.danasoft.com/sig/Ezee.jpg[/IMG]

by Bluto on Dec 19, 2006 7:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

just to name....

....some moves I think are risky/poor (not that my opinion counts as gospel or anything):

traded Chuck Tiffany and Edwin Jackson for Danys Baez (maybe neither prospect works out, but the risk/reward makes the move questionable)
signed Bill Mueller to a two-year deal, with Willy Aybar there to play third base, or, at worst, Oscar Robles/Cesar Izturis/Rafael Furcal splitting the short/third positions
traded Dioner Navarro and Jae Seo for Mark Hendrickson and Toby Hall; Navarro is worth MUCH more than that, and there's not much difference, if any, between Seo and Hendrickson
traded Joel Guzman and Sergio Pedroza for Julio Lugo (who we didn't even need), when, again, maybe Guzman and Pedroza turn into nothing, but both have WAY too much upside to justify acquiring an f-ing bench player for two months
re-signed Nomar Garciaparra, who hit .200 in the second half, and started to show signs of the constant injuries everyone would expect from him, while also blocking James Loney (who is clearly ready to be starting in the major leagues) from getting at-bats
signed Juan Pierre to an absurdly long and expensive contract, further blocking Loney, along with Matt Kemp and Andre Ethier; better options would have included playing Jason Repko, re-signing Kenny Lofton to a short-term contract, or signing Dave Roberts (who is, by all statistical accounts I can see, a better player) to a cheaper contract. Even Scott Podsednik was cheap. I think all these guys suck, but, if you wanted a "Pierre-type player," there were cheaper options who demanded fewer years.
signed, then re-signed, Ramon Martinez out of sheer loyalty to all ex-Giants.

Two other minor points of contention are:

I can't understand why he didn't offer Greg Maddux arbitration in order to get that draft pick; I can't imagine Maddux actually accepting it
Even though Marlon Anderson hit like Babe Ruth for a month, trading him for Jhonny Nuñez didn't make a whole lot of sense. Maybe, just maybe, Dodgers advance scouts had picked up something incredible about Anderson in the past month, but, going into the trade, we weren't particularly in need of a left fielder or second baseman (especially of Anderson's career caliber), and, though Nuñez, being a GCL pitcher, doesn't have a high probability of success, it's more raw talent than you should have to give away for a Marlon Anderson-type player, who's waiver wire material most years.

So what are GOOD moves by Colletti?
I liked the original signing of Nomar, it being one year at only $8 million.
I thought the Brett Tomko signing made sense, given the low cost and high upside. It still doesn't look horrible, given the market for pitchers.
Kenny Lofton turned out better than I thought, but I liked his decision, at the time, to only hand out a one-year contract so that he wouldn't block any prospects.
I have very mixed feelings on the Furcal signing, but it's definitely turned out well; he's better than I thought, and Izturis (or anyone else in the organization) doesn't pass the test. As before, I always liked the short years on the contract.
I like Willy Aybar a lot, but I like Wilson Betemit too. Good challenge trade, I guess.
I liked Andre Ethier for Milton Bradley, just because I'm glad we got a prospect instead of nothing for someone we HAD to trade.

So far, it's too soon to see if any of the prospects Colletti has traded will bite him in the @$$. Maybe none of them will. But his former employers -- the Giants -- tried the same strategy for years: trade pitching prospects because most don't pan out, and forgo developing from within your system, because prospects tend to fail. Eventually, they traded Francisco Liriano, Joe Nathan and Boof Bonser for A.J. Pierzynski and have a system so barren not even a cactus could go. Furthermore, Colletti has suggested in every way he WILL trade the talent that's still left in the system, as he's dangled it out there in trades all the time and blocked it with mediocre veterans like Juan Pierre, Bill Mueller and Nomar Garciaparra.

Anyway, you ask which of DePodesta's moves were smarter? I would generally argue that DePodesta didn't make a single bad move during his tenure, with the re-signing of Odalis Perez being the only possible exception. Personally, I would have supported re-signing Perez. He was talented and, by today's starters' standards, not horribly expensive; the Dodgers needed pitching, and it was a risk well worth making (as I think no one could have forseen the disaster that was Perez's 2006 coming).

His other moves? His oft-maligned trade -- Paul LoDuca and Guillermo Mota for Brad Penny, Hee Seop Choi and the prospect that bought him Steve Finley -- was brilliant. Penny is an ace or a two, and the Dodgers DESPERATELY needed pitching at the end of that year (watching them was PAINFUL at the end of '04). Finley LITERALLY won the division for them, more directly than ANYONE could have possibly forseen. LoDuca is over-rated, and Mota feel apart. Hee Seop Choi was a disappointment, for sure, but worth the risk. He also puts up numbers better than people perceive, just because he looks so bad when he doesn't hit it.

He bought Derek Lowe for what is now one of the better deals in baseball -- $8 million-per. That looks brilliant is retrospect. J.D. Drew turned out to be PERFECT; he was valuable, and, as evidenced by the BoSox contract, worth more than DePodesta gave him, and he managed to get Drew out of sticking it to the Dodgers for 7 years.

It's been two years, so I'm having trouble remembering more of DePo's moves, but, if you'd care to bring any more up, I'll happily discuss.

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 19, 2006 8:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

this is 100% right on.

you're right about everything. wow, now that you bring it up, even that furcal deal looks like a bargain already, doesn't it. amazing.

by wily mo on Dec 19, 2006 8:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm sorry

Not that I didn't appreciate DPD or that I'm love with Colletti, but I don't think Paul did much better (if at all) than Ned.

You say Drew was an excellent signing, I beg to differ. In hindsight we had a below average signing. I say this because for 22 million we got a little bit more than a season's worth of Drew. At the time, the signing was even worse. With his opt-clause, it meant that if Drew played well he could opt out of his contract and leave the team for more money, thus generating a hole in the line-up and getting less bang for the team's when acquiring a new player (Pierre). On top of that, the dodgers could not offer arbitration. On the other hand, had Drew played poorly or gotten injured, the Dodgers would have been forced to keep him for another three years. I fail to see how this was a great signing.

In terms of trades: Hentri Stanley for Dave Roberts. Enough said.

The Penny deal... I was a fan at the time, BUT the Dodgers refused to give him a physical and it ended up biting the Dodgers in the ass in the posteason.

Granted, Colletti hasn't made nothing but wonderful trades either (as you've listed), but he hasn't given away the farm as many fans fear that he will. In fact, all reports say that he's constantly asked about the team's prospects and trade talks don't go far after that.

There are two main differences between the two general managers. 1. PDP didn't have major league ready prospects to fill holes and succeed as Colletti did. 2. FAs want to join the Dodgers since Colletti became GM.

by peabody56 on Dec 19, 2006 8:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i disagree on a lot of this

i'm not a big fan of Colletti, either, and I think he has an easy job with both a big budget and inheriting great prospects. I fully agree with criticism of the Pierre signing and the trade of Navarro but, other than that, i think he's been pretty decent. As follows:

-you list all the prospects he's traded but, frankly, he's traded all the right ones. he's refused to trade the prime assets.

