An L.A. Coin Flip
So some time with my Thanksgiving turkey has not helped me appreciate the gift of 5/$44 for Juan Pierre any more than I did before, but thanks to Bill Stoneman, there's now some more oddish behavior from a (semi) local team to discuss. The Angels, after passing and passing and passing on trades, missing out on free agent signings, and generally giving sports talk radio types a reason to poke them with a stick (not always deserved, given their track record of success over the last few years), have given 5/$50 to Gary Matthews Jr. That's a major investment in the belief that Matthews Jr. will be the guy from last season well into his 30s, as opposed to the player he was in every other year over his career.
So it begs the question: Which signing is worse? Yes, I know I'm loading it with the presumption that both are bad, so feel free to counter me on that. On a pure player level, I think giving $50 million to Matthews is insane. At least Pierre has been a consistent performer throughout his career. He's flawed and in my opinion not what the Dodgers need, but in the proverbial sandlot game, I'd pick Pierre first. On the other hand, I think it's very possible that the Pierre signing screws with the long term plans of the Dodgers more than the Halos. I can't think of anyone who Matthews Jr. will block on his way to the bigs (and if one develops, the DH always provides a little wiggle room), whereas the Dodgers have put a big five-year impediment in the path of Matt Kemp, which lowers his trade value as well (it lessens the leverage the Dodgers have to say they'll just keep and play him themselves). Plus, the ripple effect from Pierre tends to screw with other aspects of the Dodgers player development machinery. So in that sense, it's worse.
At the very least, it's something to chew on while you're chewing on leftover turkey legs.
—BK
Subscribe to this Blog | What is RSS?
BK,
I understand your concerns over giving Juan Pierre a five-year contract. However, in light of the current market conditions and available players, we may just have to be willing to accept it.
First, the Dodgers had no centerfielder. Although he could have been re-signed for one more year, Kenny Lofton's penchant for wrong routes and misplays in center likely caused Ned to look elsewhere. Kenny's greatest advantage was his willingness to sign for one year, thus addressing your "Kemp-blocking" issue. But that poor defense probably did Lofton in.
Second, although some would say, "What about Jason Repko?", Jason has not shown that he can last a full year, either with health or hitting. And I don't think Colletti is willing to try to see if Jason can. He's a nice 4th-5th outfielder.
Let's shore up the pitching staff and hope that somehow Vernon Wells will make it into Dodger Blue.
Posted by: Dodgerdog | November 24, 2006 at 08:20 AM
I won't comment on which one is worse because who cares about the Calif/Ana/LA (identity crisis) Angels anyway. I will say that I did not like the 5 yr part of this deal. Price is not horribly outrageous just outrageous. I would have preferred a 1-2 yr deal for Roberts.
It is generally agred that Kemp needs at least another year at AAA. Why not plan on bringing him up in left or right so that the outfield might look like Kemp/Pierre/Ethier?
I will also state that I prefer that we not give away Loney in that both Nomar and Kent are fragile and we could be left with a big hole at first.
Does anyone have decent insight on LaRoche? His AAA numbers were decent but not earth shattering. How is his shoulder healing?
A future infield of Loney, Betemit, Furcal, and LaRoche? Has the possiblity to be something special.
One comment for the Piazza thread from the last post: Piazza wanted out and was going to leave as a free agent. I am not sure why he wanted out but it was trade him or lose him for a draft pick. As I recall, that was a 7 player deal but the meat was Sheffield for Piazza. Of course, Sheffield was another malcontent. Had he been able to get along with others and the team, the trade would have worked out alright. Then when Sheffield wanted out, Jordan and Perez was nowhere near equal value. In summary, the home team usually loses value when a star demands a trade.
I still believe that no deal is better than a bad deal and a long term high priced contract can hamper a team for a long time. (Brown/Dreifort come to mind) (I still hate the Lugo for Guzman and I think that we could have received more value for Navarro although I was never as high on him as the previous regime.)
I trust you all are supporting the US economy today. I think my Bride is attempting to shore up the Indiana economy all by herself.
