So is this a good or bad thing?
The Angels have signed Torii Hunter- apparently all the world's really big business goes down at Del Taco- and A-Rod has re-upped with the Yankees. The Pinstripers are also, it seems, entering the Johan Santana sweepstakes. Meanwhile, with the prospect of having to surrender too much talent off the big league roster to make a trade work and the free agent options shrinking/not that attractive to begin with, Ned Colletti is sending out signals that the Dodgers might just roll with what they've got. Or at least what they've got with a few tweaks that are less sexy than some might have hoped. Hunter's signing not only took him off the market, but may have moved the needle past affordable on Aaron Rowand and Andrew Jones. Colletti, and owner Frank McCourt, both seem pretty comfortable with what they have.
I think most of you guys know by now that I'm not a big fan of trying to make a splash just to show people a willingness to jump in the pool. If the Dodgers can sign Rowand or Cabrera, than flip a spare outfielder for Cabrera, then they're probably a better team... assuming they didn't just open up gaping holes at first and in the rotation.
But if the price on Cabrera is as high as it seems- some combination of Kemp, Bills, LaRoche, Loney, Kershaw- if the Dodgers bring in another OF and simply move Pierre over to left (likely putting Ethier on the bench) are they really improved? Is Rowand, Pierre, and Kemp that much better than Ethier, Pierre, and Kemp? Could they solve some of the defensive problems by simply flip-flopping Ethier and Pierre? Jones is a major risk at the years and money Scott Boras wants for his guy. I love Rowand's game, but is he worth 5/$70-75 mil? After Hunter's signing, he could see that kind of cash. (NOTE: A more obvious solution would be to upgrade with Rowand or Jones and turn Pierre into a fourth OF... but I don't think anyone thinks they'll go that far.)
Obviously, a surplus in the outfield gives the Dodgers the ability to find help via trade. And I always favor adding players via money as opposed to prospects, when given the chance. It certainly can't hurt to have more talent in the fold.
But, as my mother often says, here's the thing:
Do the Dodgers need all this?
No doubt the Blue need help, but do they need high profile, lead-story-on-ESPN.com help? Do they need to pull a Torii Hunter to get themselves back to the top of the NL West?
I don't think so. Much has been made of the '07 collapse, and how it shows the Blue need a major overhaul, primarily in the form of offense. But the Dodgers didn't lose because they didn't score. They didn't lose because the vets and kids suddenly forgot how to play nice. They lost because the pitching staff failed. How does Aaron Rowand or Andrew Jones solve that problem? How does removing Kemp and Chad Billingsley in a Cabrera deal make them better? It does no good to fill holes while making more via trade. If they trade pitching, arms need to come back in return. If Cabrera can be had without giving up Bills? That's a start. Regarding FA's, it doesn't help to overspend for players that aren't much better (or even better at all) than the ones already in uniform. Service time shouldn't trump talent.
And, at all costs, the Dodgers need to avoid moves that cloud what are increasingly clear roles for each player on the team. Go into the season with as close to a cut-and-dried starting nine as possible.
I'm not saying close the door on a big move. I'm not saying that any Cabrera move is a bad one. But I'm having trouble making all the pieces of the big ticket puzzle fit. Guys can't move twice. They can't trade Kemp for Cabrera and Santana and Eric Bedard.
There is another alternative. Don't hit Rodeo drive in the middle of a seller's market. Stay off the headlines and improve the team around the margins. Find arms to fill out the back end of the rotation rather than the front. Find depth to add flexibility in the bullpen. Scour the earth for the cheap but surprisingly effective Mike Lambs of the world, who when used properly can help a good team get better. Work from the bottom up instead of the top down.
It won't make the papers, but could make the Dodgers better. I, for one, don't think they're that far from being the best team in the West, anyway.
It's not about showing the world you can make the "big move," it's about getting better, and focusing on what really went wrong, not what looks good on paper.
BK
UPDATE (4:55 p.m.): In writing a similarly themed post for SportsHubLA comparing the Cabrera situation for the Angeles and Dodgers, I may have managed to more articulately say what I was getting at in this post- namely, that the Dodgers don't have the luxury of trading away prospects that aren't needed at the Major League level. The guys that Florida will- or at least should- ask for are all expected (Kershaw excepted) to make a contribution to the club in '08. It's not a question of Ned Colletti robbing the future to pay for the present. That's what good teams often have to do. He'd be in a situation where he's robbing both, and hoping a thin FA market can make up the difference. Not a place I'd like to be.