-the Nomar signings have been good. both last year and then bringing him back as sort of a super utility man -- good value at that price/length.

-bill mueller was a good signing and was performing well before the injury. it just being a 2 year deal, no harm was done by that (and guess there must be insurance on that, too). he didn't block Aybar, who really isn't worth a starting position, as he soon showed.

-i did like the lugo trade, though he didn't perform. but, as his contract with the Red Sox shows, he's highly regarded and for a team going for the playoffs added a nice chip. I didn't think he was well used by Grady.

-getting Ethier and Anderson worked out beautifuly.

i mean, i basically agree that DePodesta got screwed and its irritating to see Colletti getting credit for his work (and the work of the regime before that, for that matter). that said, Colletti's been decent.

by scooter on Dec 19, 2006 9:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

trying to respond to everything....

First off, I've tried to stick with Colletti and give him the benefit of the doubt as long as possible. He's lost my faith this off-season.

Anyway, to counter each thing from the above-two posts, one at a time:

1) "you list all the prospects he's traded but, frankly, he's traded all the right ones. he's refused to trade the prime assets."

Agreed, he has yet to trade a prime prospect (though I would be SHOCKED if Andy LaRoche isn't traded, since he hates the guy, thinking LaRoche feels entitled/doesn't work hard; he also has almost backed himself into a corner where he NEEDS to move Loney). However, these were all still bad trades. First, he got no value for them. None. Right now, the Dodgers are looking to get Alex Rios. They were trying to put together a package for Manny and Vernon Wells. Any of these packages most likely WILL require a real prospect, as would a trade for a lesser player. Colletti might have been able to package, say, Penny, Navarro and Guzman, even throw in Pedroza, for one of those guys. Maybe the deal doesn't get taken. But I'm willing to bet trading all those guys (along with Jae Seo, Chuck Tiffany and Edwin Jackson) gets you more than Mark Hendrickson, Toby Hall, Danys Baez and Julio Lugo -- NONE OF WHOM EVEN KEPT A STARTING ROLE FOR THE DODGERS. That's just not a smart use of resources. Having a deep farm system is an asset, but you have to use it wisely.

Also, the point about trading prospects the way the Giants did it stands. You can look relatively smart in a lot of deals where you give up prospects for established big-league talent (or, more accurately, mediocrities). This is because most prospects don't live up to potential. But that doesn't mean you're making a good trade. Eventually, play with fire, and you WILL get burnt. I'm not sure the Dodgers haven't already made a trade that will do that to them -- Jackson, Tiffany, Guzman, Pedroza and Nuñez are hardly established as busts at this point in their respective careers. I'd wait three years before I declare these "victories" for Colletti (though, as I said above, the victory would be small, since none netted a starting big leaguer for the Dodgers). Beyond this, though, if Colletti DOES continue this strategy, he may finally make one that will go down with trading Pedro, Kazmir, Hafner, Giles or Liriano.

2) "getting Ethier and Anderson worked out beautifuly."

As I said, I approve of the Ethier move. I don't think he's the player he looked like for the first three-quarters of the year, but I counted this amount Colletti's "good" moves. As for Anderson, you say he "worked out beautifully," and I agree. What I question is, how much of this was brilliant GM/scouting, and how much was dumb luck? Just because it worked out beautifully doesn't mean Colletti is the man who you want to entrust your franchise too. Seriously -- raise your hand if you truly believe Marlon Anderson is a valuable hitter? Or that Colletti was aware he'd have an OPS well over 1.000 for the Dodgers? If you remember, when they traded for him, he was NOT made a starter immediately; he was a left-handed pinch-hitter of the bench. Which is what he should have been. He got a hot hand at the same time as Ethier collapsed, and Grady acted accordingly and appropriately (not that I have much love for Grady either). Acquiring Anderson -- of whom similar caliber players are available nearly for free -- for a player who has almost ANY upside demonstrates poor judgment. Regardless of the outcome. I will admit to underestimating Rafael Furcal and Kenny Lofton's abilities -- I didn't think they would add as much to the team as they did. But winning the lottery with Marlon Anderson doesn't make Colletti smart, any more than Billy Beane was "brilliant" for acquiring John Mabry for the month that he hit like the Bambino.

3) "i did like the lugo trade, though he didn't perform. but, as his contract with the Red Sox shows, he's highly regarded and for a team going for the playoffs added a nice chip. I didn't think he was well used by Grady."

He IS highly regarded, and I don't think he's a bad player. But he was worthless to a team who had a shortstop and second baseman (and had recently traded for a third baseman) already. Besides, deadline trades ALWAYS have minimal value (unless you believe you can re-sign the player). Two months of Julio Lugo couldn't possibly be worth the risk of Guzman becoming Juan Gonzalez, or Sergio Pedroza becoming Adam Dunn-lite.

4) "the Nomar signings have been good. both last year and then bringing him back as sort of a super utility man -- good value at that price/length."

I agreed it was good the first time through. But it was cowardly to re-sign him. They got lucky last year. Not in the Marlon Anderson-lucky way; they won a bet, which was that Nomar could stay healthy a full season and produce. Now, if someone offers you $50,000 to take one round playing Russian roulette, and you win, do you take three more rounds for $10,000, or wipe the sweat off your brow and walk away with your winnings? Because the Dodgers, after getting lucky enough to finish that first round as big winners, are giving him a LONGER contract for MORE money. Even though he fell apart for the second half. And his injuries cropped up again. I can't imagine he'll be worth anywhere near the near $20 million he'll be getting. And we don't need to be spending the money for a 1B/3B/corner-OF; all those positions should be covered. I feel like Colletti re-signed Garciaparra just to avoid public backlash/being labeled another DePodesta by letting a fan favorite get away from the team.

5) "bill mueller was a good signing and was performing well before the injury. it just being a 2 year deal, no harm was done by that (and guess there must be insurance on that, too). he didn't block Aybar, who really isn't worth a starting position, as he soon showed."

This one, you and I just disagree on. Mueller was doing real well before the injury, but I would say this was mostly a sample-size issue. I think he would have been fine for the rest of the season, but there were cheaper in-house options who were just as good or better (and not so old). I DON'T think Aybar showed he wasn't worthy of a starting position; I think Grady Little showed no confidence in him, preferring to start veterans. Anyway, it should ALWAYS be a red-flag when the team you outbid is the Pirates. Of course, Colletti has a crush on all mid-'90s ex-Giants, so you can see why he loved Mueller so much.
---------------------------------------------------
Now a few comments on the post above.

1) "Hentri Stanley for Dave Roberts. Enough said."

