ESPN Thinks Blue
At least when it comes to making World Series sleeper picks for 2007, that is. How hard they're actually rooting for the Blue is questionable, as they have a well established love for all things Yanks-Sawx. Even as a guy grateful to receive monthly checks from a company that has been very good to me, I still have to admit that tunnel vision gets old. But hey, L.A. is a big market, so that's gotta be somewhat appealing. And bottom line, they bothered to look at the left-hand side of the country for a day, so take the bone. The Dodgers will have their chance to justify the Entertainment Sports Programming Network's online props starting April 2 against Milwaukee.
What do y'all think? Do the Dodgers have what it takes to snag a crown? Yeah, they haven't (as of yet) brought in that power bat many people have been clamoring for like a crackhead jonesing for his pipe. But they managed to put up many a run without a bona fide slugging machine in last year's lineup. New blood Juan Pierre and Gonzo can help create more of those runs, if not necessarily via the long ball. Jason Schmidt is a legit ace for a rotation that could become legitimately tough if Rady Wolf can return to form after some health issues. They brought back Nomar. They brought back Sammy. They brought back Ramon Martinez. Is that enough to vault them over the likes of St. Louis, Detroit or either New York squad (among others)?
AK
Subscribe to this Blog | What is RSS?
If everyone stays relatively healthy and the youngins' continue to improve, we will definately have a good shot at going to the series. And, we didn't have to make any incredibly bad bonehead moves in the process (read: Giants drastically overpay and overrated Zito in a desperation move that will haunt them for years and they still don't have a very good chance of making the playoffs). Mets and Cards didn't get any better and perhaps may have regressed. Padre's might be biggest threat. I like our team and the options Ned has left us with now and down the road.
Can't wait for Spring Training.
Posted by: Jim | January 27, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Predicting a World Series winner is like predicting a horse race. You just don't know who's going to be there at the finish line.
Baseball is basically a marathon between the more talented teams, but even then some teams can come out of nowhere when talent matures more than was expected. And then it depends on who performs well enough for long enough stretches and stays healthy enough to make the playoffs.
Then it can be a matter of which team gets hot or plays well at the right time and/or performs under pressure at those critical moments.
Sometimes I think if they played the Series over again a week later with the same teams you could easily have a different champion.
Posted by: Andy B | January 27, 2007 at 02:32 PM
This must be prefaced with any team can win any year-- last year was as good of evidence as ever. No one would have thought the cards would have caught fire the way they did and make the run they ended up making. This being said, I think the Dodgers are realistically one year away from being a sure fire lock to atleast make the NLCS and probably also the series. This year i would say its like 90% chance they make the playoffs, 35% chance they make the series. In two years though-- we will be the dominating team in baseball, and average a hundred wins for at least the next 7 years--- WITHOUT A DOUBT. DYNASTY.
Posted by: evan | January 27, 2007 at 03:37 PM
Arrhgh! Evan, don't jinx us!!! ;-)
I like your thinking, but I wouldn't go throwing the "D" word around -- at least not yet!
Let's at least see the Dodgers win their 7th World Series before we begin to talk about a dynasty.
That being said, I do believe 2007 represents the the best shot the Dodgers have had to get to the World Series since Peter O'Malley sold the team.
I am fired up for 2007!!!
Len
Posted by: Len Penzo | January 27, 2007 at 05:44 PM
Hope evan is right.
Posted by: Jim | January 27, 2007 at 06:05 PM
i like evan's attitude
Posted by: joeshmofromcocomo | January 27, 2007 at 06:25 PM
I like Evan's positive thoughts, too. However, let's see the Dodgers start by winning a playoff series (or even a game?)before talk of a dynasty begins.
We've all been disappointed far too many times in the past. The team, as currently constituted is pretty good. But some of the key parts have a history of injuries (Nomar, Kent, Schmidt)and I still shudder at counting on Timberrr and Bombko to fill in the pitching department.
Posted by: Dodgerdog | January 28, 2007 at 08:59 AM
The team, the farm system, the front office hasn't been this talented in 20 years. Nomar is the key in my opinion. If he stays healthy, he will produce- i think thats a given, and the dodgers can will a lot of games this year and next. Either way, and i hate to say this because i love Nomar, he is short term. First base is locked down for the next 10 years for the Dodgers pessimism and cynicalness aside. Is Kent prone to injuries? And if Schmidt goes down, Kuo or Bills is the best sixth starter in the league by far. I wonder what we are going to do to replace Kent in a few years? Realistically maybe a couple...
