Talking With: Ned Colletti, Part II

AK:  Along those lines of getting past disappointments, in dealing with Joe Beimel's situation and creating a situation where he could return to the club, how much of that was the result of you having time to let things heal and how much was just the cold hard fact of needing a left handed reliever and Joe having done a good job?

NC:  Well, there's a lot of different things.  First of all, there's not one of us on earth that hasn't made a mistake.  Anybody I've talked to, anybody reading what you're writing, we've all made mistakes.  We've all done things we wish we hadn't done or gotten involved in.  That's life. 

I talked to Joe at the hotel before Game 1, briefly.  I talked to him again on the telephone prior to Game 3 here on the off day, then I talked to Grady (Little) and asked him about the possibility of Joe coming in and addressing the club before the game.  I didn't want it going through the winter.  There's got to be some lingering effect to that, I'm sure, but there would have been more had he not had a chance to look his teammates in the eye before everybody went home.  So before Game 3, not knowing if there was going to be a Game 4, I said, "Let's bring this man in and let him talk man to man with his teammates."  And that's what he did.  He and I have spoken since, two or three times.  We talked about what happened.  We talked about how it was handled.  If nobody ever got a second chance, it'd be a tough place to live.

AK:  Did it go a long way for you that he accepted the "man to man" approach, the challenge of looking his teammates in the eye and putting it on his shoulders?

NC:  Well, in my mind, it was the right thing to do. It was the right approach, from that moment on, to handling that situation.  I thought that it was a positive step towards getting the incident behind everybody and hopefully, to turn a negative into a positive.  And we have a chance to turn a negative into a positive with him.

He apologized and he was very, very contrite.  Very, very saddened by by what he had done.  He told me how many people he had let down.  I said, "Joe, you know what?  You let yourself down, too.  For the first time in your career, you had a chance you had a chance to really do something.  Stand out in a big league venue, in a post season.  You let a lot of people, sure.  You sure did.  I agree with you.  But you also let your family down and let yourself down."

Brian Kamenetzky:  Looking back on your first year as a GM and even up to this offseason, what do you feel is your biggest accomplishment and what do you feel has been your greatest disappointment or failure, if you'd call it that?

NC:  I would say the greatest accomplishment, and I'm not really comfortable talking about things like that, would be the enjoyment that the fans took from this club last year.  That was probably the most pleasing thing.  It was a by-product of how the team played.  How they went about it.  How they continued to battle through a lot of injuries and losing guys for an entire season.  All of that.  And how they stuck with it.  I think it started to captivate the city again.  I think the fans deserve it.  They're great.  They're passionate.  I had no idea how passionate until I came here. 

And to see them more pleased than not with the approach of the club, I think was probably as important a piece as anything.  I think it encompasses who the players are, how they play, their respect for the game, their respect for the Dodgers, their respect for the city.  The fans saw it.  They had record attendance.  Those games in September were meaningful.  The game against San Diego which will live on for all of time.  The last game where Nomar hits a grand slam in a walk off.  I guess that's the accomplishments you're asking me about.

Disappointments?  I was surprised that the trade we made with Tampa Bay at the deadline, where we got (Julio) Lugo.  I was disappointed with how that worked out.

AK:  If I was to come up with a "disappointment," that would probably be it for me, too.

BK:  I like to look at deals, though, in whether the logic made sense at the time, because you can't predict how a guy will play.  Do you still accept the logic of the deal, or were you just unhappy with how it turned out? 

NC:  Well, to do the (Greg) Maddux piece (for Cesar Izturis), I would still need the middle infielder because Kent (was hurt).  You can't forget what was going on with the club at the time.  Kent and Nomar were both out, and nobody knew, really, when they would be back or what kind of condition they would be back in.  Both those players died on the sword last year.  They both played the last six weeks of that season not close to full strength.  Had they we not been in the race and had they both not been of the character that they are, they wouldn't have played.  The logic of (the trade) was still something that would have had to take place (to get) Maddux.  Maddux was everything we hoped he would be.  Winning 6 games and helping the young players out and everything he accomplished.  The logic behind it is still sound.