Dave Roberts wasn't going to play for us. I still don't think he's that valuable a player, and I don't miss having him on the team in the slightest. This was a player we were about to outright, and instead found a taker for. I'm not drying my eyes over this one; it was just a roster move that had to be made, and the consequences were almost non-existent.

2) "You say Drew was an excellent signing, I beg to differ. In hindsight we had a below average signing. I say this because for 22 million we got a little bit more than a season's worth of Drew. At the time, the signing was even worse. With his opt-clause, it meant that if Drew played well he could opt out of his contract and leave the team for more money, thus generating a hole in the line-up and getting less bang for the team's when acquiring a new player (Pierre). On top of that, the dodgers could not offer arbitration. On the other hand, had Drew played poorly or gotten injured, the Dodgers would have been forced to keep him for another three years. I fail to see how this was a great signing."

At the time of the signing, I thought it sucked. In retrospect, I think it looks excellent. Though I don't like that we couldn't offer him arbitration, the opt-out saved our @$$es. Have you seen the news lately? Drew has a bum shoulder. That probably explains the lack of power this year. Even if he didn't, I feel the same way about this one as I did about Nomar: No way do you want to play Russian roulette for three more years with a guy this injury-prone. He gave the Dodgers one-and-a-half productive years (and the half he lost, in fairness, was a freak injury, not the type of reoccuring injury he suffered throughout his time with the Cardinals), and then he got out before the Dodgers got stuck with him. In fairness, maybe DePo got lucky here; this contract, in another scenario, could have ended up as a doozy in multiple ways: 1) he could have gotten injured and then stuck with the Dodgers for 5 painful years, or 2) he could have become Mickey Mantle, then bolted town for more money. Instead, we was productive, then miraculously left for more money as a worse player. Fantastic! DePo couldn't have drawn it up any better (and, as I'll admit, I doubt he did).

3) "The Penny deal... I was a fan at the time, BUT the Dodgers refused to give him a physical and it ended up biting the Dodgers in the ass in the posteason."

I had no idea they "refused" to give him a physical. If they did, that was stupid. However, the trade was still valuable (and worthwhile) for what it gave them THAT year (Finley) and the next two years (Penny). Still a great trade in my book. And if the injury was unforseen, as I believed it to be, it's an even better trade from an academic perspective.

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 19, 2006 10:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

agree to disagree

you make a good argument, even if I don't agree.

by scooter on Dec 19, 2006 10:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

To be fair

I did say the Drew signing looks great in retrospect. BUT, this is due more to luck than any grand planning on DPD's part. It's not like the Dodgers deserve credit for drafting Mike Piazza, but that worked out wonderfully for them.

Secondly, I don't recall that we had to trade Roberts, but I have read on several different occasions that PDP regrets that trade.

And finally, as I said, I liked the Penny trade. Yes they chose not give Penny a physical before making the trade, and whether or not they would have seen the problem in his arm, we'll never know now because of that decision. So on paper, the trade was good, but executed horribly.

All that aside, the real culprit in Dodger management has been McCrap.

by peabody56 on Dec 19, 2006 11:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

All I can is say...

it's not very fun watching Colleti turn the Dodgers into the new Giants.

I realize Paul DePodesta and his computer of death was the worst thing to ever happen to planet earth, but he was a pretty damn underrated GM. All his moves have been pluses for the Dodgers (except maybe Drew), and none of them were for old guys.

Coletti's thinking with quotes like "this guy really gets on base" for Juan Pierre seems Hendry-esque to me, except worse.

Seems to me that the Dodgers just wanted the "Old Guard" in after hiring and firing that guy with the computer that had numbers on them. They went as traditional as it got.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 20, 2006 9:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

nice

I really appreciate you taking the time to go through these deals. Nice work. My thoughts:

I've always felt that Drew has been maligned a bit more than he deserved, and while you suggest that he didn't stick it to Dodgers for 7 years, I agree with the sentiment that you don't want to give an injury-prone high-upside guy opt-out clauses. When you sign that sort of guy, you're rolling the dice every year, and I just think that you're better off getting more years of dice-rolling. Drew's a very rare talent when healthy.
I cannot believe you have/had a problem with the Bill Mueller deal. That guy was an utter steal at the price the Dodgers signed him. And with a short deal, he provided the perfect combination of a) good production, b) "team player" attitude, c) positional flexibility, so that if/when the young guys out-performed him, he could be bumped and still provide value to the team. Not that many players have a career .373 OBP.
I expressed on here that I thought the Dodgers' off-season moves were the best of any team last year, and received a responses about how much people disagreed. The team ended up scoring the 4th-most runs in the NL last year, despite the public opinion that they didn't have enough power.
I agree 100% with your comments on the Navarro deal. MH having a good month really seems to have blinded the Dodgers to how bad he is/was. That said, I am glad to see Navarro not get relegated to a bench, and him getting to stick it to his original team is hilarious too (no Yankee love here).
Did the Lugo deal work out? Probably not... he wasn't very good for LA. But using the same logic as you did with Drew, look at what Lugo's "market value" is now. And consider also that the Dodgers had to beat the Padres, and the Padres' pitchers and catchers were almost completely inept at stopping the running game. Adding yet another track star, in the form of a guy who could back up several players (including Nomar Injuriaparra), wasn't a bad idea at all. I was expecting to see a post-trade infield of: Kent-Lugo-Betemit-Furcal, actually.
Other than the Navarro deal, I understand the sentiment on the other prospects, but don't fully agree. In a lot of ways, I really respect GM's when they can pull the trigger on a deal sending away a lot of "potential", based on the fact that their own internal sources tell them that it's a good deal. It's great to have a stocked farm system, but if a GM is selecting the right "hyped" prospects to deal away, that's the true measure, IMO.
I thought that LoDuca trade was brilliant at the time, partly because until that season LoDuca had ALWAYS fallen off in the 2nd half (as I'm sure you know). But even though he's stopped that trend, and even though I don't think Penny is quite the #2 that you suggest, I think that deal is a no-brainer. I was downright shocked that so many people saw that as a "train wreck" sort of move on the Dodgers' behalf.
My take is that DePo was undone by the injuries in 2005 - that team missed a startling number of games from its starting players due to injuries. Fans can be funny... there's always talk about 1 player "carrying" a team when MVP voting comes around, yet organizations always seem to get blasted for not winning, even when missing 200+ VORP due to injuries in a season.

by BobbyMac on Dec 21, 2006 2:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Mattingly

I think you realize this, but Mattingly doesn't really belong in the discussion.

by natsfan2005 on Dec 19, 2006 4:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think he belongs in the discussion.....

since he IS still a shortstop, and it's not the athleticism, hands or OVERALL speed that make him an unlikely candidate, but I agree -- there's next to no chance he's the answer. In 2005, if I'd put Joel Guzman in this poll, it wouldn't have been "out of place for the discussion," so I think it still makes sense to include a guy who WAS drafted to play the position.