Subscribe to this Blog | What is RSS?
I hear you BK but a little more reliable pop in the lineup could definately win some more games for the Dodgers. For instance, how many 1-0 or 2-1 games did the Dodgers lose to the Padres for instance? I can think of maybe 3 games, I know they have great pitching and all, but if you can't manufacture 2 or 3 runs against the Padres and the Padres anemic offense can, then that is just frustrating. Like with the Lakers the youngsters like Farmar or Bynum are gonna get 15 to 18 points some games, but some games they won't and that is when you need to rely on your veterans (Kobe, Kent, or hopefully Cabrera) to get the job done. And some pitchers with arms that don't fall apart after 3 starts always helps too.
Posted by: richard | November 27, 2007 at 10:55 AM
I read the article on Ned and staying patt, as a fan i think it is fine. I have always been a believer in working from with-in the organization, it creates more balance and seems to have a we are a family goal.
The team has alot of young talent and if they don't give up on them they should be alright. Even back to when they have won series they really didn't sign much outside help unless it was pretty much even trade.
SO STAY WITH WHAT YOU GOT DODGERS AND KEEP TRYING TO GET BETTER IT WILL HAPPEN IF YOU BELIEVE
PAUL D. KELLEY FAN SINCE 1957
Posted by: PK-IN-THE-MESA | November 27, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Richard-
No doubt another bat would help- I'm not saying they should quit looking- but I really hope they don't get sucked into the game of paying for the label, so to speak, rather than what's actually in the bottle. Signing a Rowand would be a nice upgrade if it meant moving PIerre out of the lineup, but that doesn't look like a possibility. Swapping Rowand for Ethier? It helps... maybe.
And like I said, maybe they can make the deal, use the surplus to fill holes somewhere else, etc.
I don't have a problem with being aggressive and trying to make the team better. I'd just hate to see them end up in a situation where they're chasing their tails in an effort to look like they're trying to get better.
It's a tough environment, because they're not a team with many gaping holes. And while they need a bat, for sure, I really do believe that pitching was the fundamental problem last season, not hitting, at least down the stretch.
BK
Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | November 27, 2007 at 11:07 AM
I totally agree that the Dodgers should get some clear roles in the outfield: I think Ethier can have as great a season as anyone if he plays everyday.
Posted by: Steve M. | November 27, 2007 at 11:57 AM
I love all these "save what we got" guys that seem to forget that the team came in FOURTH last season and finished the season tanking games faster then CCNY. It's a pipe dream to think that the status quo Dodgers are going to be any good. "Oh if Loney does this, and Kemp does that and Either this ..." Shut up! Loney and Kemp both showed that they can hit the ball pretty far, but they also showed that they are club house cancers and malcontents, remember Loney's trade demand when he got sent to Vegas to start the season last year?
The only thing that is going to happen if the Dodgers stay with this group is that they will finish in last place as opposed to fourth. Look at the Chicago Bulls, young talent galore but are they really any good? I hate to draw comparisons to other sports, especially the NBA, but at the end of the day this young group of players are better served to bring in more talented and proven commodities.
To decode Ned's message yesterday, he doesn't want to be the guy that might have let go the golden goose, however do you hold on to something that might be instead of going after what really is? Ned is proving that he is less qualified to be the GM of a major sports franchise everyday with his lack of energy and inability to bring in quality players and quite frankly, anyone that thinks he is doing a good job probably loves mediocrity as well.
Posted by: Enrique | November 27, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Enrique-
To call Loney and Kemp cancers is, to say the least, hyperbolic. But it's about recognizing what went wrong last year- pitching. That should be the number one priority, and improvements in the order can't come at the expense of what they have on the mound (within reason, of course- should someone accept Cabrera for James MacDonald, etc., you do that in a heartbeat). Like I wrote, if the Dodgers can add without subtracting, then they should. But "proven" talent isn't necessarily better than what's around, if that talent level isn't as high.
There isn't much out there, and if the Dodgers give away what they have to try and chase known-but-not-better talent, they're not better off. If they get high end guys but create more holes that they can't fill, they're not better off. I'm sure we disagree about how good the team is, as currently constructed. I'm not one who thinks it needs to be blown up.
BK
Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | November 27, 2007 at 12:49 PM
These kids have been in the show for less than a year and look what they have done in the field. They will learn some manners and if they don't - so what? They will have to answer to the only veteran left on the team, Russell Martin. Let them play and trade Pierre for a pitcher coming off surgery and hope we get lucky. At least that gives you four good arms in the outfield, 40+ homers from the outfield and gets rid of a Ned mistake. And if Furcal doesn't stay hurt we should be playing in October. Get some pitching (or promote some)and see what difference a year makes.
