Trade Alert!
All of this information is in this morning's Extra!, but just in case not everyone reads to the end, here it is again.
The L.A. Daily News and Tampa Tribune are reporting that the Dodgers and Devil Rays are on the verge of completing a trade that would send Dioner Navarro to Tampa in exchange for LHP Mark Hendrickson and C Toby Hall.
The first thing this deal shows, should it happen, is the high price teams will have to pay to pick up starting pitching this trading season. Though he's been pitching well this season and has had a nice June, Hendrickson has been known more for being extremely tall (6-foot-9) than for being extremely good over the course of his career. Honestly, his profile is pretty ordinary — unless you think a 5.01 ERA and .291 BAA over five seasons HOF material. Still, he was reportedly getting attention from the pitching-starved Yankees as well, and I'm guessing other teams have made inquiries. And the Dodgers don't need him to be good forever, just for a couple months. If this is Hendrickson's career year, they'll take it.
Navarro is a high price to pay. Don't forget, this guy was the centerpiece of the Shawn Green deal. Fortunately for L.A., with the emergence of Russell Martin, they have the positional depth to absorb the hit, and they couldn't waste too much time. With the prospect of Brett Tomko hitting the DL and a rotation including Aaron Sele (an extremely nice guy and I hope he continues to pitch well, but am I the only one carrying an umbrella all day so when the other shoe drops, it doesn't hit me?), Chad Billingsley (too young and inexperienced to rely on in a pennant race), and Odalis Perez (his current qualification to re-enter the rotation is being a better option than Jae Seo), even an average starter is a welcome addition. I've said a few times on this site that there isn't much out there, and the price in prospects for the big fish that might get moved — Zito, Willis, Smoltz, etc. — is currently far too high to pay. Closer to the deadline, it ought to go down, but even then the cost could still be prohibitively high. And that assumes that Willis and Smoltz will be on the block, and I'm not convinced that's true, especially of Willis if the Marlins keep playing well. Colletti had to do something. If they wait on the mid-level guys to go for the big guns but then strike out, there won't be much talent — ordinary or even worse — to bring in.
If I'm Tampa Bay, I'm loving this deal. Trade a 32-year-old pitcher who probably wouldn't have been with the team in '07 along with a 30-year-old catcher whose days as a hot prospect are behind him for a young backstop full of potential. In five years, it would surprise me if the Rays didn't seem like clear winners in the exchange. This trade is all about differing priorities. Tampa, as always, is looking to the future, while the Dodgers want to win now. If Hendrickson comes in, helps stabilize the rotation and is part of a division-winning effort for the Dodgers, that's a reasonable trade-off. The Dodgers still need more help, but this is a start.
Don't expect Hendrickson to come in and dominate, but he should help a little.
—BK
Subscribe to this Blog | What is RSS?
BK,
No you aren't the only one carrying an umbrella waiting for Sele to drop off. I think most of us KNOW that he’s is going to start serving up water balloons sooner than later.
I don’t know about this trade, but it goes to show you the premium price of pitching. Just like you pointed out, BK, I checked his stats and saw that whopping .291 BAA and dropped my jaw. Considering the last 2 studs we got from Tampa over the offseason (Baez and Carter), I am very skeptical that this guy is going to pan out for us.
Trading Navarro for this guy is a BIG price pay. I know what you are saying about Tampa being winners in the long run, but do you honestly think we will be winners in the short-run? Again, I am highly skeptical.
With Navarro getting traded we have run out of “luxury” bargaining chips. It looks like Izzy isn’t going anywhere since Mueller’s career might be over. That means we will have to start cutting into prospects if we are to get more pitching help.
Is anyone else concerned with the fact that Bills is our best prospect, by far? I know the Dwight Gooden’s and the Roger Clemens’ don’t just grow on trees, but we are VERY thin as far as pitching prospects are concerned. I know he’s young and it’s early, but I am not too impressed with Bills.
Posted by: LoLo | June 27, 2006 at 10:27 AM
Lolo-
It depends on what your definition of "pan out" and "winners" is. Do I think Hendrickson will come over and dominate? No. But if he provides stability to the rotation (I'd take an ERA in the 4.25 neighborhood) and gives the Dodgers a chance to win most nights he pitches, it'll be worth it. They need help bad. Fortunately for Hendrickson, he's going to a good pitchers park to play for a solid defensive team. That'll help him. He's not going to do for LA what Houston hopes Clemens will do for them, but on the other hand, he didn't cost a pro-rated $22 million.
As for Billingsley, this is why I wished they didn't have to bring him up in the first place. Looking at their alternatives, I understand the move, but it's a lot to ask of a kid who wasn't dominating at the AAA level to come in and pitch well for a team in a pennant race. They need him to win now. It would be one thing if the Dodgers had four solid starters ahead of him and could let Billingsley pitch in the 5 slot, where if he pitches well in half his games it's fine. Instead, you can argue that he's a three or four since starters 3-5 in the rotation all have some issues. This is another reason why I like the Hendrickson deal. It takes a little pressure- hopefully- off Bills.
He's 21 or whatever, and has only pitched three major league games. He has nasty stuff, but doesn't locate very well right now, which is a pretty common problem for 21 year old pitchers. Really, he should be in AAA right now, figuring all this out. Unfortunately, necessity dictates he throw w/ the big club. In the long run, I think he'll be pretty good.
BK
Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | June 27, 2006 at 10:49 AM
Oh Rick Honeycutt:
I have been wondering the last few days why our pitching has been so horrible of late. Not just our starters and the pen, but also the fact that we have virtually no pitching talent in the minors. This has been the case for several years in the minors, but just a recent trend in Bigs (this year). So I thought long and hard as to why we are having these problems.
Was it Logan White? After all, he is in charge of stocking the farm. Of course not; if anything he has assembled one of the better scouting crews and his work has led us to the highest rated farm system in the majors. So he’s not to blame.
Colletti/Depo? Colletti just came aboard this year so you can hardly blame him for anything he inherited. I applaud him for the way he handled the Weaver situation. He knew what he was getting with Tomko and Sele. Baez, Seo, Hamulack, and Carter have bombed out, but I will get to why in a minute. Depo is responsible for the two pitchers that are currently anchoring our rotation (or keeping it afloat, depending on how you look at it). He did make the mistake of re-signing Odalis, but you can hardly blame Perez for the woes of the entire pitching staff.
Terry Collins? He is charge of developing our minor-league players, so is he not developing pitchers properly? Of course he’s not to blame. That’s why he has pitching coaches; to help develop pitchers. After all, Collins is doing something right if many of our prospects are hitting the Bigs “major league ready”.
Which brings us to Rick Honeycutt.
Let me see, before this year Ricky was our minor-league pitching development coach for X number of years. During those years our farm system has developed an over-hyped pitcher who never panned out (Jackson) and a few other prospects that have fizzled. He moves on to be our pitching coach and the starting pitching, a staple of the Dodger organization, goes to crap.
You can’t blame Ricky for Sele and Tomko. Those two are just following their historical patterns of mediocrity. But what about Baez? That guy saved 42 games last year. He was a solid closer for a team that can’t win 50 games. He gets to Dodgers Stadium, a pitcher’s park, and goes to crap under Ricky’s tutelage?
Carter, even though he was an All-Star by default, REALLY went to crap under Ricky.
Seo, though inconsistent for the early part of his career, showed promise last year. Ricky gets a hold of him and now he can’t hit the side of a barn?
Odalis, for all his attitude, has always been a decent pitcher. Never overpowering but somewhat consistent and effective. Ricky comes along and now the guy has an ERA over 6?
What happened to the Kuo’s and the Osoria’s?? These guys never developed like they were supposed to. And under who’s tutelage have these two been under for most of their careers? Said-named Ricky Honeycutt, that’s who!
So now we are going to trade a solid young catcher for a pitcher that is so-so (I’m terrified of that .292 BAA stat). Why? So Ricky can turn him into crap like he did all the other pitchers?
So, Ricky! Can you explain all of this to me? (Since he doesn’t have the guts to come on here and address this, HAHA, does someone else want to take a crack at solving this mystery?)
Posted by: LoLo | June 27, 2006 at 11:05 AM
BK,
I am VERY sure the guy isn’t going to come in and be lights out. I was hoping Colletti would find a solid No.3 starter, but this guy isn’t it. I guess the best we can hope for is a solid 4-5 guy.
I say “hope” due to the fact that Honeycutt isn’t doing much with the pitchers (see my Honeycutt write-up).
Still, it hurts that we are giving up Navarro for that, but we have little to choose from to begin with.
I know Bills is young, and I am with you that it seems like they rushed him up. But to me it’s a scary thing that this guy is our best pitching prospect. We are really thin on pitching, and not just in the Bigs either.
Posted by: LoLo | June 27, 2006 at 11:30 AM
LoLo -- I would counter your assertion by pointing out the possibility of how much *worse* our pitching might be if it weren't for the job Honeycutt is doing. I know it's frustrating right now with so much going right for the Dodgers to have this big part going wrong, but seriously, our pitching staff could be so much worse, and have *no* potential for improvement -- which I don't think is true. Let's not scape a goat quite yet. ;)
Posted by: Robert Daeley | June 27, 2006 at 11:37 AM
Robert,
How can our pitching situation get any worse? Our pen can’t hold leads or keep games close. Our 3-5 pitchers are inconsistent and are currently stinking it up. We just rushed our best prospect to the Bigs because we need pitching. We are apparently trading a fine young catcher for a 4-5 pitcher. And we have nothing in the minors as far a pitching is concerned. By worse you mean that Lowe and Penny end up blowing their arms, well then yeah, I guess it can get worse.
Honeycutt was running the minors for a while. It’s time to evaluate why we only have one good pitching prospect.
As far as our current pitching staff, I don’t remember our pitching being this bad, ever. We have players that used to pitch well who are now stinking it up in a “pitcher’s park”. Is it mere coincidence that Honeycutt is the pitching coach considering the fact that he has something to do with the poor status of our pitching prospects?
Need I remind you that Sele is due to tank any day now. Tomko is an up and down pitcher, so there is really nothing you can do about that.
What is wrong with Perez, Seo, Baez, and Carter? These pitchers were solid under someone else’s tutelage. Why are they struggling this year? Don’t you think it’s more than coincidence that they are all struggling at the same time?
As far as the adjustments that Ricky has “suggested” thus far, if you ask me the man is not doing enough to jumpstart the engine. He is the pitching coach; it’s his job to correct the fundamentals of these pitchers. If he stinks at it then pitchers will never get out of their rut (i.e. Perez, Baez, Seo, etc.).
Posted by: LoLo | June 27, 2006 at 12:24 PM
Lolo-
No doubt the Dodgers are thin on pitching in the minors, but look around. It's a league wide thing. There aren't a lot of teams with a ton of young pitching coming up through their systems. That's why you see guys like Billingsley, Cole Hamels, Jared Weaver, Liriano, etc. come up about ten minutes after they finish ninth grade. There are exceptions, of course, but it's tough to find pitching anywhere.
You may be right about Honeycutt in the long term but I don't know if you can put it all on one guy. All the guys in the system- Terry Collins, Logan White, Honeycutt, now Colletti, the pitching coaches at the minor league level, etc. bear responsibility for things when they go wrong. Overall, I think the Dodgers minor league system is in good shape. But yeah, they need more pitchers in the pipeline. Is Kershaw ready yet (hahahahaha).
The road is littered with prospects who never pan out. That's why they're prospects... and why when you can trade them for really good established players that you can afford to keep around for a while you do it (within reason, of course).
BK
Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | June 27, 2006 at 12:29 PM
BK,
I hear you about the prospects who don’t pan out. But it just seems that our pitching prospects have been terrible. For an organization that has always prided itself on pitching it is very unacceptable in my book.
I know we need help in the rotation any way we can get it. But this guy? I guess I was thinking…I don’t know what I’m thinking anymore, HAHA! I guess I was just a bit surprised to see the name “Mark Hendrickson” when the Dodgers finally decided to make a trade for a pitcher.
Posted by: LoLo | June 27, 2006 at 12:42 PM
im with lolo here, i think honeycutt definitely has something to do with the way pitching is going right now. grady little comes out to the mound to talk to pitchers and doesnt pull them out. im not too sure that is common in the majors, but all i ever did was watch dodger baseball and the manager coming out was a rare thing. that led me to believe maybe the coach didnt have confidence in RH. i know that the pitchers the dodgers obtained in the offseason were decent pitchers on other teams and now they suck. how could one think that pitching coach wasnt somewhat to blame?
im happy to hear that ned when out to get help. im glad hes actully doing something to help. the only thing that i question was getting rid of navarro for hendrickson. as lolo said we got rid of a good barganing piece for this guy. i hope hes worth it(at this point, it wouldnt hurt).
by the way, many pitchers from the AL do well when they come over to the NL. lets hope that trend continues.
Posted by: THE WOLF | June 27, 2006 at 02:00 PM
It's only my opinion but I think the pitching staff would be doing better if Jim Colborn was still here.
Can we trade for Dave Duncan while we're at it?
Posted by: Andy B | June 27, 2006 at 03:46 PM