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 19, 2006 5:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

other

i think colletti trades a couple of prospects for some veteran.

by wily mo on Dec 19, 2006 4:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Abreu

When is the last time he played SS? I thought he was a 2B for at least the last two years.

by count sutton on Dec 19, 2006 5:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

he played there in the AFL....

...in 2005 (which is the only time he hasn't been on a team with Hu in the past two years).

Since he has "Gold Glove potential" (whatever that means) as a second baseman, and there was no reason other than organizational depth that he was moved off short, I don't see any reason he can't play there again (unless there's a source I don't know about who says he can't make it as a shortstop).

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 19, 2006 5:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

just checked....

....and he played about a tenth of his games there in 2005 in Vero (guessing those were Hu's days off), and over 15% of his games at Jacksonville after he was promoted (they had Joel Guzman, along with an assortment of utility-playing veterans helping the team make a playoff run, manning the position at the time).

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 19, 2006 6:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ball four to Chin Lung

Hu's on first

Sorry. I had to say it.

by doubledribble on Dec 19, 2006 6:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Hu or Furcal

People question Hu's hitting ability, but he doesn't have to hit all that well to be another Izturis. I know most around here don't see that as a good thing, but Izturis (v.2004) is a quality regular. Ya, Hu would be out of place batting leadoff, but thats a problem with the manager, not the player.

If Hu stays healthy (Izturis' main problem) he should be albe to hit .275/.325/.385 in 2009. With plus-defense and a fair number of SB's, he's worth regular playing time. The two key factors are, do they need or want to redistribute Furcal's $13m salary to another position or to pitching, and can the rest of the offense remain as productive as it needs to be becuase Hu has to be easily the worst hitter in the lineup to make it work.

Personally, I would guess that they keep Furcal. I think Furcal is one of the more underrated, really good players in the game. In '09, the Dodgers core talent will be at or near their primes and concievably competing for a title. IMO, well-above average players like Furcal push you towards the top of the league while fringe-average players (like Hu, concievably) keep you from the bottom. If the Dodgers are really good, they'd probably keep Furcal, if they stink, they'd go with Hu.

I'm really interested in seeing how DeJesus progresses, and I like Abreu. Rivera shouldn't be part of the discussion as he has yet to do anything. DeWitt and Mattingly shouldn't be part either because there is ZERO chance that either plays SS in the majors.

by sanchez101 on Dec 19, 2006 7:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

hu

i actually saw a couple of reports this year that panned hu's defense. maybe not that it was terrible, but that it wasn't the kind of defense that was going to carry a guy who hits like he does.

by wily mo on Dec 19, 2006 7:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hu

I agree that you can carry a glove. A lot of Cubs fans here in Chicago seem to think that having Izturis is terrible, but I'm all for it, assuming that Lou doesn't turn him into a top-2 hitter in the lineup. I even felt that way about Neifi, when he was defending well... if he's batting last and playing SS, he can help a team win. Anything else, and it's problematic.

by BobbyMac on Dec 21, 2006 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

SS

If the offense is fine, that is, if they can afford one weak position, then I think the smart move would be to give it to Hu. Of course, for example, if the offense is simlar to this year's , then they can't do that.

Would Colletti give Hu a chance, though? My gut feeling is no, and I think he'll end up having a veteran play there, whether it's Furcal or someone else.

Btw, on this whol DePo/Colletti thing ...

I don't remember DePo's moves that much anymore (being that I'm not a Dodgers fan so I don't focus on it). But I haven't been impressed by Colletti. A name in his deals that hasn't been mentioned is Ruggiano. While I don't think Ruggiano will be anything great, it did seem like overkill to include him in there. Had it just been Toby Hall/Mark Hendrickson for Jae Seo/Dioner Navarro, eh, you live with it. But throwing in Ruggiano seemed like overkill. Dunno, I know it's a small thing to pick, so maybe I'm just nitpicking.

Btw, does Tampa have great minor league coaches? It just seems some of the guys they added (Ruggiano/Talbot) really took off after getting dealt there.

I tend to somewhat agree with bleedjaxblue (if I'm skimming him right ... sorry too early in the morning to read all that) in that I think Colletti's been more lucky than anything. That being said, what's the old saying, better to be lucky than wrong (or something like that).

by toonsterwu on Dec 20, 2006 7:00 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Hu

Where did you see the reports that his defense wasn't that great? It doesn't suprise me, defense is a murky subject with lots of room for interpetation. Obviously if his D is more average than great, he's a utility player.

The two big problems with the Colletti haters is this: they worry too much about little stuff (really, the Dodgers are going to miss, or could eve use Ruggiano with Kemp and Ethier around?) and they have a tendency to marry Sabean's failings to him. Colletti isn't obsessed with old players. He seems to value speed and defense higher than most saber-types, but thats a forgivable sin. He generally signs old players because he wants to keep the commitments short, something thats tough to do with guys in their prime.

Really, a GM's job is about getting deals done and getting the players you want. Depo seemed like a better evaluator, but the deals he made don't look too good. Sabermetrics don't make you a good negotiator. No matter how you slice it, the Drew deal was a TERRIBLE move. He gave us a nice 2006, but the terms of the contract just make it clear a disaster. Depo should apologize to Ned for that one. Compare the Drew deal, Depo's marquee acquisition, to the Schmidt deal, Ned's marquee move. Ned got a short, fair deal with Schmidt in part because he new him from SF, but also because he brought in Schmidt's trainer from SF weeks before Schmidt was signed. Or, look at the Furcal deal, overpaying by AAV but keeping him to 3 seasons, even though he already had a GG SS. As long as Colletti rely's on his good scouting departement, I have faith that he's going to be negotiating good deals for the Dodgers. DePodesta, and I loved him, did seem to have those skills, even if he shouldn't have been fired.

by sanchez101 on Dec 20, 2006 5:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That wasn't to me was it?

Just checking, because I don't think I commented on Hu's D. In general, I think if he got a full-time gig in the bigs, he could be one of the better fielding shortstops in the league.

by toonsterwu on Dec 20, 2006 5:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, that was me.

i don't really remember where i saw the hu thing. somewhere in the depths of BA probably.

and what's your point about the ruggiano thing? that depth is superfluous so you should throw it away?

i don't just worry about ruggiano, i worry about juan pierre too. but GMs only make so many moves, and even if one is small, it can still be thematic.

you're also being pretty vague. jax ran down basically every move either GM ever made and explained why he liked or didn't like each one. here you're saying things like "the deals he made don't look too good. Sabermetrics don't make you a good negotiator." and then just talking about depo's worst move (drew) vs. colletti's two best (schmidt and furcal).

my point is, no, not everything colletti does is terrible, but my assessment is, on the whole, the organization is bleeding value and missing opportunities with him in charge. based on pretty much word for word everything jax said.

and say what you want about the drew deal, maybe it didn't look good, but it turned out fine in the end. maybe a lot of luck in that, but still. i'm not sure why depo should "apologize" to colletti for it.

by wily mo on Dec 20, 2006 8:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

About Schmidt (seriously, no pun intended)

I realized, after my careful rundown of all moves by Colletti, that I'd omitted this one, so I'll comment on it now, in the context of your praise for the deal.