Nomar is crucial.
Go Dodgers
Posted by: evan | January 28, 2007 at 11:39 PM
I'm as anxious as anybody here to see the Dodgers in a Series and another Dynasty! But one key ingrediant is missing in creating a Dynasty and that is longevity. On a team where Olmedo Seanz is the senior man on the squad it shows very little "face". Look at the last two series winners '81 and '88, they had a "face" too them, solid players who had been there awhile overall, weren't "rented" and you knew their track record in a Dodger uniform. You sensed that there was common respect between team and management too, not these clowns faking false spirituality who's real god is the almighty Scott Boras and his cash register. Don't read that wrong, the team management is as guilty as anyone in how it manipulates things too; thankfully the competition is equally clueless which goes a long way to evening the playing field.
Personally, I was ticked off last year when the Dodgers had to reliquish the division title; I thought the Cardinals were the best draw for the Blue in the first round. I wouldn't have conceded in the 9th inning of the final game of the series the Cards had a chance of taking it. Their 2004-5 teams were far better technically...maybe it was heart! It certainly wasn't that regular season record that barely put them in in the first place. Taking that into consideration if the Dodgers can manufacture runs, especially as they did mid-season last year, they're as much a contender as any team. I like McCourt far better than the Fox regime where I nearly went looking for another team on a few occassions but coming into his fourth year I wish somthing solid would come to pass to unify things already.
On another note, I'm a newby here and just wanted to say I like you guys opinions and humor. I'm living out of state now and it's often rather hard to really express your Dodgers opinion in enemy territory!
Posted by: Dodger_Fan_Since_'74 | January 29, 2007 at 05:57 AM
Welcome Dodger_Fan_Since_'74.
Posted by: Jim | January 29, 2007 at 07:35 AM
Dodger Fan,
'81 & '88 are eons ago in the scheme of things, unfortunately. Few, if any teams, have a "face". Even AK/BK's beloved Cardinals were led by.....David Eckstein and Jeff Weaver in the World Series.
The face many of us so long for is found by the players on currency. And, yes, it is a two-way street. The owners are just as culpable in the destruction of baseball as we used to know it.
With the election of Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken to the Hall of Fame, we have likely seen the last of players who stayed with one team for their entire careers. I quietly suffer when I see questions about which cap a player will wear when enshrined.
Posted by: Dodgerdog | January 29, 2007 at 08:38 AM
Call me altruistic, but i truly believe that the Dodgers and our talented crop of young players can become the new face of the Dodgers, and hopefully provide the Dodgers with a "face" unlike that of any team in baseball currently. If we can develop a core around Martin, Bills, Kemp, Ethier, Loney, Broxton, LaRoche (if he pans out) we could be solidified, a very important word, for a long time. I just dont see any other team in baseball with the amount of young, all-star caliber talent, that the Dodgers have. After all, the face of a team must be built from the ground up and that is what i feel the McCourts and Ned are doing, and that is why i am so proud of the organization and where it is today. I wholeheartedly agree with Dodger Fan that the Dodgers need some sense of who they are as a team, and i know that they will develop that comfort in time.
I hope the young names i mentioned above will be career Dodgers, and i think judging on character they might be. Ultimately, the players do hold their fate in their own hands, and i feel that our front office is more willing than ever to do right by the players they support as Dodgers. Look at Nomar and the offer made to Gagne as prime evidence..
Posted by: evan | January 29, 2007 at 01:50 PM
DFS_74:
I think you will like this blog as a place to come comment on the Dodgers and baseball in general. It's not like the oodles of other place on the web. Lots of opinions and ideas but all presented in a very reasonable fashion. Lots of fun interesting discussions and view points. Even from the more curmudgeonly among us. No matter how passionalty someone seems over an opinion or POV comments seem tempered with reason. I like that and it's one reason this is the only blog I frequent.
I have to basically agree with your first post too. But I do see the current team as melding together. If you recall Gibson on the '88 team was really more a rent-a-player (sure due to injury really but none the less). I see a lot of parallels between Gibson and Kent. Both are cranky sorts who seem to value effort and respecting the game above all else. I suspect a guy could whiff 20x in a row but if he got the winning bunt down both would have been the first guy out to pat them on the back (or break their hand with a Gibson-esque high-five...)
I think this team has the right parts and it's down to desire to win above personal numbers. Nomar, Kent, Schmidt and others all have money now they want the rings.