Lex
Posted by: Lex | November 24, 2006 at 09:22 AM
BK,
You say that the signing of Pierre blocks Kemp's path but it seems to me that the only thing blocking Kemp's path is his inability to hit a curve-ball or run down catchable balls in center. Maybe the solution is to put another one-year patch (Lofton or Roberts) in place, but at what point do you forgo flexibility in the name of stability?
Remember, there is still an OF spot up for grabs. If Kemp comes into Spring training and shows some consistency and discipline at the plate then I can't see why Grady Little wouldn't give him the everyday RF job.
It just seems to me that there is a way to build AND remain flexible at the same time. I think this move is an attempt by Colletti to do so.
Posted by: SantaMonica4Ever | November 24, 2006 at 09:29 AM
The trade for Mathews reminds me of the trade that sent Beltre to the Mariners...Beltre was phenomenal his last year as a dodger and has been, well pretty much terrible after he landed his $50 million contract...That's a big pill to swallow....
Posted by: Hugo | November 24, 2006 at 09:34 AM
BK:
g'morning....I don't think you need to worry too much about the Pierre signing. In the short term he fills a not just a hole but rather a gaping chasm that is CF for the Dodgers. It also helps keep the Dodgers from rushing Kemp.
With Kemp there are lots of questions still. Yes he has power. But they are not sure he is a CF that will provide that up the middle defense that's so danged important in MLB. Plus they are not sure about his hitting. after that torrid streak either they began pitching him differently or he just was trying too hard. So, Pierre gives the Dodger's time.
If Kemp and the other fellas down on the farm mature nicely then Pierre would be a wonderful trade chip if need be. He would not be a 5/10 guy so unless he had something about trades written into the deal, which I seriously doubt btw, I mean not for that kinda cash, anyway, the Dodgers could easily trade him if he had 2-3 yrs left and not worry about the money side of a trade as Pierre will be a BARGAIN.
On the other hand IF the Dodgers are really looking to land V.wells, it will cost them a guy like Kemp for sure. Plus the Dodgers would NEED to lock-up V.wells for at least 3 years if not 5-6 before trading half the farm for him. Those are the reasons why I doubt the Dodgers will get him. There is the cost of the trade but then the cost of signing him. Penny would likely be part of that package and that would also require the Dodgers sign a pitcher. THOUGH I could see them trying to move Penny at the July (or is it June) deadline if he has 14+ wins but is still only getting through 5-6 innings/start. His value then might be better.
Anyway, I just am not sold on there being a bottleneck in the OF with the signing of Pierre. I think it actually provides more options, including trades for other players.
Posted by: grumpy3b | November 24, 2006 at 09:53 AM
BK:
btw, I am not sure either signing was bad. Matthews might have hit his stride latter in his career. He plays AWESOME defense. Because of his defensive ability I suspect he will fit the role of a 4th outfielder later in his career better then Pierre.
IN the short run Pierre is the better signing, long term Mathews might be better 3+ years from now. But by then the Dodgers will have traded Pierre so it will not matter anymore.
Posted by: grumpy3b | November 24, 2006 at 09:57 AM
The defense of both Pierre and Matthews certainly doesn't hurt. Of course, you usually don't pay this kind of money for defense alone. Both teams are hurting for big bats...so when there's a power shortage, what do you rely on? You have to play small ball and hope your pitching and defense can hold down the big innings. While I wish Pierre had a decent arm, it was horrifying watching Lofton make an adventure out of anything lofted into center field. Toward the end of the season I'd have flashbacks of a lost looking Kenny Landreaux out there. I'm still more than a little concerned with our defense. On the job training for Loney or Nomar out there? When our six inning starters are protecting our stolen base one or two run lead....
Posted by: Michael | November 24, 2006 at 11:10 AM
AN ANALYSIS OF THE MIKE PIAZZA TRADE - 8 YEARS LATER
K Brothers:
The Juan Pierre free agent signing has stirred up plenty of discussion regarding the wisdom of the move. In the previous thread, it managed to stir up discussions regarding the infamous Piazza trade.
Obviously, for die-hard Dodger fans like myself, the painful memories surrounding the infamous Piazza trade still linger. And the trade's ramifications continue to annoy us like a pesky splinter in our collective backside that refuses to work its way out.