The Dodgers definitely need top-of-the-rotation pitching. I would never blame Colletti (or anyone in their right mind) for not correctly guessing how much the blind bid for Dice-K would be, and, from everything I've read, I think it's probably right to be wary of Zito's success, especially considering how many years he'll be asking for.

At this point in time -- and as a fan of a relatively rich franchise -- my reaction to most deals, as long as they aren't excessively long or specifically block a younger player who SHOULD be playing, is, "whatever -- it's just money." I felt that way about Furcal, and I feel that way about Schmidt.

My mom is from Pittsburgh, and I have lived my whole life in Palo Alto, so I've seen more than my fair share of Jason Schmidt games in my life. He's definitely a true ace when he's on.

However, I do have serious reservations about him. First, I was stunned by how good his stats still were this year. I swear to god, watching his starts for the Giants, he wouldn't get out of the third inning in one of every six starts. Even when he was on, his fastball was nowhere near as electric as the old one, making the change-up far from the devastating out-pitch it used to be. Every pitch looked max-effort, and you felt like each time he walked off the mound he'd be headed straight for the trainer's table. As a Dodger fan, it made me insanely mad that the Giants managed to get through the entire Jason Schmidt era with almost no injuries, given that he was a wreck during his entire Pirate (and Brave) career.

Now you're sitting here, banging DePodesta for giving J.D. Drew what turned out to be a two-year deal (for the mainstay of the Dodgers offense during that span) because he's an injury-risk, while praising Colletti for giving Jason Schmidt THREE YEARS?

Like I said, I don't hate the Schmidt deal; it seems like a necessary risk. But it is a very real risk that Schmidt spends most of his time as a Dodger either on the disabled list or pitching ineffectively from the years of abuse he received under Dusty Baker and Felipe Alou (along with previous injury history).

Is this deal "short"? It's one year longer than Drew turned out to be. Is it "fair"? I know this refers to the ways in which everyone perceived the opt-out in Drew's contract to be a lose-lose for the Dodgers, but I do remember reading a number of articles at the time arguing that this wasn't the case. These articles showed that players very rarely so maximally exceeded expectations that you would have wished to lock them up for much longer. And could the Dodgers have gotten screwed by Drew getting injured? Possibly, but it seems fair for DePodesta to predict that he'd spend enough time in those two years healthy that -- given the market he saw rising -- Drew would leave.

Obviously, arguing this contract causes us both to contradict ourselves to some degree. I am trying to say that DePodesta both knew Drew would be worth what he paid, would want him to raise his value to be worth more than that, and then would want him to leave. You, meanwhile, are claiming that DePodesta shouldn't have offered him a long-term contract, but then was stupid to allow him to get away with a short-term contract. The solution to who is right lies in knowing the answers to two things we'll never know: 1) What were DePodesta's intentions and thought-process in handing Drew the contract?, and 2) Regardless of what DID happen, what was the percent chance that this outcome -- Drew being valuable, then thankfully leaving early -- WOULD have happened?

However, I do think it's odd to bang DePodesta for giving Drew few years, then praise Colletti in the next sentence for getting a "short, fair deal with Schmidt," or to consider Schmidt any safer in terms of injury-risk than Drew.

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 20, 2006 10:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

one more thing to think about....

I feel like the hatred of the Drew deal is largely based in framing heuristics that make people misassess the situation.

What do I mean?

In your post above, you talk about the value of signing Furcal and Schmidt to short deals, before either get the chance to fall apart.

However, take Furcal's very same contract and throw on the "Drew clause" -- now, Furcal's signed for 3 years, and up to 6 if he wants says so after the first three.

Does this make the deal worse? Yeah, probably, it does. It's a concession to the player. You are absorbing some risk -- injury or deterioration of skills. It's not a PURELY lose situation either -- there's no reason to believe the above scenario is any more likely than the scenario that Furcal decides to opt-in simply because he doesn't think he can get MORE, but doesn't think he would get LESS, either. In this case, the contract was probably slightly better: You're keeping him for longer when he's still worthwhile, and he's not testing the open market. (Remember that opting-out is a risk for him, and he will only do it if he is convinced he can make SIGNIFICANTLY more; therefore, your contract could still be slightly under market for the cost of re-signing him at the end of three years, simply because he doesn't want to risk losing the contract, while you don't have to worry about an agent getting -- and lying about -- opposing bids.)

But back to the point about framing. If Drew has signed a two-year contract, it sounds like you wouldn't have complained. But because DePodesta gave Drew an extra concession (these opt-out -- or, re-framed, "opt-in" -- years), all you're focused on was this part of the contract.

Two points: 1) By giving Drew the possibility for 5 years, DePodesta was able to give Drew a remarkably low annual salary, something which really sticks out when you re-frame the contract as a 2 year contract with an "opt-in," and 2) GMs make concessions to players in contracts all the time, and this was one of them. Obviously, DePodesta knew the consequences of signing a contract like this -- it meant he couldn't get a "steal" for long, and he could end up with Drew through a lot of injured time. That was the risk in the contract DePodesta was willing to make. However, he felt he needed a middle-of-the-order bat for the Dodgers (which he did), and he also knew that he could spend less per year than other teams who, undoubtedly, were offering Drew EXCLUSIVELY one- and two-year deals but for 50% more money per.

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 21, 2006 12:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

DUSTY!

re: "Like I said, I don't hate the Schmidt deal; it seems like a necessary risk. But it is a very real risk that Schmidt spends most of his time as a Dodger either on the disabled list or pitching ineffectively from the years of abuse he received under Dusty Baker and Felipe Alou (along with previous injury history)."

I may be wrong here, but I don't know of any studies which support an assertion that pitcher (over-)usage at age 28+ (when he went to SF) has any correlation to future arm troubles. Besides, Dusty only managed him in 2001(half)-2002, and he was 15th in TOT_PAP in 2002. Alou pushed him hard in 2003-2006, but by "hard", we're still talking about thresholds that virtually every full-time starter used to reach as recently as 20 years ago.

by BobbyMac on Dec 21, 2006 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

responding to all your comments....

....in this one post:

1) I guess I don't know any studies either, but I'd certainly read that pitchers of all ages suffer from being abused. People thought RJ was going to fall apart for years because of it. Just as a little anecdoctal evidence, Mike Marshall and Teddy Higuera definitely fit the argument that overuse at any age leads to deteriorated skill (and you might add Livan Hernandez on there if you don't believe his listed age). Besides, I don't see a reason to believe letting a pitcher throw endless innings would cease to be a problem after a certain age -- everyone knows what an unnatural motion throwing is and how much damage it causes, and just because the body has more fully developed doesn't mean there are no consequences to the devastation you're causing by throwing 140+ pitches in an outing. And I'm willing to bet (not knowing where to actually look this up) that Schmidt finished in the top three in 140-plus-pitch outings for every year he was with the Giants.