I agree with dodgerdog that in today's game payer's desire is the true key to a winning club. Lots of guys with talent and buckets of money in baseball. Most have been paired with agents who try and protect the players "brand" over winning. So there are fewer and fewer players with the discipline to give themselves up to win. They would be harming their "brand" and/or next contract. Everything has become marketing and branding in today's world. Not much value has been placed on actually winning anything. And in reality there is a valid logic to that position. It's just that it seems contrary to the spirit of the game we all would give out left nut to play.
Welcome to the board...the KBros have a FUN place for us...
Posted by: grumpy3b | January 29, 2007 at 03:12 PM
Grumpy,
What is sad is that many of the player-types that you reference have already signed 2 or 3 multi-multi million dollar deals. So how much more money could they possibly need.
For all of the talk about how "I'd give up everything for a championship", it just isn't true. Then, when they're 39 or 40, have been with eight teams, we're supposed to feel sorry for them because they haven't won the big one.
Again, give me character guys.
Posted by: Dodgerdog | January 29, 2007 at 04:28 PM
The starting pitching depth, Furcal, Martin, the team's speed and the clutch veteran hitters make me reasonably certain that the Dodgers will at least be in the mix for the top spot in the NL. A lack of power, the possibility that Saito might come back to earth and that Broxton might not be ready for the closer role and the fear of injuries to older players have me concerned that the Dodgers might not be consistent enough to win in the end.
Posted by: Tim H | January 29, 2007 at 06:17 PM
dodgerdog:
Man, you are soooo right. What really drives it home is that a family of four is like $100 for a Dodger game now if you are realistic about it. Remember the old Dodger promo about it being the only stadium left where a family of four go go for $20. And that was not too long ago either.
I seriously doubt there is a single guy on the 40-man roster for any team that is not a millionaire. Every one is likely a bonus-baby or better. To me that just seems hard to imagine these guys just do not get it.
Posted by: grumpy3b | January 29, 2007 at 09:12 PM
i think the team is pretty soild i just worry about third base.. i got spoiled with beltre's defense. everytime the ball is hit to thirdbase i cringe. Izzy would have been awesome there, makes me think about that
Posted by: bigtaxdizzle | January 29, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Just checking the schedule and we will probably get to see Schmidt and Zito square off on Sunday April 8th. It will be both teams 6th game and assuming Schmidt and Zito are the opening day starters they will be in line to pitch on Sunday.
Get the fireworks started early. Only a couple of weeks till training camp.
Posted by: Jim | January 30, 2007 at 07:38 AM
I think Schmidt and Zito will be the day before. Most teams run a 4-man rotation through the first two weeks of the season because the off-days are closer together. Regardless of what day it is, we will have an ace-ace battle that weekend. I'm shaking just thinking about it!!! :-)
Posted by: Nils Andersen | January 30, 2007 at 02:47 PM
Dizzle,
Yes, Izzy would have been great at 3rd base, but that would have made a short on power lineup even less powerful.
Last year the Dodgers got by without truly having a big homerun threat. Although the homerun hitter isn't absolutely necessary, what moments do most of remember from last season?
Back-to-back-to-back-to back, Nomar's winning homer in that game, his 2 slams and Russell Martin's game-winner in a 1-0 game. That quick strike ability is a nice touch.
Posted by: Dodgerdog | January 30, 2007 at 03:43 PM
3rd base doesn't really look all that bad. I wouldnt cut Betemit out just yet, the dude showed that he could hit last year, he just needs a little help from the right side and if they platoon Laroche than we are in even better shape. Beltre was the man for a year but until he hurts his ankle again, the man wont hit
Posted by: TonyC | January 30, 2007 at 04:12 PM
I agree... a definite whack on Beltre's ankle is needed before I'd trade for him. If nothing else, his bail out on a home run cut that swooshed, where he ended up on one knee... was classic.
Betemit's the man... give him a full, solid season at third base. No platoon. I say if he has a solid spring... then give him the job and let him mount the at bats day in and day out. I'm worried if you go straight platoon then neither he nor LaRoche will really produce.
If Betemit's not ready... then begin the thawing of Wee Willie Keeler!
Posted by: Stinger | February 01, 2007 at 08:54 AM
I think winning the World Series is an absolute positive incontrovertible...maybe
Posted by: Erik in Dalton, GA | February 01, 2007 at 01:53 PM