I recently traced the Piazza trade and followed its impact with respect to the Dodgers to the present day. That is, I diagramed all of the Dodger players that were received as part of the original trade and then tracked their movement over the years via subsequent Dodger trades, or until they left LA via free agency or retired. I will e-mail you the complete diagram for you to post if you so wish.
Now, when one considers all subsequent trades of the players received by the Dodgers in the original deal, the Dodgers actually ended up sending away much more than Piazza and Todd Zeile.
The bottom line is, after all is said and done, the Dodgers traded the following players away:
Mike Piazza
Franklin Gutierrez
Antonio Perez
Todd Zeile*
Roger Cedeno*
Dave Mlicki*
And, as of today, this is what the Dodgers have to show it:
Elmer Dessens
Andre Ethier
Blake Johnson
Julio Pimentel
Robinson Checo*
Arnold Gooch*
Rick Roberts*
Aposto Garcia*
(* no longer playing)
So just how did the Dodgers get to this point, you ask? Well, in May 1998 the Dodgers fired-up this slow-moving train destined for Dodger baseball hell by trading away Piazza and Zeile for Bobby Bonilla, Gary Sheffield, Charles Johnson, Jim Eisenreich and a throw-in pitcher of little promise named Manuel Barrios.
Manuel Barrios pitched all of one ineffective inning for the Dodgers before being waived three months after the trade was consummated.
Jim Eisenreich proceeded to retire at the end of the 1998 season.
Bobby Bonilla was traded to the Mets in November of 1998 for pitcher Mel Rojas. Rojas was then traded in April 1999 to the Tigers, along with Dodger pitcher Dave Mlicki, for Roberts, Garcia and Checo. Checo, pitched 9 innings for the Dodgers that year before fading away into obscurity -- his lifetime stats: 3-5 with a 4.42 ERA over 36.2 innings pitched. Roberts and Garcia ended up spending their entire careers in the minors before retiring.
Charles Johnson, along with Dodger Roger Cedeno, was traded to the Mets one month after Bonilla in December 1998 for Todd Hundley and minor league pitcher Gooch. Hundley wqs allowed to leave via free agency three years later, spending almost two of his three full years with the team on the injured list. As for Gooch, he was assigned to the Dodgers farm system in spring of 1999 never to be seen at the Major League level.
Gary Sheffield, considered the centerpiece of the Piazza trade for the Dodgers, eventually was traded in 2002 to the Atlanta Braves for Brian Jordan and two throw-ins: Odalis Perez and a minor league pitcher named Andy Brown. Jordan eventually bolted for free agency. But Perez was traded this year to the Royals for Dessens, Johnson and Pimentel. Johnson and Pimentel are currently having unremarkable careers at Hi-A Vero Beach and it looks like they, too, will be career minor leaguers.
So how does Andre Ethier fit into all of this? Well, Andy Brown, that minor league pitcher that was a thrown-in in the Sheffield deal, was packaged with Franklin Gutierrez to the Cleveland Indians in 2004 for Milton Bradley. (Brown was the player to be named later). Of course, Bradley and Antonio Perez was later traded in December 2005 to the Oakland A's for Andre Ethier. Ethier, at least, has the very real potential to become a future superstar. (As a side note, Andy Brown is now a fairly effective MLB middle-reliever who was recently traded from the Indians to the Padres.)
Still, the Piazza trade post-mortem is not very pretty:
As of today, the Dodgers have a serviceable long relief man in Dessens and a potential superstar in Ethier to go along with 5 minor league pitching busts. The Dodgers also got to "rent" Gary Sheffield's services for 4 seasons and Odalis Perez for a couple of productive seasons as well.
For that they gave away in Piazza a 1st-ballot lock for the Hall of Fame (and the right of Dodger fans to avoid being subjected to suffer the indignity of seeing their home-grown first ballot Hall of Famer going in as a Met) and several other players, most of minor note.
Yes, the jury is still out on Gutierrez, who batted .271 last season and has yet to break out with the Indians. But in Oakland, Perez has seemingly lost the touch that made him the phenom he was with the Dodgers. He batted under .200 last season in limited playing time.
The other players involved that the Dodgers have given away are not much to get excited about one way or another. Zeile had several serviceable years after the trade and enjoyed two World Series appearances with the Mets in 2000 and 2001, but he was still basically a .265 hitter with only limited power. Roger Cedeno really had only one season of note, in 1999 when he batted .313. And Dave Mlicki was only average on his best day.