Anyway, why leave it to studies? I would definitely take someone on a bet -- even give them odds -- that Schmidt will miss/be too hurt to pitch effectively the majority of at least one of the years, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were more. Would you bet me the alternative?

I didn't blast most of Colletti's moves from last off-season. I liked Garciaparra and Ethier and was luke-warm about Furcal and Lofton. I didn't like Mueller, because I thought Willy Aybar should be playing there instead. (And, as I said before, are there two worse signs for your organization's moves than: 1) outbidding the Pirates for an old free agent -- Mueller, and 2) trading with John Schuerholz -- Aybar? History has told us time and time again that this should mean that Mueller and Betemit suck, and Aybar is a future star.) The offense relied on the bottom of the lineup more than any team in baseball, though (besides the Yankees, but that's just because they're not a real baseball team), and they would have benefited immensely from more power. Whatever, though -- I don't BLAME Colletti for not getting the power, nor for most of that offseason's moves.
You're advocating trading two high-upside prospects so that Julio Lugo can steal bases in the seven games he would play against the Padres? I realize this isn't actually what you were saying, but I don't think you're acknowledging how little impact he could have had given that: 1) he wasn't going to be an everyday player (barring an injury), and 2) it was only going to be for two months. I'm NOT calling this a bad trade because of how poorly Lugo played for the Dodgers; I've gotten in arguments with Dodger fans who claim he sucks, when I think anyone who is familiar with Lugo's entire body of work knows he's a productive player. I thought it was a horrible trade at the time because I wasn't sure two months of him justified the price regardless, and it certainly didn't given that we didn't need him (which was clear BEFORE he came to L.A.). Besides, if Garciaparra got hurt (which he was, but Grady refused to sit him anyway), we could have played James Loney, who, having watched the team play day in and day out, I can definitively say was the best hitter on our team at that point in time, even though he was relegated to the bench.
I agree with you that trading prospects who your own people tell you are over-rated is good management skills. I'm not totally risk-averse, either. But what did Colletti ACQUIRE by taking these risks? Obviously, I've already detailed the list, but here it is again, ordered in my approximation of how much value these players have added and will ever add to the Los Angeles Dodgers organization: Mark Hendrickson, Marlon Anderson, Julio Lugo, Danys Baez, Toby Hall. Personally, I'd be surprised if Hendrickson added a whole lot more value than if the Dodgers had just called up Joel Hanrahan. So, like you say, use your inside information and take risks where you see fit, but what's the point in taking these risks if you get absolutely nothing in return?

(By the way, I realize two more Colletti moves I never covered: Izturis for Maddux and Duaner Sanchez and Steve Schmoll for Jae Seo. I'll miss Izturis' glove, but he couldn't fit into the lineup, so I knew the trade was inevitable. I thought Maddux had little value, but he ended up being fine. At the time, I felt it was basically a wash in which neither team received much value or gave much up. In the Seo trade, I was a big Sanchez fan, so I was disappointed to see him go, but Seo's end-of-'05 stats convinced that Colletti made a good move here. In retrospect, that trade looks horrible, but I thought it was a good one at the time, so I'll chalk it up as a smart move by Colletti.)

4) Finally -- of course DePo was totally undone by injuries. The team the Dodgers were fielding by the end of '05 was their triple-A lineup, since everyone of any importance had gone down already. And, though they weren't GREAT early, they were perfectly online with their pennant-winning '04 team for the first half of the season, while they were only MODESTLY injured. But, yes, fans are stupid and impatient, and they blame whoever they can when their team doesn't win all the games they feel they deserve.

Just so you know, I DON'T give DePodesta credit for winning the division in '04, nor for them falling apart in '05. '04 was a team he didn't build, and '05 was a team he never intended to be putting on the field. The work GMs do, for the most part, wouldn't be seen until several years into their tenure, which is something fans were too impatient to realize. To me, it's like attributing a team's turn-around to a new manager, or a game-winning hit to "clutchness": Maybe these things exist in some (rare) occasions, but for the most part, you're just attaching the latest happenings to whatever you can see and calling it causation.

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 21, 2006 5:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

stuff

Good discussion. I like your thoughtful comments, even when we disagree. And it's great to hear insights from someone who follows the Dodgers so closely!

re: "You're advocating trading two high-upside prospects so that Julio Lugo can steal bases in the seven games he would play against the Padres?"

No, I'm advocating trading two prospects that you believe to be over-valued for a very useful player who protects you against an imminent Nomah injury, adds yet another speed player (and yes, those 7 games against SD were magnified in value at least twofold, since nobody else was going to win the division), and also who you can then offer arbitration and get draft picks in return. I am not a Dodger follower, as you are, so I'm not even sure if they did this, but I could see taking the hit from Guzman/Pedroza (assuming there's some inside knowledge that they aren't that good) for 2 months of Lugo, and a sup-1 and a 2. [for the record, I don't know why they were ready to give up on those two, either - seemingly some serious power potential there]

- I already said I think the Navarro deal was a brain fart. There's really no defending that, IMO.

A lot of people on here refer to the "injury nexus", and that assertion is supported by seminal work on pitcher abuse in "The Diamond Appraised", back in the 80s. One of the interesting things that Craig Wright came up with in his studies back then was that a lot of the high-longevity pitchers had some events which caused them to miss a year during their 18-23 years (the war, not being a pitcher, fluke injury, etc.)

I've read a lot on the subject of pitcher abuse, and as best I can tell, if a guy makes it to age 25 without being overworked, he's about as likely as the next pitcher to miss innings the next seasons, regardless of how many IP he gets. If he tallies a bunch of innings, that increases the chance of him having some sort of injury, just through numbers. Pitching is a risky business, so I'm not sure I'd take your bet for any pitcher to be (almost) completely healthy for 3 straight, and I really haven't followed Schmidt's injury concerns as closely as it sounds like you have. But here are the CAT-5 starts for Schmidt the past few years (133+ pitches):

0
0
2 (2nd, 8 others in baseball)
0
0

I sort of reacted to the Dusty comment, since I've heard again and again and again about how he ruined young arms, and aside from Prior, I haven't really seen that to be the case. And Prior was getting pushed pretty hard at USC and in his pre-Dusty year, as well.

Truth be told, my thinking on SP is that Earl Weaver's idea of a SP serving an "apprenticeship" in the bullpen makes a heckuva lot of sense. I was higher on Papelbon than most, largely for that reason (suggesting he was a top-5 pitching prospect was another comment of mine which was greeted with some serious skepticism on this site). But I'm not worried about guys in their late 20's throwing 230+ innings, really. The bones have stopped growing, or whatever happens (I'm not a kinesiologist, and I don't really know), and no manager these days really "abuses" starters the way they were abused in the past.

by BobbyMac on Dec 22, 2006 10:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

definitely heard...