BK:  So it's really just a question of being disappointed in the results.

NC:  Yeah.  In the Lugo piece of it.

AK:  Do you still hold yourself responsible after believing in the logic and knowing on some level that  the results are reasonably out of your hands?  Or do you still hold yourself accountable even for those elements out of your control?

NC:  That's the nature of this position.  What I never lose sight of, and nobody on the outside may care, is that the only thing I have control over in my whole life is me.  That's all I have any control over.  I can't make players play harder.  I can't make my kids learn more.  You can't do anything, except control your own attitude, work ethic and how you approach things. So you're right, but I'm the one responsible for making the trade.  So I take complete accountability, the solidness of the logic, as you put it, aside.  I still made that decision.  That said, I cannot control any player's attitude, desire to be here, unhappiness, reluctance to play, reluctance to play smart, or whatever.  I don't have any control over that.

BK:  Other than not bringing in guys who you think are more susceptible to that.

NC:  Right.  Well, everything told me that this player was somebody that would be disappointed not to play everyday, but that he would be cognizant of the idea that he was gonna play in a contending type of situation for two months, could make a huge impact on a club, and might end up playing everyday if somebody broke down.  We had two players, like I said, with Kent and Nomar, if Nomar doesn't come back, Kent's playing first base. 

BK: How did J.D. Drew leaving impact your free agent search?  I know some people were surprised a the length of the deal for Juan Pierre.

NC: When J.D. opted for free agency, and you looked at our board (the players on the 40 man roster), we really had one player on the board who has had everyday major league experience, and that experience is really for a total of four months in Andre.  It was apparent we needed choices and players with big league experience as every day outfielders.  I go back to the free agent market, and I told you it was thin.  There was a limited amount of outfielders on the board to begin with.  We made a play for the biggest one out there, who was also going to be the power hitter we needed, but were on the outside looking in.  It's a tough juggle in a tight market.  If I'm going to sign someone for a long term deal, I need to see a track record, and some consistency in performance, which is what Juan Pierre brings.  What I pay is what the market's going to bear, but if I'm going to commit long term, I want some predictability.  He plays every day, is always around 200 hits a season, will steal you fifty bases.  He gives us more opportunities to do things with speed, and is a great guy in the clubhouse.  A good leader.  I got calls from lots of people whom I respect saying we had a guy in Juan that would be a great fit in our clubhouse.  We're excited to have him.

BK:  Still, one of the things you've done very well as a GM has been in your ability to go out and find players when you need them.  Even in the case of Lugo, which didn't work.  You were also able to turn Danys Baez, who didn't work out as well as you'd have liked, into Wilson Betemit, which could be a great pick up.  Was that approach too big a risk with center field, to be able to say, "I think I can find someone that will work for a year or two years, should the need arise?" (Which, in part, may have prompted the signing of Juan Pierre to a long term deal)? 

NC:  If it had been the only risk, if it would have been the only need, then it might have been worth reconsidering.  But it wasn't the only need.  Had J.D. (Drew) have stayed, then it might have been the only need.  Then I would be looking at it differently.  When our board in the office went from what it looked like to what it became, things changed. 

BK:  We grew up in St. Louis in the 80s so we know you can win without huge power bats.  But there's been a lot of talk about the Dodgers not getting that big bat at last year's trade deadline or during this offseason.  On the other hand, the team scored plenty of runs last year and proved you can win without hitting home runs.  Does that make a big bat not as high a priority to you or just something you don't want to overpay to acquire?  Or is it that there just isn't one to be had so far?

NC:  Well, again, the number of candidates that would fill that type of role is a short list.  Secondarily, acquiring them is tough to do.  You'd have to practically blow somebody away to do it.  In our discussions with teams, those types of players are never brought up over the last year in talks with the other side.  When I bring them up, it's like, "Whoa, whoa!  Before we do something like that, you're gonna have to unload half your farm system."  They're not even thinking about moving that kind of player. 

We haven't passed on anybody, so to speak.  It's not like we've had choices: You can get this player, he'll hit you 30-35 home runs and play decent defense.  You can go get this one.  And we say, "Nah, we don't really wanna do that."  Those opportunities have not been posed to us, so we've made the best of what options and opportunities there are.  We've made the best decisions we can to try and bring those types of players in. 

