I am wondering what people here think is the value of outfield arms. Specifically, how much does is it viable to put together an outfield with players that can't throw?
The particular case I have in mind is that of the Dodgers (not surprisingly, since it's my diary), who will be starting (I believe) Luis Gonzalez in left, Juan Pierre in center and Andre Ethier in right on the average day. They do have some backups with stronger arms (Matt Kemp, Jason Repko, James Loney, along with two three others who have weak arms), and I imagine Ethier and LoGo may be playing 7 innings more often than not, but the fact is, a lot of runners won't think twice going first-to-third or taking home on a shallow flyout given this array of rag-doll arms.
I don't want this to turn into an argument about GMs or how smart was to end up with this outfield, as the last diary I made turned into (and where I got the idea for this question), but simply on what people's thoughts are on what the likely damage will be given such a poor-throwing outfield. Is it viable? Do any fans of other teams remember having an outfield that bad, and what was it like? I just want to hear thoughts on the issue, because, to me, it seems like you're giving up a lot of runs if your outfielders can't hold runners -- probably as many, if not more, than you would having a Piazza-type catcher, given that it's the whole outfield.
I'll include a poll just for fun.
What should the Dodgers do regarding their outfield?
bleedjaxblue is stupid/uninformed, and these are not the people who will be opening day starters (3 votes)
Stick with the current three -- their offense will make up for it (7 votes)
Stick with the current three -- their arms are better than you think (1 vote)
Get at least one new outfielder who has an arm in there -- SOMEONE needs to hold runners (14 votes)
Change the outfield, regardless, because these three guys suck (16 votes)
41 total votes