....the idea about early injuries leading to longevity. Like I said, I just never thought there was an age where it didn't hurt the body, but I'll be willing to believe it.

Also, I stand corrected on the Schmidt pitch counts. I was shocked they stayed that low -- it seemed like Alou ALWAYS wore him into the ground for no reason. I went and checked the gamelogs, and you're absolutely right -- only three games over 130, and the 144 which I seem to remember as the norm was actually his high. I guess the feeling is there because he did go into the 120s like it was nothing (which isn't true of most pitchers), and Alou would leave him out there even in meaningless games that were already decided, just because (I figured) the old man had already fallen asleep on the bench. But he didn't go crazy with him, as I'd believed, and I'm willing to buy that it's relatively alright for him to have been worked like this, given his age. Yes, I still believe he'll be injured (as much from his Pirate/Brave career as his Giants), but you did catch me in my attempt to be tricky: No one should EVER bet a pitcher will stay healthy.

As for Lugo, yes, the arbitration pick made up for part of the loss. Of course, the Dodgers seemed to throw out arbitration picks this off-season: Neither Maddux, Gagne or Lofton were offered arbritration, Baez (another type A) was thrown in with Aybar in the Betemit trade, and, of course, they lost two picks with Schmidt and Pierre. Having done all that, I guess it's a damn good thing they DID have Lugo, since it's the only reason we still have a first-round pick at all (which allows the true brains of the organization -- Logan White -- to do his work), but there were other ways of getting a pick of similar stature. Also, you have to question how much value on Joel Guzman and Sergio Pedroza you're really likely to recoup in the draft.

I like the "insurance plan" policy, in general, but the 2006 Dodgers HAD a lot of insurance plans. They had three first basemen (Nomar, Olmedo Saenz, James Loney), two second basemen (Jeff Kent, Ramon Martinez.....Delwyn Young was on the 40-man, and had played second until that year, albeit poorly, two), two shortstops (Rafael Furcal, Oscar Robles....I SUPPOSE Jason Repko could play in an emergency also), and one third baseman (Wilson Betemit, with Andy LaRoche available for call-up). This list cuts short the actual possibilities for permutations, of course, because, like Lugo, several of these guys play multiple positions: Ramon Martinez, Robles and Betemit can play all, and Saenz can still play third in an emergency (though it's not a thing of beauty). I LOVE the flexibility. That's why I was sad to see us TRADE two of our other pieces that gave us the power: Willy Aybar (2B-3B) and Cesar Izturis (the best damn fielder at any position you want to put him at). Even Joel Guzman would count as flexibility: He was a shortstop/third baseman until that year. Given that we had all these chips at one point, why do we NEED to trade for flexibility? Lugo might be a slight upgrade -- and I'm not saying he isn't -- but an upgrade in flexibility for two months, given the depth the '06 Dodgers already had (and depth -- and I guess BA/OBP -- were their two greatest strengths), why trade valuable prospects to increase this strength by a tiny margin? Find someone offering something you do need, or hold onto your bargaining chips until someone offers something you do value -- pitching or power. Because, if all you're getting is someone who is a bench player for you -- regardless of what his "market value" is -- you should only give up pieces that are worthy of a bench player. That's like Econ 101 right there: Let the team who values Lugo the most get him. I don't think that team was us.

And about base-stealing. Everyone knows the Dodgers had Furcal and Lofton last year. Jason Repko is nearly as good a basestealer as either one of them, and could have been used for pinch-running situations (or been played against lefties, who he does well against). If you desperately want speed, bite the bullet and add Trayvon Robinson to your 40-man, and then lose him in the offseason; it's not like he's worth more than that anyway. Or Jamie Hoffman or Jovanny Rosario, if that's more to your liking. But the truth is, any time Piazza was behind the plate, you didn't need Julio Lugo or Rafael Furcal or even Russell Martin on the basepaths to swipe a bag: You needed any living, breathing baseball player. Even Piazza could probably take third base on Piazza at this point in his career.

It is almost ironic, though, that we're arguing about how the Dodgers should have gone about beating the Padres (with the speed), and the only time the ended up beating them was with five homeruns in nine batters.

Anyway, I don't mean to sound purely argumentative. I see your point on a lot of this stuff, especially with Schmidt. And with Lugo, I see his utility, but just doubt the return on him would be worth the cost. (And, as I said before, the opportunity cost IS being felt right now, when Boston and Toronto are/were only asking for prospects Colletti DOESN'T -- or at least shouldn't -- want to give up in exchange for players the Dodgers really could use.)

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 22, 2006 6:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

good points

re: "the opportunity cost IS being felt right now, when Boston and Toronto are/were only asking for prospects Colletti DOESN'T -- or at least shouldn't -- want to give up in exchange for players the Dodgers really could use.)"

This starts with a weak supposition that those teams WOULD want the prospects who were dealt away. I agree that it's always nice to have "bright shiny things" for trade talks, and guys who hit homers are that, even if they don't do anything else. I already said I wouldn't have done the Lugo deal with my knowledge (i.e. I don't know what the Dodgers knew about them that I don't). But I also wouldn't be upset with my team's GM if he made moves that he thought could win. Unless the new TB management is completely different from the old, I just cannot see them ever "finishing" their rebuilding process, for example. I guess I hear you saying that Lugo didn't help the team much, and while that sort of makes sense, when you're pulling out Oscar Robles as an alternative, I don't think that's someone you ever want getting playoff time for your team if you can help it.

And, as a Cubs fan, I'm very happy to have Izturis and his great glove. For Christmas, I'm asking Santa for assurance that Lou won't bat him in the top 2 lineup slots (at least not very often). :>

by BobbyMac on Dec 25, 2006 8:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

De Jesus

He is playing winter ball against more advance competition and playing very good.

by LCT on Dec 20, 2006 8:13 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Other

We are talking about Ned Colletti, right? Then I'll go with Omar Vizquel or Bill Russell.

by bigfatdrunk on Dec 20, 2006 12:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

torture every aspect.

yep. sure does.

"So what are GOOD moves by Colletti?
I liked the original signing of Nomar, it being one year at only $8 million.
I thought the Brett Tomko signing made sense, given the low cost and high upside. It still doesn't look horrible, given the market for pitchers.
Kenny Lofton turned out better than I thought, but I liked his decision, at the time, to only hand out a one-year contract so that he wouldn't block any prospects.
I have very mixed feelings on the Furcal signing, but it's definitely turned out well; he's better than I thought, and Izturis (or anyone else in the organization) doesn't pass the test. As before, I always liked the short years on the contract.
I like Willy Aybar a lot, but I like Wilson Betemit too. Good challenge trade, I guess.
I liked Andre Ethier for Milton Bradley, just because I'm glad we got a prospect instead of nothing for someone we HAD to trade."

what a hater!

do you think he's wrong? about what? why?

now i guess i'm a bleedjaxblue/paul depodesta sockpuppet or something.

by wily mo on Dec 21, 2006 4:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

thanks for the quotes....