A power hitter would be a nice add, there's no question.  But last year, only one team in the National League won more games than we did.  That was the Mets.  San Diego won as many as we did.  On the other hand, eleven teams hit more home runs than we did, but those eleven scored fewer runs than we did and won fewer games than we did.  So the power hitter needs to be kept in the proper context, too.

BK:  I know front office people and athletes often try to avoid reading the paper and hearing what people are saying.  But is it ever frustrating to hear disappointment from fans (over a lack of power hitter or another situation) where it's not a question of an unwillingness to trade, just being unable?

NC: It gets a little frustrating, but again, I know the people who voice their frustration don't have all the information.  If somebody would say, "Such and such an outfielder who's a free agent wanted to be a Dodger and would have taken an a deal that the Dodgers could have offered, but the Dodgers didn't want the player, and the player is renowned as being a solid player of that nature," then yeah, bring it on.  But it's not like we've had choices like that and turned them down.  The choices aren't there.  You can't acquire a player who's not available and you can't sign a free agent who's either not available or doesn't want to be a part of it.  You can't just make that happen out of thin air.

AK:  You've talked to Brian and I, along with other members of the media, about how much you value character in your players and how much you look at character as you're making decisions to bring in people.  Is it becoming harder to do that in today's larger salaried world of sports, when players command so much money and are so often catered to?

NC:  Well, I think, not necessarily along those lines, but again, the pool of acquirable players, be they free agents or through trade, is a smaller pool.  That limits everything, because you've got a smaller pool to begin with, so you've got a smaller pool of power hitters, a smaller pool of top half of the rotation pitchers.  You're just gonna have a smaller group to select from, including those players who you think are the type who'll always put the team ahead of themselves. 

BK:  Is character something that's important to you because of the effect it could have on a clubhouse, but also because in a game that can be so inconsistent and unpredictable, it may be the only thing that can be predicted from a player?

NC:  Yeah, I think those two facets are correct.  I also believe that in the course of a baseball season there's going to be a lot of ups and downs and a lot of trials, so to speak.  You're going to have to be of strong character to survive those and carry on.

AK:  So in that sense, whenever you can find that commodity, you're likely to go out of your way to bring it into the clubhouse?

NC:  I don't know about going out of my way.  You try to prioritize when you're tying to add players in.  It's one of the criteria that you look at that you try to match up with your team. 

BK:  Regarding the recent Hall of Fame voting, without getting into the specifics of individual players but just as a baseball fan, is it upsetting to you to see the game entering an era where for maybe the next fifteen years or so, the discussion has become as much about drugs as it is on-field accomplishments.

NC:  Yeah, it does.  It's disappointing that it's evolved into that type of discussion.  But I don't sound naive here, either.  I was just talking to a friend of mine about this yesterday.  When I grew up watching baseball-- let's forget about baseball.  When I grew up watching professional sports, you rarely heard anything negative about anybody.  It was rare that anybody ever got into any trouble, or held out, or wouldn't play hard.  It was such a rarity, it was in the mind of a young person, it was almost pure.  Young people growing up today, my kids are in their twenties now, they've never experienced the "purity" of sports and athletes.  It's naive to think back when I was growing that they were all pure, because they weren't.  But that it's such a public (thing), it's so much tied to the world now and tied to life, it's kind of unfortunate that young people today, they look at players that they want to emulate, to wear their jersey or play the game in a (similar) manner, in a batting stance like their hero, shoot baskets like their hero, or skate like their hero, there's a chance that person is going to end up with a note in the newspaper that's going to be less than noble, I guess.

BK:  To me, that you have to spend so much time and waste so much oxygen on the subject, the accomplishments of guys like Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn can get lost.  And I don't know exactly how to make that balance in the modern world between what should be reported and what shouldn't, but it's kind of shame.

NC:  It is a shame, but it's never going to go back.  There's just too information in the world.  There's too much competition for information.  Between the internet and sports talk in the radio, it'll never go back.  This is the way it will be and it will continue to move in this direction.