Posted by: Jack | November 27, 2007 at 01:08 PM
I said last year when they signed Pierre and Gonzo (and re-signed Nomar) that they should have just re-signed Lofton for one more year knowing full well what this year's CF FA market was going to be, and let the other kids play. Now they have this dilemma of who to upgrade Pierre with and whether or not to bench Ethier or Pierre in that situation. Then they could have signed one of the three CFers and they wouldn't be in this predicament.
I personally think Andruw is still the better option than Rowand if they're going attempt to sign one or the other, but I'm just as content with going forward with what they've got in the lineup. The big bat they could be looking for might be a full season out of Kemp and Loney.
Posted by: dodgrdog88 | November 27, 2007 at 01:35 PM
BK is hitting the nail on the head. He's making the same exact point I have been making in my posts! "If the Dodgers can add without subtracting, then they should," is what BK wrote. The problem is, from what we've been hearing, the Dodgers CAN'T add without subtracting. Colletti and McCourt are referring to our young talent (Loney, Kemp, Bills, etc) to get us into contention next year... well guess what? Those are the same players that other teams want in a trade. You add nothing by acquiring Cabrera (for Kemp and Bills for example).
I think the best solution is to shore up the back end of the rotation. That's what has been killing the Dodgers for the last couple years with Tomko, Hendrickson, and the like filling in those spots and getting shelled. With (a healthy) Loaiza and Schmidt at the back end, the Dodgers are already better off than the 2007 squad. Pick up a couple more middle relievers/spot starters (or call them up: Kershaw), and the Dodgers pitching is markedly improved.
Finally, if Kemp and Ethier know that they are 2/3 of the everyday outfield, they will have great seasons. Now, I'm not particularly a Juan Pierre fan, but I do not see him going anywhere, so we should just hope for improvement from him in 2008. Let's not forget, the guy did lead the Dodgers in hits last year, and was fourth in the NL. His OBP was .331, and Andruw Jones' was .311. Again, would Jones really be an improvement? I don't buy it. Today's baseball fans are too obsessed with the homerun ball to appreciate some of the things Juan can do...
Posted by: Higgins | November 27, 2007 at 02:18 PM
Oh yeah... Pierre also lead the team in runs, stolen bases, and the least number of strikeouts... So why are people running this guy out of town?
I understand his arm is weak. Simple solution: move him to LF and put Kemp in CF.
Posted by: Higgins | November 27, 2007 at 02:21 PM
Agree mostly with Higgins but Kemp cannot be the CF - he'll take bad routes on balls, throw past the cut-off or injure himself severely crashing into the outfield wall. Kemp belongs in RF if Pierre is going to LF as presumed.
Since the Dodgers are not willing to part with young talent, then the only other option is to buy. While it's too late for Hunter, they have viable options in Rowand, Jones and Eithier. Jones fills two holes: CF and 4th hitter in the lineup; he is the best option.
Next, spend money on a free-agent starting pitcher and trade lesser talent, i.e. Hendrickson, for real bullpen help. Or buy it. I wouldn't mind hearing "Welcome to the Jungle" during the sixth or seventh inning.
Posted by: bigyoonit | November 27, 2007 at 03:09 PM
I see why a lot of Dodger fans became Angel fans. The Dodgers don't want or care about wining any more. Now we have fans that want us to be the Royals and A's. I'm embrassed as a Dodger fans to know you people.
Posted by: Paul | November 27, 2007 at 03:36 PM
Paul you are right. Dodgers don't want to win. That's why they have finished dead last every year since McCourt bought the club.
enrique...that was probably the dumbest post yet on this blog.
For all you 'Whataver it takes to resign Dreiffort' gang', check out Santana's stats for his first 2 seasons versus Billingsley's.....Who would you have traded as part of a deal?
Posted by: DODGER 1955 | November 27, 2007 at 04:19 PM
It is possible that Kemp and Loney are a bit big for their britches but they are both extremely gifted ballplayers with lots of youth and even more upside. The list of young players that is better than each of them is pretty short and both of them have probably suffered from some bad coaching and a lack of discipline. What I find startling though is that a guy like Jeff Kent can have continual problems antagonizing his teammates to the point of verbal and physical altercations in the clubhouse, but without the fingers being pointed at him. On different occassions he has had problems with various players (Bonds, Milton Bradley, and now Kemp and Loney). Regardless of your opinion of these particular players, if he trying to "call them out", his technique for doing so is obviously flawed as it developes at the very least in to clubhouse rancor and discontent and at the most, physical violence. So why does Kent always get a free pass? He shouldn't and as the veteran Hall of Fame caliber player, he should be the one extending the olive branch, to help the Dodgers build a contender.
Posted by: richard | November 27, 2007 at 05:20 PM
I love Ethier, Kemp, Loney, Martin, and Billingsley. All awesome players. It's not about "potential" anymore, they're the real deal. They aren't prospects, they're major league players. They shouldn't be touched.
Third base can go to Nomar and LaRoche...let the best man win.
As for Pierre...what if we don't resign Furcal next season? Can any of the Pierre haters suggest a lead-off man to replace him? Without Pierre to fall back on, who will be our best bet as a lead-off man? Tony Abreu?
Posted by: nathan118 | November 27, 2007 at 05:46 PM
Kent doesn't like Black people....I believe the term is 'Racist'. Yes, he has gotten a free pass because almost all the sports writers are White...To White sports writers, Blacks have 'Natural Talent 'while Whites have 'Intelligence.' Its starting to change now especially since in Baseball so many players are Latin and White sports writers are at a loss how to refer to them. While in NBA and NFL it's pointless to talk about it since almost all atheletes are Black.
Posted by: DODGER 1955 | November 27, 2007 at 06:52 PM
Forget this 'overpaying' posts-there is no such thing.
As long as its just money, then just spend it. The teams are all making a Bezillion dollars--That's why they can 'overpay' for guys who are not 'worth it'. Salaries are going to continue to rise until every one makes $20 million. With so many teams, there is always some team that is going to raise the bar. If we can improve the team by not trading the kids and spending 20 million, then it is what we have to do to keep pace.
David
Posted by: David | November 27, 2007 at 07:02 PM
BK,
Brilliant.
Posted by: benzo jones | November 27, 2007 at 07:22 PM
Dodgers1955, Higgins & Nathan118,
Well said, sirs!!! I completely agree with all of your posts. The point about "What if the Dodgers lose Furcal?" shows that you are considering the big picture, and that you realize that Pierre does have some skills as a catalyst running the bases which MIGHT make his defensive liabilities acceptable. As AK speculated a few days ago, why not hide Pierre in left and let Ethier man Centre Field? Maybe some other bloggers here could help clarify this for me, but wasn't Andre one of the league leaders last season with Outfield Assists?
Richard,
Your comments about Krusty Kent are spot on!!! Why does such a malcontent like him always get a free pass? For a former league MVP and boarderline-future HOF'er, Kent sure has spread around enough piss & vinegar to alienate him from just about ALL the teams he has played for (Mets, Blue Jays, Gints, Astros, and now our Dodgers). I'm just counting down the days until Krusty Kent announces his retirement from baseball, and goes onto to his true calling in life: working as the stunt double for Officer Jim Dangle on Reno 911....
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/AQUA/24-445~Reno-911-Lt-Dangle-Posters.jpg
Posted by: DodgerBlueBalls | November 27, 2007 at 07:23 PM
Were we watching the same Dodger team last year. Maybe you should re check your offensive stats. Bottom for power and runs. Pitching fell apart when runs were in short supply and not that I am an excuse guy but injuries to the rotation sure did not help either. Kershaw, Either and La Roche for Cabby and cash if nescesary ! How hard was that? Let me know after the Dodgers have won their first playoff series..
Posted by: Rick W. | November 27, 2007 at 07:34 PM
Rick, if you were Florida, would you take a package of Kershaw, Ethier, and LaRoche? If that's all it took, he'd already be a Dodger.
BK
Posted by: Brian Kamenetzky | November 27, 2007 at 07:48 PM
I agree with BK almost entirely. Andruw Jones would be my choice over Rowand however. Jones has potential to be great while Rowand will always be slightly above average. Ethier is also slightly above average and younger so I'll take him cheap over 15 mil for Rowand. Jones might be terrible like last year or he might be great so I like that signing.
As for Pierre, I don't hate him, in fact I sort of like him, but it doesn't change the fact that he is a below average ball player. People always talk about him piling up hits and forget that he leads the league in outs every year he plays. He has a terrible arm and he is a clear liability in the lineup which is compounded by the fact that he leads off and compiles nearly 800 plate appearances a year. He'd be a great 4th outfielder but he's a disaster as a leadoff hitter. He is in that role due to an outdated notion of what makes a good ballplayer. As a leadoff hitter, I want a guy who gets on base and Pierre gets on base about 33% of the time. That's a liability no matter how fast he is when he gets on or how many bases he steals. He may not strikeout, but his weak groundouts in the infield are barely better than striking out. That signing was a huge mistake. But the hope is that he can put together another year like he had in Florida once or maybe twice. If he hits .330, he suddenly is an average to slightly above average player. But at .290 he is a huge liability. Avoiding outs is the #1 job of a leadoff hitter and Pierre is terrible at it.
Posted by: kj | November 27, 2007 at 08:08 PM
BK,
You're so right. Guess we'll have to throw in Timberrr to sweeten that deal.
Posted by: Chunkdog32 | November 27, 2007 at 08:11 PM
Newsflash to all the fans:
The Dodgers are going to have to overspend for somebody to come in here, just the way the Angels overspend for Hunter, and the Yankees did with Arod even at a bargain as some say they still overpaid for Arod. That's just the way the market is, It's high prized free agents it's all business. The Angels sure don't have any problems overspending for a player. Why can't i expect the same thing from the team that actually does play in L.A. Everyone seems to think that the Dodgers play in Florida, or Oakland.
I see Arte Moreno and everyone else trying to improve their team sure the Angels overspend for Hunter but they are still trying to get Cabrera, the Yankees signed A-ROD and are in the running for Santana, the Red Sox got their man back in Lowell, these teams are worried about making it to the world series and the Dodgers are doing what again? Oh yeah bring back the same team that finish in 4th place. I'm all for keeping the young players but it's beginning to look like a triple AAA team out there instead of a major league squad. How many rookies do we want in one team? I said this before Loney, Martin, Kemp, Billingsley, should be untouchable but they don't have to trade these guys, they can sign a free agent. I know there's not a'lot of free agents out there but the lack of movement from the front office is pathetic.
BK
You say the pitching was the Dodgers problem last season and it was. Injuries and a weak and tired bullpen hurt the Dodgers, but a lack of power also was one of the problems. Why can't the Dodgers not do the obvious and move Pierre out of the line-up? An outfield of Kemp, Rowand/Jones, Ethier would be a big time improvement over what the Dodgers are trying to bring back. I have concerns about Andrew Jones batting average, and Rowand is not as proven as some people think, but DAMMIT! Bring somebody here for crying out loud! This is the Los Angeles Dodgers not the damn Kansas City Royals, or Tampa Bay DevilRays. I'm not expecting the Dodgers to go out there and sign two or three free agents, just one will do, just ONE.
I mean c'mon Dodgers fans we fill out Chavez Ravine no matter how bad the Dodgers are, we put up with the 50% parking increase, long lines at the stand, and high beer prices, Dodgers average 3.8 millions fans last season, Frank McCourt already came out and said they would be an increase on price on some seats next season and you mean to tell me that the current ownership is not willing to sign one free agent to come play here. And a'lot of people are ok with that. Frank McCourt is talking about doing anything he can to bring back a championship to L.A. But is he really trying?????? Ask yourself that fans...I for one is not drinking that kool-aid.
Posted by: dcerros | November 27, 2007 at 09:16 PM
OK, guys. Here is my plan -- and my last post until the Dodgers actually do something. I have been racking my brain coming up with different scenarios, and I've tired myself out.
Sign this Kuroda pitcher. He'll be our No. 5 guy assuming Schmidt can bring something to the table this season. That would make our rotation: Penny, Lowe, Billingsley, Schmidt, Kuroda. I just think no one (fans or Dodger management) wants to give up 3-4 prospects/young players for Santana, Cabrera, Bedard or Haren.
Sign Andruw Jones. We need a Gold Glove presence in the OF. We already have that in the infield with Loney (soon to be) and Martin. I realize Jones had his first bad year last season, but look at his track record. He's a .260 hitter who'll smash 30-35 HRs and drive in 90-100. Book it. That'll allow the Dodgers to shift Ethier over to LF and relegate Pierre to the bench. We'll still need that late-inning pinch runner to steal a base or two.
That also means LaRoche and Nomar share duties at 3B -- unless someone (please have it be LaRoche) wins the job in spring training. I honestly think those two moves make us good enough -- if everyone can stay healthy.
1. Furcal, ss
2. Martin, c
3. Loney, 1b
4. Jones, cf
5. Kemp, rf
6. Kent, 2b
7. Ethier, lf
8. LaRoche, 3b
Posted by: Scott True Blue | November 27, 2007 at 09:20 PM