I know it's a stretch for us Dodger fans, but if we want to find at least one scintilla of a silver lining in this horrendous trade we could -- could -- look at the trade in the following light: After eliminating all the flotsam and jetsam, this trade when boiled down to its essence, basically comes down to Andre Ethier for Mike Piazza. The bad news is that if we consider the upside that Ethier brings to the table, we might have to wait another 10 years or so before we get relief from that pesky splinter in our backside. It may mean we will need to wait 10 more years before we can truly pass judgment on the Piazza trade. But if we are lucky, instead of the trade being the worst deal in Dodger history, we may ultimately find that in the end the trade was, mercifully, merely a wash.
Len Penzo
Posted by: Len Penzo | November 24, 2006 at 11:15 AM
SM4E-You are one of the few posters to be able to see the light. I had posted that we have 3 outfield postitions to fill. Most see it as a given that Kemp is a sure thing and Eithier has a lock on LF. I hoped that Eithier didn't hit the wall and he is able to adjust to the hole the pitchers may have found. His head needs to be adjusted too. Many ROY's couldn't get over the sophomore jinx. Greg Brock looked so good for about 2 months! Hollandsworth has hung around as a journeyman player. I hope Bills can find the strike zone and Kou is durable and reaches his potential to be a solid Lefty starter. I still maintain that Kemp is a trading chip; perhaps in that deal for Wells along with Penny after Schmidt is signed. I hope Either isn't the OF traded in the Wells deal. Loney could be gone too, since he is blocked by Nomar and may not be healty enoough to play OF[leg problems].
Posted by: Bigblue48 | November 24, 2006 at 11:23 AM
Nice post, Len
Posted by: Fish Guy | November 24, 2006 at 02:08 PM
Len:
Nice work on the history of that trade...it could have been one of the "...a butterfly flaps it's wings..." sort of trades but we never saw the true tidal wave that could have resulted.
So much was wrong during the Fox era that no one trade or decision was key in the demise of our beloved Dodgers. hehehehe...it was a true Fox "team effort" to grind the team into the dust. But, I have to say Evan's had built a solid core just before the debacle that was DePUDesta. But that is a whole 'nutha story.
;)
Posted by: grumpy3b | November 24, 2006 at 02:56 PM
Carlos Lee to the Astros, 6 yr $100 million deal. So... 9 million a year must be 'cheap'...
On the other hand, Richard Hidalgo and Sterling Hitchcock are two guys trying to make a comeback next season. Since the Dodgers need some OF and SP help, they might be worth a look. It won't cost much, at the very least.
Posted by: Makoto Ueno | November 24, 2006 at 03:02 PM
Len,
That was an excellent breakdown of the maddness that Dodgers management did during the Fox years.
For that reason I'm happy with the McCourts and Ned as they lead the Dodgers into a more dignified future.
mike
Posted by: Michael Teniente | November 24, 2006 at 03:10 PM
Dodger front.
So Quiet.
Can't take it anymore!!
BRING ME A PITCHER!
Posted by: wasabi | November 24, 2006 at 03:34 PM
Just read about one of those "hot stove" what if things. How would everyone feel about the Dodgers getting Beltre BACK from Seattle?
He would likely hit .260-.270 with around 25hr. But he would give them great defense at 3rd. It would make trades involving Beta or Laroche more doeable too.
Depending on what Seattle would want, and I really think they just wanna say it was a nice try but not a great fix. So the price might not be too bad. Maybe Betemit/Laroche and each team throwing in a scrub or two...but the Dodgers get the better deal by taking all of Beltre's salary. I mean were are the Dodgers gonna get 25hr pretty clutch RBI guy who actually brings his glove to the game for around $10M?
Personally I would LOVE to see that trade done. I think even giving up Penny straight-up would be a good deal.
Any thots?
Posted by: grumpy3b | November 24, 2006 at 04:13 PM
hehehehe...wasabi...I think LoLo has a pitcher around there somewhere...dunno what is in it but I am sure he would share with ya... ;)
Posted by: grumpy3b | November 24, 2006 at 04:14 PM
Mike,
I too find myself satisfied with Frank McCourt's stewardship of the Dodgers. I think he is doing a great job. I also appreciate Ned Colleti's work as well, although I do believe he hasn't shown an ability to properly evaluate major league pitching, based upon his trading away of Sanchez in favor of guys like Hendrickson and Seo. But you can't win them all!
And like Grump said, I don't think Dan Evans role in the reascendance of the Dodgers is appreciated enough.
As for the Pierre signing, I'm one of those guys scratching my head about the Pierre deal, but in the end I don't think it is going to hurt us too much in the long term -- his ability to make contact and almost never strike out makes him a perfect candidate for the number 2 slot in the order.
Len
Posted by: Len Penzo | November 24, 2006 at 04:38 PM
BK,
You’re kidding me right? Did you have some expired milk with your pumpkin pie, or something? That’s the only reasonable way you would contemplate which signing is worse (or are you just trying to put ripples in the water, haha).
You said it yourself why the Pierre signing makes more sense:
“At least Pierre has been a consistent performer throughout his career”
Mathews just had his “career year” at age 32. His numbers? .313/19/79, all of which came last year….in a contract year. And we all know about contract years.
Then again, as I have said for the 1000th time in the last week, $9 million will buy you an AVERAGE player in this CURRENT market. These contracts should not surprise you. And they’re about to get worse.
Both the Angels’ and Dodgers’ moves were made in part due to some desperation. The only difference is that the Dodgers’ move was more calculated.
As I stated in the last thread, if the Dodgers would not have signed or traded for a player they would have come to camp with questions marks:
Werth – question mark due to health
Anderson – question mark due to consistency (is he even a REAL outfielder?)
Repko – question mark due to not proving that he can be an every day player
Kemp – question mark because we still don’t know what we have in him
Ethier – our only “sure thing” comes with a disclaimer that he was displaced by Marlon in September
In Pierre, the Dodgers know what they have:
150+ games played
.300+ AVG
40+ SBs
a weak arm
Nothing about Pierre should be surprise next year. And for that, the $9 million that Colletti is paying so he can sleep better at night is well worth it
Posted by: LoLo | November 24, 2006 at 06:10 PM
Dodgerdog-
The issue for me is that they filled a hole for next year by signing a guy for five. Dave Roberts for two would have been a better idea. I don't have any objection really to signing a guy long term, but it should be someone worth making that kind of investment in. I think this stuff complicates the potential Vernon Wells acquisition, as well. Where's he going to play? Say he walks next year. Is he going to sign here? Will the Dodgers make a move for him? Theoretically Pierre can play left, but then they've really overpaid for him b/c his defensive value is diminshed. What about Kemp? Maybe he won't pan out, but when it comes time to trade him for a big time OF when he becomes available, does it hurt their flexibility to have five years of Juan Pierre to consider?
Again, none of this is me saying the guy isn't a good player with some value. He is, and does some things well. I just think to commit five years to him, considering their current situation (young guys on the way up/trade chips to bring in better players), it's a mistake.
Lolo-
I agree, as players, you can't compare Pierre and Matthews. I'd rather have Pierre- he's been way more consistent over his career. I was just talking about it in the context of how the signing fits in with what each team currently has and is doing. Personally, I would have taken the hole/question marks/found a more stop gap player rather than give five to Juan Pierre b/c the need is there next spring. Short term problem, yes, but I think it's a better long term plan.
But Matthews is gonna look reeeeeeeeallllly expensive at 36 when he's raking in $10 mil. That's a potential albatross contract.
BK
Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | November 24, 2006 at 06:52 PM
Grumpy:
Would love Beltre back. Getting Adrian and a Vernon Wells would make this off season a success. Also bringing in Maddux and Schmidt would be the frosting on the cake. And it's realistically doable!!
Just finished watching the LAKER defeat. Man, we were in it with a minute to go.
Posted by: Fish Guy | November 24, 2006 at 09:19 PM
BK,
I agree with Lolo, again. Lolo do you work in Baseball? You really make a lot of sense. The Market "this year" says that an average player is $9 million/per. I think Pierre is above average, just doesn't have the specific need that all Dodgers fans think they need, POWER HITTER. The Dodgers made a move EARLY, because an average player's price might go up. They are being pro-active. Pierre is not the BIG BAT, but he substantially IMPROVES the Dodgers. Ned made this move because he wants to win NOW without sacrificing the future. You said this will hurt the future stars like Kemp but he hasn't shown that he absolutely belongs yet. Why can't he platoon one more year to see whether he is legit or not. Same goes for Loney. I think he's ready but what's wrong with signing a SURE THING, NOMAR and having Loney as insurance for one more year. If Nomar stays healthy and produces like he can, then great. Get Loney at bats in other positions and as a defensive sub in the late innings. If Kemp produces, it gives Grady more options to give Pierre a day off against a LH pitcher or pitch hit against a LP. We're so wrapped up with not getting a Power Hitter that we are losing sight as the "whether this makes the Dodgers a better team or not?" I think it does! How can having MORE TALENT be a minus? Do you think Grady is too dumb to manage with excess talent? The real anger here, I think is because we didn't get a Power Bat. I'll say it again... "I DON'T THINK WE NEED A POWER BAT. IT WON'T HURT TO HAVE ONE BUT NOT ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THE DODGERS TO WIN THE NL WEST. The players on the roster will pick up those numbers in my opinion. Let's see what other signings occur before ST and then judge whether this was a good move or not.
Lolo stated in another post, the Dodgers made the playoffs this year in a weak division and that other division teams are not returning most of their core like the Dodgers and they are not even making any moves. The Dodgers "AS IS" I believe will win the West. They seriously "UNDERACHIEVED" last year and still made the playoffs. If they play even remotely to their potential, they are an easy division champ. With last year under their belts, the team maturing and becoming a more cohesive team, they have a better opportunity to build on last year and do more exciting things. Homeruns are great but winning is better.
Posted by: Rob | November 24, 2006 at 10:22 PM
Rob-
I will agree with you that Lolo generally makes a lot of sense, but don't agree with a few of the contentions you make. First of all, Pierre doesn't substantially improve the Dodgers. Essentially, he is a better version of the production they got from Lofton/anyone else that played CF last year, but not so much better that he'll have a serious impact even if he plays well. And my problem with Pierre isn't the money he makes, or even how good he is. He has many positive qualities, and I think there's no reason to think those things he does well he won't do well in Blue. That's not the point. It's the length of the contract that I don't like.
It's not simply a matter of "make room for Kemp." The Dodgers have the luxury of being able to be choosy about whom to make long term commitments. Options are available- perhaps not always proven to be sure- to allow them the opportunity to be patient. If the right player isn't available to fill a hole this year w/ a long term contract, fine. Don't try to use the FA market to fill it long term. Sign someone who would be adaquate (again, I would have preferred the two year deal someone like Dave Roberts could get) and wait until the right person comes available, either in a trade or via FA.
If the division is as weak as you say, then there's even less reason to stretch to make a move that down the line may not be what they need. They even likely be competitive enough with Repko, who I think is a very good defensive CF who is best suited as a fourth OF, if the division is that bad.
You say he made this move to win now without sacrificing the future. I say this move does sacrifice it to a degree (I'm not talking FEMA disaster territory, but it's all relative) because the commitment to Pierre has the potential to hamstring personnel moves down the line.
I think you underestimate how much they need a power bat. I think you're right in that there's no reason signing Pierre precludes them from finding a thumper, but they really do need a bat in the center of the lineup that will help them win games cheap- last year they too often had to put three or four hits together to score. The home run helps win those cheap games when a team doesn't hit but manages a couple long balls. Those add up.
And finally, I don't think it's all that accurate to say the Dodgers "seriously underachieved" last year. They have holes that need to be filled beyond gys simply playing to their potential, especially if they have aspirations beyond the division.
Great conversation though. Pierre could easily prove me wrong, and I don't even think he won't play well. I think he'll be fine next year, adn won't be the problem. But he's not as large a part of the solution as you'd want from someone of that type of signing, b/c he really fits into a slot that is very similar to the one Lofton played last year.
BK
Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | November 25, 2006 at 12:15 AM
BK,
I disagree as to Pierre's impact on the team. As you stated, he is a better version of Lofton. We know this strictly from the stats. But he's even better than the stats show in my opinion. The stats don't show all the key base hits that cost the Dodgers games that were allowed by a slowed CF. If you were to see the box scores the next day, the fly ball to center that should have been caught that allowed the winning run to score will look like a base hit but in reality the game should of been a Dodger win. I've seen it too often when a team has a weak middle. Lofton was a weak middle. Pierre is not. He will help this team in ways that stats cannot possible show. At bat, putting the ball in play will cause more errors and the team create runs that way even if they don't get the HR. I'm curious to see how many times Pierre reached base on error.
I agree that HR's impact games and can win games. The Dodgers could have used some last year. But small ball wins games too. Angels did it back in 2002 w/ some timely HR's of course. But HR's don't strictly win games... timely HR's are better. Solo shots are nice but the real impact are 3-run shots. How do you get a 3-run shot? You get guys on base in front of the HR Hitter. Furcal, Pierre on base. So I disagree that Pierre hinders the future with a five year contract. If you believe his stats and believe he can duplicate them as a Dodger, then you gotta be excited about that. As you said the Dodgers have a few holes to fill. This is simply one of those holes If they do get a HR Hitter, he makes the HR Hitter even more valuable. And Ned had to give him 5 years or he would have lost Pierre to the SF Giants who offered 4 years. Why just get a fill in for 2 years like Roberts (former Dodger - didn't work out that time either) when you can get a solid piece to the puzzle for the next 5 years at a price that will likely look like a discount (like Furcal's K) for acting early. You said don't use the FA market to find someone long term but wait for the right person. I think Ned thought Pierre was one of the "right persons". And with the market the way it is, who's to say the "right person" will come along. If we like a player and think that player can help the team for the next 5 years, do we pass and wait for someone who can help the team more? A player that meets all the criteria? I don't think one can, especially in this market where the player that meets all the criteria's doesn't exist or if he does, will cost the team more than there are worth.
Maybe I'm bias about our Dodgers but I think the Dodgers did underachieve. Talent wise I think the Dodgers were better than the World Champs - STL Cardinals. And they sure were better than any NL West team. They had a major meltdown around the All-Star break. That came because this was a totally new team. Now that they have a season together, and a semi successful one at that, they will be confident in each other and definitely play better baseball.
If we sign a HR Hitter that would be great but if we don't, I still say we don't need to feel that this season is a wash. Whoever fills the vacant OF position has a very good chance to fill JD's 20 HR's. And I strongly feel that the other positions will all increase their HR totals. Nomar will hit more than 20, Kent will hit over 20, and Betemit will hit over 20.
Sorry to be so long winded but I feel strongly in Ned making moves that will help the Dodgers win while not giving up everything for it. I think this move helps them win, now and in the future. So I don't think he tied his hands. If Furcal is given an extension is that tying his hands? I hope my points came across and I made some sense. It's late... so again my apology if my rambling did not make sense.
Posted by: Rob | November 25, 2006 at 02:35 AM
The Astros did what the Dodgers wish they could have done. By signing Carlos Lee, a proven power guy and Woody Williams, old, but still a very productive pitcher, Houston certainly shored up some glaring weaknesses.
By doing so, it appears they have had their fill of Drama Queen Clemens and his secret 50-game suspension.
But, if they do re-sign Clemens, consider this. How much money will they have spent/committed this off-season? How about the Cubs, or the Red Sox? Does this give you a clue as to how much money clubs actually have at their discretion? Really wants to make you spend another $8 for that warm beer.
Posted by: Dodgerdog | November 25, 2006 at 07:58 AM
BK,
I forgot to ask....I've read lots of articles about Juan Pierre's signing, but have not found this answer. Is there a "no-trade clause" in his contract?
Your concern over a five year committment might be lessened if there were a possibility to trade him after a few years. Even if the Dodgers had to pay part of his salary, so what? Aren't they still paying Shawn Green's? Or, Juan could waive his no-trade, in exchange for some extra bucks (just how much money do players need)?
Look at this. The guy hasn't played for the Dodgers yet, and I'm already shipping him out of town, and with some negativity. Guess I agree with you, that five years is just too long in today's game.
Posted by: Dodgerdog | November 25, 2006 at 08:17 AM