I was about to do the same myself. Obviously, I don't think Colletti's been nothing but bad.

Anyway, I will admit to being predisposed to DePodesta -- I wrote my application essay to Harvard about how much I admired his courage back when he was an assistant for the A's (though this was somewhat just to kiss Harvard's @$$ by hyping up one of their alum). And when he got named Dodgers GM, all my friends wrote to congratulate me, knowing how thrilled I would be.

However, I am not trying to "frame" DePodesta in a favorable light. I'm simply trying to analyze how I looked at all of the moves by these two GMs in the past three-plus years.

It seems to me that everyone else is looking through a frame that obscures the truth. No one can help but mention that "J.D. Drew was given a short contract in which he could become more valuable and bolt," but yet everyone praises Furcal being given a short contract where......what now? Colletti has no chance of keeping him (or at least without renogiating on an open market, which will drive up the price). I'm not saying the Furcal deal is bad, but there is the same risk in this deal as in Drew's; it just doesn't bother people because: 1) the terms of the contract don't highlight the years Furcal ISN'T getting, and 2) the fact that Drew controlled if he stayed or not gave people the sense that the Dodgers could only be gouged. The latter point isn't entirely true (as documented above, there are some advantages to the Dodgers by this form of contract), and it wouldn't make the deal "horrendous" regardless. The way it all played out, Drew was a great signing. Show me a way in which the Juan Pierre ISN'T horrendous?

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 21, 2006 5:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

do you really think....

....Paul DePodesta would make a diary about the Dodgers' shortstop of the future?

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 21, 2006 5:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Maybe this is overkill....

.....but one more bad move by Colletti: signing Jeff Kent to a two-year contract without waiting for the year to start.

At the time, my feelings were warmer about this than they are now (obviously, since it now looks like Kent is spiraling to the end of his offensive career, and his defense has always been utterly appauling).

But why couldn't Colletti wait for the season to progress before handing out a contract to a guy who wasn't going anywhere else who was nearing 40? Why not wait to see if he still has it that year? Or if your farm system produces someone else? What's the rush?

In this case, Colletti's impatience came back to bite him.

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 21, 2006 8:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Kent

I'm sure not a Jeff Kent fan, and I am amazed that he's hung on as long as he has, but saying that a guy's offensive career is spiraling to an end when he hit .292/.385/.477 as a middle-infielder seems a bit harsh. How many other teams right now don't have a middle infielder who's done that well in his best season, nor is likely to ever do that well? If his BA drops 40 points, and he keeps his OBP about the same by walking, I'll be really worried, but if his hand/eye is good enough to hit .292 still, I don't think that spiral is all that steep.

by BobbyMac on Dec 22, 2006 10:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

apologies....

....on this one. It's probably (OK, definitely) overstated, particularly since we already traded the person who I wish we'd played at second base (Aybar), and Betemit/Garciaparra (and not LaRoche) will be manning third, meaning no one's being blocked by Kent anymore.

I guess I have a more negative view of Kent's year because he was so bad from the start, and really only got his stats up at the end of the season. Obviously, that doesn't make him bad -- that just distorted my view of his actual performance. In fact, one could easily argue he was injured early, and his end-of-the-season stats cut short his actual retained skill-level.

One thing I can tell you, from having watched a lot of Dodger games, that I found disturbing was this: If you've watched a lot of Jeff Kent at-bats in your career (as I obviously have, being a Bay Area-resident who loves the Dodgers), you know that he has a very rigid approach. The man has made a living throughout his entire career by taking pitches around his hands and putting them in the bleachers time and time again. Obviously, pitchers try to stay away from the inner-half of the plate to combat this, but he had managed to thrive anyway for two reasons: 1) he will change his approach every ten at-bats (totally confabulating number to make this point) and look for something away to drive to right-center for a single/double, and 2) literally NEVER missing anything on the inside half of the plate. The second point is the one I want to discuss here. In 2005, watching the game as a Dodger fan, the exciting part of Kent's at-bats happened not when the pitch came but when the catcher set up. If you saw him set up on the inside half, you started licking your lips and PRAYING the pitch wasn't going to be off the plate inside. In 2006, it was a different story. Kent stopped punishing the inside pitch consistently, and it didn't seem to come with an adjustment to hitting the outside pitches. Now, obviously the stats tell me that he did just fine in the end: Clearly, he was doing more with other pitches than I realized (or else he started getting pitched inside more, meaning his drop of percent-success on inside pitches was made up for by overly cocky pitchers). But it seemed like the beginning of the end to me when a guy who is so rigidly reliant on one pitch (and so vulnerable to all others) starts to lose his dominance in this one field of expertise.

Also, Jeff Kent's range is the distance he can fall (not even dive) in each direction, but that's no different than when DePodesta signed him, and I really wanted to emphasize the difference between those two signings, so that's not the point. I still do wonder what the haste to re-sign an 38-year-old who wanted to retire a Dodger was, but maybe I wasn't privy to all the information -- maybe signing him then was a show of respect Kent needed to convince him to play baseball (since for Jeff Kent, it really ISN'T about money, and you can't say that about a lot of athletes......especially about athletes I have next to no respect for despite this trait).

Just as long as we're having such a good discussion about all this (and it's probably good for me to hear from an outsider instead of driving myself crazy over my problems with Sabean 2.0), I want to hear what you think about the Dodgers outfield for 2007. Specifically, are you aware that the regular starting lineup will feature three outfielders with rag-doll arms? As I see it, it should be Luis Gonzalez in left, Juan Pierre in center and Andre Ethier in right. Obviously, they have three backup outfielders with cannons: Jason Repko, Matt Kemp and James Loney (I imagine Nomar and Marlon Anderson -- both of whom have pretty weak arms, will get some outfield time, too). However, in the average game (for at least the first seven innings), baserunners will be able to take the extra base on every single and tag up on every fly ball. Now, I'm not usually one to get too caught up in defense (it takes Jeff Kent-level ineptitude to get more than a mention from me), but outfield arm-strength makes a real impact. And the Dodgers haven't just left that as a weakness -- they've pretended it doesn't exist. (I'm sure you're aware of Pierre and LoGo's arms, but you may not have seen Ethier in action. Believe me, it isn't pretty. Actually, it reminds me of Josh Heupel's -- the old Oklahoma QB's.) Does LoGo's offense make up for this? DOES LoGo really provide offense? Should the Dodgers have signed LoGo and Pierre with prospects waiting in the wings, and when they're in trade talks for Alex Rios (though I assume this will never actually happen)? Is Colletti thinking ahead here at all?

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 22, 2006 7:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs