Not Quite Like Kissing Your Sister, But...
To start, a few fundamental pillars of my belief system:
Teams should, when possible and within reason, give fans a chance at the postseason, or failing that, make their team as good as it can be.
Teams can't be afraid to trade prospects on the chance that they turn into good players. That'll happen periodically, but there's a reason they're called prospects.
Overpaying isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as it serves a purpose and doesn't crush the long term outlook (still, it should be minimized).
P.R. trades (for example, moving guys so at least the team can say, "Hey, at least we did something.") are generally a bad idea.
With that in mind, I can confidently say I understand the theory behind what the Dodgers did today. They play in a division weaker than Rafael Palmiero's steroids alibi, and though they deserve to be out of the race, they're not. They have a serious need for pitching and like most teams, can use another bat. More than that, the entire National League is so weak it can be argued that any team playing well entering the playoffs — and by definition that would include the Dodgers, who need to kick butt just to get there — has an opportunity to qualify for (and be crushed in) the World Series. So I get all that. But I can't say I'm all that excited about the deals.
Do I think they're better today than yesterday? Sure. Lugo is an upgrade over Izturis offensively and isn't a butcher. If you were picking teams on the sandlot, Lugo would get picked before Izzy.
Maddux may not be the Cy Young version anymore, but given the state of the Dodger rotation, how many guys could come in and actually make the problem worse? Unfortunately, as I've been saying since trade speculation season started (on this site, that was around mid-May), I don't think he'll help all that much either.
Since a Ponce de Leon April (5-0, 1.35 ERA), Maddux has been ordinary at best. Three consecutive months with an ERA over five, one over six, and another damn close. Opposing batters have been at or above .300 over that stretch as well. All in all, it doesn't paint a pretty picture. It's not uncommon for a veteran to get a nice boost when traded to a contender late in his career (Cardinals fans are still thanking Will Clark, for example), but he'll need a rocket pack to get the kind of elevated performance the Dodgers will need for him to be not only an impact pitcher down the stretch, but in the playoffs as well (knock on wood). How many wins is he going to be worth?
As for Izturis, no doubt he was the odd man out, especially when Jeff Kent comes back (again, knock on wood). I think over the winter the Dodgers could have gotten more for him in a trade than an old, fairly ineffective right-hander. Depending on how he hits the rest of this season, he could be flipped for a back end starting pitcher, possibly as high as a No. 3. That's assuming .280+, .250? Not so much. If I had to guess, Colletti sacrificed some potential offseason value for Izturis in exchange for a short term (theoretical) gain. Doesn't really bother me, but it's something to think about.
But as my mom would say, "here's the thing": With Jeff Kent out for the near future, trading Izturis means they had to replace him. That's where Lugo comes in. I believe he's an upgrade, when you take into consideration the total package of offense with defense, especially with Lugo at second. But the price to get him — Guzman — was steeper, and you only make this move if you think Maddux will make enough of an impact to make the first move worth it. Again, I'm not confident that'll happen. One move doesn't happen without the other.
Colletti reiterated today that the timetable on Kent's return is still 10 to 14 days, and even assuming that's correct, the Dodgers couldn't have afforded to plug in Oscar Robles (or his functional equivalent) for two weeks and wait it out. Once Izzy was gone, someone had to take his place. But you don't make the second move unless you think Maddux will have a serious impact on the team, something I'm not confident will happen. And if Maddux doesn't pitch well, the Dodgers traded Guzman for two weeks worth of Lugo starts plus fill-in duty for the last six weeks. That's pretty expensive. Of course, if Kent is out another month, then the price paid for Lugo becomes more reasonable.
As I wrote earlier, I don't think it's wrong to overpay here and there, and I think teams owe it to their fans to try and get into the postseason. I think the Dodgers are a better team now than they were yesterday, especially when factoring in the Betemit deal. I just wonder if Monday's moves improved them to the point that they'll be the difference between the postseason and a long winter. Of the two, I think Lugo is actually more likely to make a bigger impact, but if Maddux throws like an old guy instead of an old-but-temporarily-rejuvenated guy, it won't really matter.
In the end, sacrificing Izturis probably won't cost them much. And even if Guzman becomes a decent player (which he very well might), given the amount of prospects the Dodgers have, they can't keep all of them. This is a market with high expectations, and I think Colletti felt pressure to do something to make them better. The papers would have been harsh had he not — just ask Bill Stoneman tomorrow afternoon.
And he did improve them, just not so much that the trades themselves will put them over the hump (by that I mean if they play well enough to get into the playoffs, they probably would have gotten there as they stood on Sunday). Colletti showed today he's willing to gamble, and won't give up on a season as long as it has some life. These deals don't bother me in the sense I feel L.A. made some massive mistake. I just wonder how much they'll l help. Down the stretch, we'll find out.
—BK
Subscribe to this Blog | What is RSS?
I'll settle for Lugo not complaining that he's not starting or not playing SS. If he behaves then I'm a happy man.
Posted by: LoLo | July 31, 2006 at 05:52 PM
THIS IS A REPRINT OF MY EVALUATION. I LEFT IT IN AN EARLIER THREAD, BUT ALSO WANTED IT TO BE IN BK'S POST, SO IT'S EASIER TO GET BOTH THOUGHTS AT ONCE.
IZZY FOR MADDUX:
Maddux can only help this rotation, if for no other reason than (save Penny) the staff's been shakier than Colin Farrell trying to get through the day without a drink. Maddux hasn't been a world beater this year, but it's not crazy for a vet to get rejuiced by a new, more pleasant environment (say what you want about the Dodgers recent slump, but the Cubs spent an entire season hopeless). I'm guessing he'll be more or less "solid." But even if he pitches more like "old Maddux" than the "Maddux of old," he'll likely get it done a few times. More importantly, I think he'll be a good presence for the starters, who could certainly use one right now (and especially if a postseason happens). In terms of impact, it's at worst a wash.
As for Izzy, the writing was tagged on the wall in Spray paint. He was eventually gonna forward his mail. And if Kent comes back healthy (which I'm not convinced he will, but for now, let's run with it), he'd have lost mucho PT, anyway. So even if you don't think Maddux helps much, the same might be said about Izzy in a few weeks. And the need addressed by Maddux is much more pressing than the one by Izzy.
My only problem (aside from the fact that I like calling people "Izzy" and the opportunity will present itself considerably less often now) is wondering what they could have gotten for Cesar in the offseason. It wouldn't shock me if a Gold Glove SS would nab a solid middle of the rotation starter (maybe even a #2) or established relief help, both of which the team could use. The market for Izzy isn't huge now (since it's based purely on contenders' situations), but that could change come fall/winter. And as much as winning is about "now" and "anything can happen if you make the playoffs," I'm not convinced this team can make tons of postseason noise. Thus, I'm thinking they may have sacrficed a better hypothetical incoming piece for the 2007 squad (and beyond). But I also doubt Izzy would have nabbed them an elite enough player to make this a mistake of monumental stature.
GUZMAN FOR LUGO:
I think Colletti is just determined to make a trade with Tampa work and won't rest until that happens, come hell or high water.
Kidding.
This is almost like bringing in "Bizarro-Izzy" (better hitter, not as strong a fielder). Yeah, they already have Furcal (and Betemit), but I think Lugo's gonna be playing a LOT of second. A LOT OF SECOND. As in, I'm not convinced Kent's gonna come back healthy for long spurts, if at all. That's my gut feeling. If nothing else, I think they're very concerned. And by subbing Lugo into that spot over Izzy, you're supplying an offensively challenged squad a little more zest. While I think fans sometimes exagerated Izzy's lack of bat (you'd have thought he was the second coming of Bob Eucker. haha), there's no question Lugo's an upgrade.
Is losing Guzman a big deal? Yes and no. "Yes," in the sense that he's a highly touted prospect. If he ends up a great player, many a Blue Blood would find that a stinger. But also "no," in the sense that the Dodgers are loaded with prospects and there's no way they can keep them all. Some guys will end up elsewhere no matter what happens.
I know Colletti said he didn't want to trade prospects for a rent-a-player, a philosphy I happen to think is smart (given that I think there's only so far this team can go). But if Colletti's also trying to win this season and dudes keep dropping like flies around Chavez. So he sort ate and hoarded cake. He gave up a good youngster, but not one that (for now) smacks of irreplacable. And similar to the Aybar-Betemit trade, got a guy he can put on the field right now. Had he have traded Ethier, Kemp, Martin, Broxton (i.e., the fellas generally considered "untouchable except for extraordinary circumstances) for a two month guy, I'd find that nothing short of insane. But this is a pretty good compromise, if you're gonna trade prospects at all in this situation. And again, the Dodgers can afford it.
All in all, I'm giving them both transactions something of a "thumbs sideways." I think they make the team somewhat better, although not significantly. But they're definitely not worse team and (what I believe is) the logic behind them makes sense.
Hopefully, the same can be said about my ramblings. haha
AK
Posted by: Andrew Kamenetzky | July 31, 2006 at 06:07 PM
AK/BK,
Any chance you can "dig up" what we offered for Soriano? I want to see how close we were considering we were rumored to be the "closest to trading for him".
Posted by: LoLo | July 31, 2006 at 06:07 PM
I found this on SI.com...
For Soriano, the Nats sought a package of "pitcher Chad Billingsley and infielders Andy LaRoche and Joel Guzman [while] the Dodgers were prepared only to surrender Guzman.
Posted by: LoLo | July 31, 2006 at 06:16 PM
If Kent were "ready" to return soon, Lugo would not have been added. Martinez would have remained filling in and, if necessary, Oscar Robles could have been recalled to be a backup.
Unfortunately, the oblique epidemic continues. We know how long it takes to recover, and that the Dodgers messed up Jeff's return by not placing him on the DL retroactive to prior to the All Star break. Thus far, he's missed 16 actual games and if he could be activated by August 15th, I'd be surprised.
This also just has not been his best year. He had a slow start, began getting it going, got beaned, hurt his wrist, returned, but the power has been absent. Now the oblique. For someone who has been as steady and consistent as he has been, these may be signs of a decline that can't be stopped.
He's just not much of a first baseman. He can't compare to Nomar defensively or athletically. Plus, he's six years older.
Too bad we're not privy to the actual truth of his condition. It has probably been withheld to avoid looking desperate and getting fleeced at the trade deadline.
Posted by: Dodgerdog | July 31, 2006 at 06:17 PM
LoLo,
The closest we were to trading for Soriano was that Jim "DUI" Bowden was in town with the Nationals. Steve Phillips on ESPN kept trumpeting how that gave the Dodgers a great advantage, in that it allowed face-to-face negotiations. Besides giving up the farm and trading for Mo Vaughn when Phillips was GM with the Mets, there's a reason he's not a GM anymore.
I missed Peter Gammons, despite his Red Sox bent. His opinions fans could trust. We certainly didn't get a whole lot of true inside info this time around.
Posted by: Dodgerdog | July 31, 2006 at 06:23 PM
FYI-
The audio from today's conference call is posted on the Dodgers website.
BK
Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | July 31, 2006 at 07:03 PM
@AK/BK:
So Greg Maddux comes into the Dodger's rotation, who goes out? Chad or Aaron Sele? One of them have to be sent down right? Tough pick...
Posted by: Anthony T. | July 31, 2006 at 08:23 PM
I'm not feeling it.
By the numbers, everything looks like they will work out. Two prospects for a veteran arm and an offensive upgrade in the middle infield seems like a more than fair deal, but for whatever reason, I can't bring myself to like this trade.
Maddux can only make the pitching staff better, and Lugo's bat and speed means more bench time for Lofton, which is also a plus. Guzman was being squeezed out of positions in the Dodgers organization, and Pedroza is in A ball, so no great loss there.
On paper, everything's rosy, but I don't have a warm and fuzzy. Anyone else feel this way?
Posted by: Makoto Ueno | July 31, 2006 at 08:50 PM
Personally I'm glad we didn't trade prospects for a marquee player who would be a free agent anyway. We can try and sign them next year. Common sense!
It's not like this years Dodgers are a good team that just needs a little push to win the world series. Let's face it, if we make the post season what are the real odds we can even make it past the first round? Seriously?
Which brings me to the trade. I like them if these were guys who would be staying next year, but we paid way too high a price for players who are only here for the remainder of the year. And where the Dodgers may be a little better now, we are not going to scare anyone in the playoffs.
Under those circumstances was it worth it? Not to me.
I hope I'm wrong. I really do. I want to see a winning team, but not just this year, in years to come too.
These trades are like going to the emergency room when a visit to the family doctor would have been fine.
Posted by: Andy B | July 31, 2006 at 10:19 PM
even in tomorrow's la times it basically says that lugo is a rent-a-player. if either guzman or pedrosa is a avg .280/20/80 player, ned has made a major mistake. two prospects is not worth 2 months of service time. bad trade even if he does well.
Posted by: THE WOLF | July 31, 2006 at 10:53 PM
It's too bad the Dodgers lost Guzman, but the Dodgers needed to shed some major league ready youngsters because of the Rule 5 draft. The Dodgers have been losing players every year to the Rule 5. Better to trade them for something than lose them for nothing.
Posted by: Ron | August 01, 2006 at 06:00 AM
I don't like this. Lugo isn't even that good, plus he'll only be here for a few months...the Dodgers must not like something about Guzman since they were shopping him so much.
Posted by: daniel | August 01, 2006 at 08:15 AM
I don't like this. Lugo isn't even that good, plus he'll only be here for a few months...the Dodgers must not like something about Guzman since they were shopping him so much.
Posted by: daniel | August 01, 2006 at 08:16 AM
betemit, furcal, lugo. all career feilding percentages under .960, there goes D.Lowe's era. i understand getting one good offense, no defense guy but having 3/4 of our infield can't be a great idea.
Posted by: bmurph | August 01, 2006 at 08:52 AM
BK- THOSE OF US IN THE BIZZARO COMMUNITY TOOK
OFFENSE TO YOUR DEGORATORY USE OF THE TERM.
THANKS-THANKS A LOT-REALLY
Posted by: stargazin | August 01, 2006 at 09:11 AM
AK- THOSE OF US OVER 40 TAKE OFFENSE OF YOUR
EXPRESSION "OLD MADDUX". THANKS-THANKS ALOT-REALLY
Posted by: stargazin | August 01, 2006 at 09:20 AM
BK-SORRY THE "BIZZARO" COMMENT WAS DIRECTED TO AK.
BIZZARO BOB
Posted by: stargazin | August 01, 2006 at 09:24 AM
Bmurph, I'm thinking the Lowe era — as well as his ERA — is gone. All I've been seeing are fly balls and dingers. LOL
Posted by: wmm | August 01, 2006 at 09:31 AM
Stargazin,
I didn't actually write that. It was Bizarro AK up to another of his pranks.
AK
Posted by: Andrew Kamenetzky | August 01, 2006 at 09:34 AM
AK-YOU'LL GET A KICK OUT OF THIS-KEN
ROSENTHAL,IN HIS LATEST ARTICLE, TERMED
NED COLLETTI'S LASTEST TRADES AS " MONDO BIZARRO"
BIZARRO BOB
Posted by: stargazin | August 01, 2006 at 01:28 PM
Stargazin,
I do like that description, although he may be using bizarro to mean "bizarre," where I'm making a reference to a Superman villain. But either way, great word.
AK
Posted by: Andrew Kamenetzky | August 01, 2006 at 02:22 PM
AK-
I got that. Us Bizzaro people really appreciate that you remember us. We're a very tight community and Bizarro Superman is still are greatest hero.We're
still waiting for our first Bizzaro MLB player?
Maybe Rosenthal is a Superman fan too?
thanks -thanks alot- really Bizzaro Bob
Posted by: stargazin | August 01, 2006 at 03:33 PM
I understand why the Maddux for Izturis and the Lugo for Guzman trades were made; they just don't make sense to me. If the Dodgers could retain Lugo past the present season, then I can begin to wrap my head around the idea behind the trades, but I can't see renting Maddux and especially Lugo for 2 months as worthy payment for a top, I repeat, top prospect as Joel Guzman. I get it when you guys talk about the idea of a prospect and what that word means, but where would clubs be without them. I remember Paul Konerko who was rated a top prospect and was slated as the Dodger first baseman of the future. What happened? He was traded to the Reds for a relief pitcher that didn't quite work out. I can't tell you where the relief pitcher is, and I don't have to tell you where Konerko is because we all know. And we all know what kind of a player he is. And he was once a "top rated prospect". I know it doesn't always pan out, but top rated prospects are still valuable, and they're called "top prospects " for a reason. Why not have brought Guzman up to play the way they're going to use Lugo. Bringing him up now may have dispelled his attitude problem and it gives him a chance to perform, and they don't lose him at the end of the year like they do with Lugo. Yes, it's a risk, but a claculated risk. But I can't imagine anyone doesn't think the trades the Dodgers made aren't just as risky, if not more so.
Posted by: David Lassoff | August 02, 2006 at 02:54 PM